Not metaphorically, literally. According to reports from WSJ and Business Insider, Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been directly reaching out to poach talent through calls, emails, WhatsApp messages, and even hosted dinners, in an effort to shore up his AI aspirations. Some have called it flattering, others bold, but what it actually is, is ethically uncomfortable and reputationally risky. Though it might seem like a power move on the surface, it also begs the question, what does it signal? Urgency? Internal chaos? Desperation? A dry pipeline? A disregard for proper process? A concerning culture? Whatever the interpretation, none of them scream employer of the year.
Closer to home, I regularly see the same tactics surface, just with fewer headlines. It might not be Silicon Valley and the salaries aren’t quite as stratospheric, but the behaviour itself isn’t all that different. Not exclusive to global tech companies, direct approaches from employers to talent sitting inside competitor organisations is happening more than most will publicly admit. You’ll find it playing out in offices and boardrooms across regional Australia, and this week I was reminded of just how common this practice has become.
Business leaders, line managers, and yes, sometimes, even internal HR, are regularly approaching employees at competitor firms, dangling promises, inflating their own offering, disrupting trust, and in some cases, actively undermining the credibility of the business that individual is currently employed by, all in the name of ‘talent attraction.’
It’s a tactic that might feel efficient, or even clever in theory, especially during times of strain, but often costs far more than a skilled third party otherwise would. To some, it might look like recruiters operate in a similar fashion, but similar isn’t the same approach, method or impact. The presence of an expert talent practitioner allows for a cleaner process that acknowledges existing loyalties while holding space for exploration. The difference is structure, respect and separation. It’s partnering, not poaching. And those two things should never be confused.
The problem is that when an employer directly targets a person working at a competing organisation, the risks can stretch well beyond the surface. It inserts power dynamics where they don’t belong, invites legal grey zones, and frequently causes more harm than good to candidate sentiment, external brand perception, reputation, and ongoing business relationships. In tightly connected ecosystems like Geelong, it can also create a damaging ripple effect that’s hard to contain. To be frank, it rarely lands well, and lacks civility, discretion and professionalism. There’s a critical difference between movement that’s facilitated ethically and movement that’s coerced opportunistically. And there’s also a very real distinction between conversations held in confidence, with clarity and consent, and unsolicited offers that are usually as cold as they are unwelcome.
Direct outreach from one employer to another’s team isn’t just audacious, it’s misguided, tone-deaf, and unprofessional. And if you’re tempted to try it, it’s worth considering what else you might be trading in the process: credibility, goodwill, and what it says about you and the business you represent.
The smartest leaders understand that it’s not only about who you hire, but also about how you hire.