We have a provider we've been working with for 2+ years, recently someone from the CxO team suggested that we should hire someone from that specific provider, thus avoiding the need to hire a candidate that would go through a deep learning curve. The problem is that we have a contract with that provider that prevents us to hire someone from their team, the penalties are high if we think of doing so. The Chief Legal Officer told the CxO team we could circumvent this contract clause. I'm against this behaviour and actions, I understand perfectly the benefits of not having to hire someone new and avoiding the learning curve. But doing this kind of stuff feels bad in all senses. What would you do to let the CxO team not to go this way?
Sort By:
Oldest
CIO in Energy and Utilities4 months ago
I see it as a breach of ethics. I would use that argument to start with, and then move to it could sour the relationship with the vendor. Ultimately, it could end up costing the company more money and time to replace that vendor and services than it costs to train the new employee on the current software or solution the vendor is providing. Director of Design in Real Estate4 months ago
Couple of thoughts, since I've been in similar situations:1. Any Vendor cannot afford to lose their contractors in an easy way - that'll contradict with their interests. So I can understand why there are clauses in the contact to make such move very difficult, also it's a common practice today with vast majority of the Vendors.
2. Practically speaking, if the position you're hiring requires a steep rump-up, it most likely not for the junior or intermediate level. So, It's a natural situation when you try to replace a senior team member that worked for a longer time in the organization, be that a full-time or contactor employee. So sometimes, especially when you satisfied with the level of performance and the Vendor is not getting too greedy, it does make sense financially to keep the contractor and try to rump-up an internal resource to the level of that contractor, rather to try an train a brand new person that most likely will cost not less than the current one.
Therefore, not sure if there is an ethics breach in keeping the experienced contractor with a good enough performance, if you can afford it.
At the end, the business is looking for the bottom line: overall cost and a quality (which can be translated to cost as well) of the service.
Theses are my two cents :)
4 months ago
Avoid stealing people. Not good for business, nor the individual. However, if there are other reasons to consider, consider them in light of the full picture, not only for today, yet tomorrow. It's not a good idea.Chief Information Technology Officer in IT Services4 months ago
well i wold tell him that maintaining ethical standards is crucial for long-term success and reputation so i vwould let it goCISO/CPO & Adjunct Law Professor in Finance (non-banking)3 months ago
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. How important are contracts to the firm? I suspect they are mission critical and that you have zero tolerance for providers circumventing any agreements you have with them.
Noncompliance with a contract is always an option. There are two important questions that follow that line of reasoning though. First, how will your noncompliance impact your firm and second is the impact of noncompliance worth the benefit of not complying.
It is difficult to predict long term impacts such as reputational harm. Would Executive management be comfortable with “company X doesn’t honor contracts” or a lawsuit if the provider feels very strongly about the move. One summary of the complaint could be - Company X circumvented the contract to poach talent.
Lawyers illustrate possibilities but whether you can do something is worlds apart from whether you should.