I'd argue that most acquisitions are aqui-hires. Aqui-hires occur because the company failed in some way (unless it was designed to just be acquired, then I'd argue it was a terrible business to begin with and they were just betting on luck).
Everywhere I've worked, 75% or more of acquisitions or acquihires went extremely well and resulted in strategic benefit and/or gain of great talent. There are only a couple of instances that stand out as being a bad fit, and one of those companies later got sold to another player in the same space for a profit. So it's really never been a bad use of capital from my perspective.
Oftentimes 'talent acquisitions' are paid for with company stock that vests over several years, so yes, there's a 'you have to work for us' clause. It's still a good deal for the acquired company, but not quite as good as it seems.
Yeah, and it's so common there's a phrase for it: "acquihire". When a company (or even just its team) is acquired for the engineers themselves, not for any existing code, product, or business.
A talent acquisition signals something more than a job offer. It shows that you're able to conceive and build a product that people are willing to use. It also means that you've had experience negotiating terms. This is very important when/if you decide to take an entrepreneurial step after being at the acquihirer.
All things equal, future investors are more likely to trust someone who has had an acquisition in the past. You're more likely to get press exposure. All these things are meaningless if you're building something no one wants, but they definitely help if you're on the right track.
Acquired? Acqhired? Term doesn't mean much lately. I guess we needed a sexier way to say "I got a job"... Or are situations like this really more like an acquisition? Did any investors recoup their investment?
Are you sure? Many companies and divisions are bought by other companies to get the employees, dubbed an "aquihire". This happens when the employees are worth more than the book assets.
reply