[HN Gopher] Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely...
___________________________________________________________________
Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit
Author : PaulHoule
Score : 338 points
Date : 2021-09-03 14:32 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (news.cornell.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.cornell.edu)
| [deleted]
| TrackerFF wrote:
| Getting rejected once or twice shouldn't really be a problem,
| unless you've worked/filled in for that position specifically
| (and with good results), or your competition happens to be
| exceptionally good.
|
| But if it turns out to be a pattern, then it's time to move on.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Doesn't surprise me. I'd get an external one as an extra
| insurance.
| dehrmann wrote:
| Exactly. When you present your employer with "I want to do
| something different" and they say "no," nothing has really
| changed. It's the same reason people leave within six months of
| accepting a counteroffer.
| a3n wrote:
| I wonder if internal rejection should be seen as similar to being
| put on a PIP: a drawn out layoff.
| chrismarlow9 wrote:
| The moon is made of cheese
| topkai22 wrote:
| "Second, a rejected candidate's likelihood of leaving was cut in
| half if they were passed over in favor of an internal candidate,
| rather than an external candidate."
|
| So, basically, a internal candidate passed over for an internal
| candidate is no more likely to quit?
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| I think still likely to quit, just less likely.
|
| I believe based on the rest of the study that people who are
| attempting to transfer internally care about the
| team/company/work area but want the mobility and if you hire
| external candidates they don't believe they will have a chance
| at other roles either (which they perceive will be biased
| toward external candidates as well)
| [deleted]
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Essentially, the conclusions of this article and research can be
| summarised as: Employees stick around if they think that they
| have a future within the company. If they get rejected in a way
| that makes them conclude that they don't then they leave if they
| can.
| hart_russell wrote:
| In other news: Pope confirms he is Catholic.
|
| But seriously, if a person confirms they aren't valued at a
| company, of course they're going to leave.
| nuclearnice1 wrote:
| Beyond the headline the article offers some additional
| guidance:
|
| > First, internal candidates who were rejected after
| interviewing with the hiring manager were half as likely to
| exit as those rejected earlier in the process.
| jldugger wrote:
| Is that really guidance though? Does speaking with a hiring
| manager cause employees to stay? Or does an early rejection
| mean the person applying for transfer is materially different
| in some way?
|
| I feel it's the latter -- we all hear stories of people who
| try to find a new job elsewhere at the company before their
| manager fires them.
| jonfw wrote:
| Take it as a signal of your likelihood to be promoted in
| the near future. If I'm interested in a promotion, and I
| get a strong signal, I'm going to stay. If I get a very
| weak signal, I'm going to go elsewhere.
|
| An interview will generally offer a much stronger signal
| than a rejection by email
| jldugger wrote:
| But if you change the process, you're getting a hiring
| manager interview is not longer a strong signal. You're
| basically hoping to implement a management behavior
| change without anyone noticing. Good luck on that.
| nuclearnice1 wrote:
| Let me see if I'm following you.
|
| The guidance might be: if you want to keep people, let them
| follow the internal transfer process to the interview and
| feedback stage.
|
| Your counter claim is: nah, the data don't necessarily
| support that. Maybe the people who got further in the
| process were different. High skill employees who knew they
| had another shot at an internal transfer, for example.
| Simply giving everyone an interview is not likely to fix
| the problem.
| jldugger wrote:
| Correct. Perhaps the study addresses this somehow, but
| I'm not paying 30 bucks to find out there was no causal
| analysis.
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| Yeah, a few months ago I wanted to apply for a position in
| what the firm called its "science" function -- data science
| with more machine learning (and more PhDs). I even reached
| out to someone on that side and got some encouraging
| feedback. It matched up well with my experience and career
| goals.
|
| But when I applied, I got nothing. Absolute radio silence,
| while the role just sat there unfilled for weeks. They
| couldn't at least have shot me an email that I'm not a good
| fit?
| jollybean wrote:
| Getting turned down for another job in light of the company
| choosing what is in their purview a better candidate, is not
| any indication that someone isn't valued.
| notjustanymike wrote:
| Not a particularly shocking conclusion, but good to have the
| data. Telling an employee they have no opportunity for vertical
| growth in an org typically results in negative consequences.
| batoure wrote:
| > Telling an employee they have no opportunity for vertical
| growth in an org typically results in negative consequences.
|
| This is totally it, putting a team member through rejection
| without giving them a growth plan and telling them you want
| them to succeed or grow basically gives them a map to the door
| jollybean wrote:
| "Telling an employee they have no opportunity for vertical
| growth in an org typically results in negative consequences."
|
| Consider the fact that a company is a pyramid, and that there
| really isn't any material opportunity for advancement for 90%
| of the staff.
|
| That's basically an implication of the structure of the org
| itself, which should be fairly discernible to any participant.
|
| So the rational posture for most staffers at every level is
| going to have to by default: "There are limited opportunities
| for advancement". Once step further and you realize that
| advancement it probably going to be fairly competitive, though
| not always meritocratic, it is what it is.
|
| So the implication that 'it's hard to advance' is not something
| the company should really need to tell employees, it's
| something mature workers should really understand and
| internalize.
|
| That said - there's a lot of room for advancement in high
| growth companies, so look for those if you're keen on that.
| wldcordeiro wrote:
| Plus the barriers they put up to apply. You're already in the
| organization yet 90% of the time you get sent to the exact same
| application process as an external hire so now you need to
| waste time filling out your work history, updating a resume,
| etc just to get an interview with people you already work with.
| behringer wrote:
| Well. I didn't get the new role, but I did send my updated
| resume to the 5 different recruiters I'm cool with.
| a3n wrote:
| Yeah, that "updating your resume" in your parent is a
| pretty big employer foot gun. Makes you that much more
| exit-ready.
| 5tefan wrote:
| Happened to me as well. I knew the guy who got the job. Not
| qualified. So I left because I felt very offended.
| xyzelement wrote:
| There are a few things here.
|
| Primarily, job movement is motivated by the desire to get out of
| an existing job more often than by the desire for another
| position. So there's no surprise that candidates who apply
| internally are also applying externally due to some intrinsic
| dissatisfaction with the current role, and failing to find an
| internal transfer they take the external route.
|
| A fraction of those looking to move, are looking because they are
| failing in their current role and they want to get out before a
| bad review/termination comes down on them. Candidates like this
| are much less likely to make it further in the process (eg
| manager interview) and more likely to just be rejected at the
| onset or not even be qualified for a transfer due to current
| performance. There's no surprise that people like this end up
| leaving the company most often.
|
| Another one is ego - people often apply for positions they are
| wildly unqualified for because they don't actually understand the
| requirements (eg: a role may call for "senior stakeholder
| management" which means your ability to hold your own and build
| relationships with senior executives, but someone may not
| recognize that depth and think they can manage stakeholders
| because they have good rapport with their product manager.) When
| people get rejected from these roles, ideally they become aware
| of the qualification gap and work to close it, but it's easier to
| say "oh, the company doesn't appreciate me and my skills" and
| turn sour.
|
| The point I am making here is that the internal transfer
| situation is laden with people who are either motivated to move
| _somewhere_ and for one reason or another maybe shooting for
| roles they aren 't going to get, which sets them up for an
| experience of _rejection._ Neither one of these things is good
| for retention.
|
| Internal transfers are great (I probably had 10 jobs in one
| company I used to work in) but it's an inherently tricky
| situation to navigate. Often, people gripe about "oh, they just
| wanted to hire someone from the outside" without recognizing the
| skills/experience/perspective the outside hire brings in.
| wldcordeiro wrote:
| Internal Job applications suck. 90% of the time you're routed to
| the same application systems as external applicants and you then
| need to fill out the whole application, upload resumes, etc. If I
| have to do all that why not just apply elsewhere?
| btown wrote:
| Required reading for every technical leader:
| https://randsinrepose.com/archives/shields-down/
|
| > Resignations happen in a moment, and it's not when you declare,
| "I'm resigning." The moment happened a long time ago when you
| received a random email from a good friend who asked, "I know
| you're really happy with your current gig because you've been
| raving about it for a year, but would you like to come visit Our
| Company? No commitment. Just coffee." ... Your shields are
| officially down.
|
| > Your shields drop the moment you let a glimpse of a potential
| different future into your mind. It seems like a unconsidered
| off-the-cuff thought sans consequence, but the thought opens you
| to possibilities that did not exist the moment before the thought
| existed.
|
| > Every moment as a leader is an opportunity to either strengthen
| or weaken shields. Every single moment.
|
| As a CTO of a young company, I start many mornings thinking about
| my team's shields. Am I asking them to focus on projects or parts
| of the stack they don't find interesting, or being less proactive
| than I should be in unblocking their needs? And most importantly,
| am I staying true to our values and providing them the
| transparency they need? Because if we get to the point where the
| OP article is, where team members want to find a different team,
| there _is_ no other tech team they can transfer to, so their
| shields being down becomes a critical vulnerability! There 's a
| balance, of course, and some weeks are just too chaotic to be
| perfect at this, but I try as much as I can. I like to think that
| this is also the type of environment that makes people the most
| creative they can be - it's a win-win for everyone.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| well, yeah. My understanding has always been that if you apply
| for an internal bump and get rejected, you're being shown the
| door with a little politeness.
| sokoloff wrote:
| That's almost 180deg out from my experience. I've applied for
| and both gotten/not-gotten internal positions and managed many
| dozen employees who went through that process, both
| successfully and not.
|
| The only way an internal applicant increases the likelihood of
| me showing someone the door is if I find out that a manager in
| my org has inappropriately shown the door to an employee
| demonstrating ambition.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| it's entirely possible that my experience just doesn't mean
| anything in a big org, i should add: the different groups at
| microsoft or whatever seem to basically be different
| companies entirely, so at that scale i have no idea what i'd
| think about this.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| > _the different groups at microsoft or whatever seem to
| basically be different companies entirely_
|
| That's fairly typical of any large company.
|
| But that's also mean that you are not shown the door by
| being rejected internally because you are as unknown as an
| external candidate, and the fact that you are an internal
| candidate won't make any difference. In fact, depending on
| company politics, being an internal candidate may even be a
| disadvantage.
| uxp100 wrote:
| Yeah, my (very frank and helpful!) internal career
| counselor told me, whatever the CEO and promotional
| materials from HR say, be prepared for moving between
| groups to be much harder than moving within one, there
| will be bad blood afterwards, especially with how
| uncertain hiring was due to covid (18 months ago). If I
| transferred across the company, that would fulfill that
| groups req, without guaranteeing that the group I left
| would get one (since a non-official hiring freeze was in
| place). When I quit that job I noticed they started
| hiring for my position like 4 months later, so it did
| take them a while to get a req.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| >In fact depending on company politics, being an internal
| candidate may even be a disadvantage.
|
| tangentially also true in universities: there are unis
| that traditionally disfavor undergraduate alums from
| matriculation to graduate programs. "We taught you enough
| our way, go learn how to think differently somewhere
| else!"
| Gunax wrote:
| I have been in the position of interviewing (though not hiring)
| internal applicants, and I certainly never regarded it oioe
| that. Its reaooy no different than regular hiring, where
| everyone is probably okay and we somewhat arbitrarily try to
| decide who is best.
|
| Eg. If we have 5 internal aplocants for one position, 4 people
| are going to be rejected. And we certainly did not have contact
| with their previous team. Actualoy their managee might not even
| know they were trying to transfer.
| me_me_me wrote:
| Water is wet.
|
| If you are looking to change your current position, you are
| looking to shake things up (tech, co-workers, mgmt, salary, role
| scope, etc)
|
| If you are looking for new role within org you are probably
| looking for it outside of org too.
| duxup wrote:
| >Keller and Dlugos found that getting an interview signaled to
| candidates that they have many of the characteristics needed to
| move into the job. An interview also allowed candidates to
| receive feedback from hiring managers about any knowledge and
| skills they may currently lack, as well as how to acquire them if
| they want to be hired for a similar job in the future.
|
| Makes sense that it can be mitigated by ... working with the
| employee.
|
| A simple rejection without much contact sends a very different
| message. Nobody likes be rejected without a shot / by some
| corporate machine.
|
| And for the hiring manager meeting these people might be a good
| thing to do by default anyway. I've gotten jobs where I was told
| "I didn't even know you'd want that job / that you would be a
| good fit until we talked about it." from folks I worked with for
| 10 years.
| tlogan wrote:
| There are two very useful points:
|
| > First, internal candidates who were rejected after interviewing
| with the hiring manager were half as likely to exit as those
| rejected earlier in the process. reply
|
| > Second, a rejected candidate's likelihood of leaving was cut in
| half if they were passed over in favor of an internal candidate,
| rather than an external candidate.
|
| I guess the translation is:
|
| - try to give feedback to your employees (even if you reject
| them)
|
| - try to promote internally (even rejected internal candidates
| are less likely to leave)
| tyingq wrote:
| That first point seems really important. Like _" I don't rate
| enough to get time with the hiring manager, even though I
| already work here?"_
|
| If you can't allow people that, you would at least need to make
| sure the message back to them didn't come off the wrong way.
| yawaworht1978 wrote:
| I got internally promoted once and they straight up told me the
| job was only posted for compliance reasons(externally) and to
| appear fair(internally). The interview was not even an interview,
| it was a handshake and broadcasting the salary and start date, no
| less no more. They just asked do you want it or not. I took it,
| was one of the greatest opportunities ever.
|
| Contrasting that, I had applied internally in other companies
| Only to go though a ridiculous interview , almost a history
| masters on the subject matter to be told the decision was already
| made and they wanted to interview all.
|
| Corporate life is weird.
|
| Another thing I have experienced was i was offered a job on the
| spot from a company , took it but then later told them I will not
| start, then i have seen the same company offering the same job,
| just in a different location, applied for fun, they rejected me.
| after_care wrote:
| > Another thing I have experienced was i was offered a job on
| the spot from a company , took it but then later told them I
| will not start, then i have seen the same company offering the
| same job, just in a different location, applied for fun, they
| rejected me.
|
| Tech interviews have such a high degree of random in them.
| bachmeier wrote:
| > First, internal candidates who were rejected after interviewing
| with the hiring manager were half as likely to exit as those
| rejected earlier in the process.
|
| > Second, a rejected candidate's likelihood of leaving was cut in
| half if they were passed over in favor of an internal candidate,
| rather than an external candidate.
|
| Not sure where the headline comes from - it does not summarize
| the two main findings listed in the article.
|
| Some elaboration: The likelihood of leaving depends on whether or
| not they were given an interview for the position. If they were
| given an interview, the headline is not accurate.
| koheripbal wrote:
| That's probably an intentional outcome in some cases.
| papandada wrote:
| Yeah, this is win-win, isn't it? Both sides want something
| else, and move along.
| lvspiff wrote:
| After reading the article one thing that struck me was the "
| internal candidates who were rejected after interviewing with the
| hiring manager were half as likely to exit as those rejected
| earlier in the process."
|
| Working at a fortune 100 top 10 company I've applied for multiple
| higher level positions after 5 years and multiple high marks on
| my reviews and not gotten 1 recruiter call. I did get with one
| recruiter and he told me one of the positions was actually only
| posted for someone internally and they didn't even interview
| anyone else. My resume looks good according to them its unclear
| why im being passed over. Ive not even gotten an interview and if
| i did i think i may feel like staying and trying to continue to
| pursue opportunities possibly.
|
| Its essentially soured me on company though - they have all these
| "raise my hand" type crap saying i want to be considered as a
| viable candiate for opportunity. They have multiple manager tools
| to flag people for opportunity which my manager has done for me.
| Yet here i am - ready to move up - put my 5 years in doing
| excellent work - and left hung out to dry when I'm ready. So I'm
| on the verge of moving elsewhere and my boss being "shocked" I'm
| looking elsewhere and saying if I find anything else let him know
| and he'll see what he can do - well that ship has sailed.
| Xavdidtheshadow wrote:
| > Working at a fortune 100 top 10 company
|
| Isn't that the Fortune 10?
| dylan604 wrote:
| Only if you had a math teacher that harped on you to reduce
| your fractions.
| nickff wrote:
| Apparently not; the Fortune 100 is a sort of curated list,
| and there is no shorter list. The 10 at the top are referred
| to as the "Fortune 100 Top 10".
| https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fortune-100.asp
| abalashov wrote:
| I guess it's seen to be a little gauche to whittle the list
| down beyond a certain point, i.e. the Fortune 3.
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| When Walmart was the most valuable company, a friend who
| worked at Walmart.com said he worked at a Fortune 1
| company.
| cmckn wrote:
| If you're still on the fence at all, apply elsewhere _today_.
| If your current employer isn't fulfilling your personal goals,
| you have zero obligation to wait around until they do. It's
| just a job. If your current management would react poorly to
| you acting in your own interests, you probably don't want to
| make a career with these people. If opportunities or rewards
| are only handed out under threat of an external offer, again--
| you don't want to work with these folks.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Aren't folks unhappy at their current roles likely to seek
| other roles internally before looking externally? It sounds
| like they are more likely to (a) already be unhappy (b) become
| extra unhappy when a transfer is denied and (c) that leads to
| them setting off into the sunset.
|
| I suspect that these aren't the folks companies want to keep in
| the first place.
|
| On average of course, there will be exceptions. Not trying to
| imply anything about you, OP.
| Areading314 wrote:
| Simple reason is if they hire someone internally they just get
| another open req to fill.
| behringer wrote:
| Turns out they have another req to fill anyway, with hardly
| any notice too.
| Cacti wrote:
| How long have you been looking internally? Promotions at huge
| companies usually aren't just a matter of checking boxes, your
| manager really has to push for you using both the formal and
| informal routes.
|
| Also, do you trust your manager? Just because they checked some
| boxes in some system doesn't mean they are actually advocating
| for you.
|
| It sounds like you probably need to understand the process
| better.
| bdowling wrote:
| > one of the positions was actually only posted for someone
| internally
|
| This is extremely common. A company can't allow for nepotism or
| favoritism, so it requires a public posting for any open
| position. Qualified external applicants see the posting and
| apply. The managers hire the internal candidate they wanted to
| hire anyway. It's all a huge waste of everyone's time. I'd bet
| that a large percentage of job postings are insincere in this
| way.
| lhorie wrote:
| > A company can't allow for nepotism or favoritism, so it
| requires a public posting for any open position
|
| It's not even just a feel-goody policy by dysfunctional HR
| depts. The US DoL literally requires a company to advertise a
| role for a position that is currently filled by a PERM labor
| certification applicant (which is required for green card
| applications).
| fortuna86 wrote:
| Many parts of the USG require "veterans preference" for
| most positions, meaning they have no choice but to hire
| one. You can see the reasoning for it, but it limits your
| abilities to hire who you want.
| abalashov wrote:
| It's even more fun in public institutions, e.g. universities,
| where a higher amount of perfunctory humouring of external
| candidates is required in order to create a somewhat more
| convincing appearance of an equitable search.
| vkou wrote:
| It's the natural consequence of a world where performance
| is difficult to measure, people are largely fungible, and
| next to nothing that you personally do will move the needle
| in whether your employer will be successful.
|
| In that situation, why wouldn't you hire and promote your
| friends? All of the incentives are aligned for doing just
| that.
| yobbo wrote:
| > why wouldn't you hire and promote your friends?
|
| Furthermore, do you want your colleagues to be motivated
| by loyalty or by competition?
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Loyalty, obviously. Competition means focusing on
| competing with other employees and not focusing on the
| company's goals.
| thinkharderdev wrote:
| How much of it is "hiring friends" vs just hiring someone
| you have better information about? A lot of people
| interview exceptionally well but it's always something of
| a crapshoot how well they will do in the actual job. But
| for an internal candidate you should have a lot better
| information on how well they performed in other roles.
| You can have actual frank conversations with their
| managers/coworkers instead of getting BS references from
| people the candidate themselves chose for you to talk to.
| phkahler wrote:
| Yeah, there are a few jobs I could recommend a specific
| person for because I know they are very good due to past
| experience. When opening come along though, they are
| usually not looking to change. But if they were... some
| would say I just recommended a friend, which happens to
| also be true.
| ResearchCode wrote:
| And full-on nepotism is known to be bad. My bet is that
| blind recruits would perform just as well or better as
| the family and friends of the recruiting manager would if
| you'd run the experiment.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think this is an overly cynical take. Reputation and
| VERIFIABLE track record are what is being selected for
| here. If a hiring manager views this as known for a
| candidate, there is basically nothing someone else can do
| to complete. The hiring process simply isn't sufficient
| to do this fact finding.
|
| In my org, managers aren't really friends, but they do
| have trust. A strong recommendation is impossible to
| overturn.
| fortuna86 wrote:
| It's the same reason why friends set up friends for
| dates. If you go "public" with apps, you can be setup
| with literally anyone. It often doesn't go well.
| jdhn wrote:
| This just happened to me. Recruiter reached out, asked for my
| resume because he had a job that looked good. I gave it to
| him, and 2 days later he called back saying that while they
| liked me, they were going with an internal candidate. Why
| bother with the whole charade if you're going to go with an
| internal person anyways?
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| I had a boss once the said "nepotism will get you everywhere
| ". I didn't agree with his philosophy, but his candor was
| refreshing.
| zippergz wrote:
| One of many ways that what the HR function has grown into
| simply adds overhead and friction with no actual value. An HR
| leader could argue that they are adding value by protecting
| the company from lawsuits or other risk by instituting this
| "fair" hiring process. But if everyone knows it's a sham, and
| that the internal candidate is going to get hired regardless,
| there is no protection in fact. It slows things down and
| increases costs, and does not truly reduce risk, improve
| results, or anything else it might be claimed to do.
| deeviant wrote:
| The far more common scenario (At least at the companies I
| have worked at) is that an external applicant is desired but
| because US laws require a posting, one is made, even though
| that posting is there only to comply with the law and the
| company is basically already in the process of hiring the
| external candidate.
| asdff wrote:
| I've been on the other end of this. The person in charge of
| hiring me took my resume and qualifications and used that to
| template the job posting, so I would be the most perfectly
| qualified candidate too.
| Frost1x wrote:
| Ditto. I've had my a set of requirements that generalized
| one level of abstraction over my niche resume so it wasn't
| nearly as obvious. The org wanted to hang on to me because
| they knew I'd leave if I didn't get a significant raise and
| no good mechanism to give me raise except advertising a new
| position at a higher starting salary (my raise) than
| closing my old position. Their retention strategy worked
| and I stayed another 2.5 years.
|
| I went through hiring committies and even had to recompete
| for my own position, of course the cards were stacked in my
| favor.
|
| Hiring processes are a joke across the board. I feel sorry
| for anyone who applied to the position wasting their time.
| I'm confident I've been on the other side of this before
| where a position matched so well the chances a real
| competitive qualified candidate that wasn't already
| targeted seemed low considering how good a fit I was for
| the role.
| karaterobot wrote:
| For my first ever job, I was hired from an internship, and
| one of my last tasks was to write the job description I'd
| be applying for, such that I would be the only viable
| candidate. What a pointless exercise. I think that might
| have been my introduction to how dumb the world of working
| for a living was going to be!
| mateo411 wrote:
| > I think that might have been my introduction to how
| dumb the world of working for a living was going to be!
|
| If that's the case, then maybe it wasn't a pointless
| exercise. Just an annoying and silly exercise.
| monkeybutton wrote:
| In Ottawa the federal government is required to post jobs
| publicly like that and people were still gaming it by opening
| the posting for just a short period of time and telling the
| preferred candidates when to apply. Now there's a minimum
| number of days they have to be up.
| castlecrasher2 wrote:
| On the flip side, companies tend to hire management for outside
| perspective; especially in my field, data engineering,
| companies build up but get to a point where no one internal
| knows how to proceed properly and so are better off hiring
| externally.
|
| I agree that doing so can be a mistake, but at times it's
| necessary, and likely less of a risk than promoting internally.
| Jochim wrote:
| Does no one know how to proceed properly or are existing
| management just not willing to listen to the rank and file?
|
| I'm watching this happen right now as a third party. The
| C-suite have brought in a bunch of expensive contractors who
| run perennially late and have done nothing but regurgitate
| generic flavour of the month blog posts rather than engaging
| with the people involved in the process that have actual
| experience of what's going wrong.
|
| At my own place there are no outside contractors but again
| the people who actually do the work know exactly what could
| be done to improve the company's processes, getting anyone in
| management to listen is like pulling teeth.
| castlecrasher2 wrote:
| Believe me, I've been in your shoes multiple times. I
| suppose I've resolved that instead of being frustrated as I
| have been in previous roles, I should simply take advantage
| of it and be aware of those biases if the situation arises
| for me.
| yaacov wrote:
| If you can't get promoted internally, try getting promoted
| externally :)
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| Believe it or not, it can be easier. Often you're seen as a
| certain type or level in your current job. They can't imagine
| you doing a different one. Plus, if they promote you, they
| just have to fill a lower position. A new company doesn't
| have any of these biases.
|
| A friend in night school said he fully expected to have to
| move to a new company to get promoted. His current boss
| didn't see him as someone with a masters-level intellect.
|
| Of course it's not always this way. Etc. Etc.
| amatecha wrote:
| Yeah, as far as I've observed, this is one of the key
| reasons for consistent short (1-2yr) durations working at
| companies in the tech industry. You get a raise by getting
| hired at a new company. Personally for me, each time taking
| a job at a new employer has resulted in far greater
| compensation increases than if I had stayed at the same
| place and waited for a bonus/raise.
| nzmsv wrote:
| And even if you manage to convince your manager to consider
| you for the promotion/transfer often they'll ask you to
| start doing the new job on the side for a bit to prove
| yourself. Now, how good are you going to be at something
| new that you are doing part time with nobody taking you
| seriously and supporting you? It's much easier to get the
| title first and grow into the job afterwards.
| macksd wrote:
| There's the perception, yeah. I've also been told that I
| was so productive in my current role, they saw it as a loss
| to move me to my target role. Of course, they lost me
| entirely...
|
| There's a place for that: just because someone's a good
| engineer doesn't make them a good leader or manager, for
| instance. But such stiff attitudes really hurt an org, IMO.
| behringer wrote:
| Of course. I'm not going to spend all that time updating my
| resume and going through all the interview hurdles not to get
| better paycheck. I'm going to keep applying until I've
| accomplished getting that better job I'm ready for.
| plutonorm wrote:
| This is very very hard to do if you want to go from software
| engineer to manager. Almost impossible - I have tried sending
| out hundreds of resumes over periods of years. You need to be
| promoted internally - but that is impossible unless you know
| someone. The internal job postings are a sham. I absolutely
| HATE software development but have been stuck in this role
| for 15 years and 5 years since I genuinely started loathing
| it. But there is no escape unless I want to go work in
| Tescos. I've not seen a promotion into management in my 15
| years in the industry across 7 different companies. For all
| intents and purposes it does not happen and if you go into
| software, you aren't getting out.
| tomtheelder wrote:
| Are you working at a large org? If you want internal
| mobility, particularly for IC -> manager in software eng, I
| would highly recommend moving to a startup. My experience
| at startups has generally been that the company can't
| convince enough of the engineers to move into management so
| the transition is extremely easy for those who are willing.
| zz865 wrote:
| I agree its true but its easy to change your resume to make
| your current job a lite manager. Put the title in and list
| all the responsible stuff you've done. With a bit of
| exaggeration you've been some kind of middle manager the
| last 5 years I'm sure.
| pedrosorio wrote:
| Is this a UK thing? I think I've read this before on HN,
| "getting promoted from software engineer to manager is
| hard".
|
| It seems to be a cultural thing. In the US, the manager is
| not seen as "superior" necessarily and many people actively
| do not want to be promoted (and a bunch of kids pouring
| into the field every year) so getting a management position
| is not particularly hard, even if you're under 30.
| gambiting wrote:
| I'm in the UK and at you wouldn't have any issue where I
| work(big AAA games publisher) - very very very few people
| want to be managers, so if someone expressed interest in
| managing they'd be given all training and support to make
| that happen, probably would get them promoted within a
| year or less. In fact I'd say that with some seniority
| under your belt you have to start actively avoiding
| management roles if you don't want them.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Yeah, you don't go straight to director. Absolutely not
| externally for that matter.
|
| First, you start out with "team lead" then work your way up
| after showing enthusiasm and reliability. Get the Fournier
| book, The Manager's Path.
| e4325f wrote:
| 7 companies in 15 years is a lot of moving around, maybe
| this has something to do with it?
| thinkharderdev wrote:
| Maybe it's a cultural thing but my experience has been the
| exact opposite. As a software engineer you have to actively
| avoid taking a management position after a few years at any
| given company.
| jnwatson wrote:
| Exactly. I've been dodging management positions for the
| last 21 of 23 years. I've had to leave two companies to
| do so.
| victor9000 wrote:
| Do recruiters get the same commission or bonuses if they hire
| internally? If not then there's your answer.
| dougSF70 wrote:
| Surely Fortune 100 firms want a docile workforce. People who
| will stay with the firm even when passed over for promotion and
| opportunity multiple times. These people tend to be easy to
| manage badly. You are better off finding your next job at a new
| firm and that firm being grateful you accepted versus staying
| at your current firm and you being grateful they promoted you.
| fallingfrog wrote:
| I've seen a lot of job postings for a team lead developer, and
| I've always wondered why those positions wouldn't be filled
| internally by default. I would never want to be in charge of a
| team whose project and code I had literally never seen before!
| How could you make any sort of decision without knowing the first
| thing about the technology or infrastructure?
| pitterpatter wrote:
| I can certainly relate to this. I spoke with the hiring manager
| of a new role for which I ticked all the boxes in terms of the
| sort of skills and qualifications needed. I'm talking years of
| relevant experience with the hiring manager agreeing I was more
| or less perfect for the role. Except one thing, the role was
| posted at a higher level than I currently was and they just
| weren't willing to expend the political capital needed to
| sidestep that. I mean he was nice enough about it and offered to
| talk again in a couple months once they had more headcount at
| lower levels but the annoying thing was, if I was an external
| candidate that wouldn't have been a problem. In any case, I quit
| shortly afterwards and found a new role elsewhere.
| insomniacity wrote:
| I once applied as an external, rejected on grounds of being too
| experienced/senior. Then later heard they went the other way
| and hired someone more junior than me, by their own measure!
| yhoiseth wrote:
| That sounds... perfectly logical?
| pitterpatter wrote:
| lol yea, I had to reread that but still
| password1 wrote:
| ITT: People complaining that they only hire internally and job
| posting are a scam AND people complaining that they only hire
| externally because they have more control.
| co2benzoate wrote:
| Sometimes I wonder how many people are running experiments on HN
| users to see what percentage of initial comments tend to be
| reflexively about the headline as opposed to the actual
| conclusions drawn in the article.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| In this case, reacting to the headline is less outrageous.
|
| The sage wisdom from the ILM professor was essentially to avoid
| pissing off rejected candidates by not interviewing them, as
| interviewing is a signal that the employees are qualified.
|
| That's pretty fucked up, when you think about what that means
| from a practical perspective. You're either interviewing people
| who are unqualified (some of whom will get positions due to
| circumstances) or turn selection of candidates over to a star
| chamber.
|
| Sounds great for morale. Lol.
| 0x426577617265 wrote:
| > The sage wisdom from the ILM professor was essentially to
| avoid pissing off rejected candidates by not interviewing
| them, as interviewing is a signal that the employees are
| qualified.
|
| It makes sense, if the candidate is interviewed + rejected
| they know there is no upward mobility for them in the
| company. The next logical step is to look for employment
| elsewhere that may offer upward mobility.
| burnished wrote:
| Opposite. If they are interviewed then they know they are
| being considered. Further, they are less likely to leave if
| an internal candidate is selected. The article opines this
| is because employees will then believe that future hires
| might also be internal, whereas an external hire signals
| broader competition for a role.
| autarch wrote:
| > The sage wisdom from the ILM professor was essentially to
| avoid pissing off rejected candidates by not interviewing
| them, as interviewing is a signal that the employees are
| qualified.
|
| This exactly the opposite of what the article says:
|
| "First, internal candidates who were rejected after
| interviewing with the hiring manager were half as likely to
| exit as those rejected earlier in the process."
| Spooky23 wrote:
| How about candidates rejected by the pre-screen?
|
| Internal job transfers are always rife with politics.
| duxup wrote:
| Feels like HN isn't winning that one either :(
| [deleted]
| undulation wrote:
| Interesting but is this surprising? I imagine a good portion of
| those looking for an internal transfer are yearning for a change;
| once rejected internally, the only place to look is beyond your
| current company...
| joiguru wrote:
| Surprising-ness is a not a good metric to measure
| social/psychological science research by. Often a statement and
| its opposite can be intuitive.
|
| If the opposite result was stated here one could have easily
| come up with many "intuitive" explanations.
| chipgap98 wrote:
| Yeah presumably people who are applying for an internal
| transfer/promotion are looking for a change in their role. If
| they get rejected then they are likely to look around outside the
| company for a similar opportunity.
| resoluteteeth wrote:
| This was my first thought (that the effect is just due to
| correlation with people already being unhappy with their
| current position, rather than specifically being caused by the
| rejection) but the article says this which seems to potentially
| suggest otherwise:
|
| > Second, a rejected candidate's likelihood of leaving was cut
| in half if they were passed over in favor of an internal
| candidate, rather than an external candidate.
| behringer wrote:
| As an employee, this signals to me that I'm not _ready_ for
| the better position.
| rnoorda wrote:
| I can understand this. The last time I didn't get a
| promotion, I saw the coworker that got it and thought, "Yeah,
| that makes sense, she's great for that role and more
| experienced than I am." I didn't feel slighted the same way I
| may have been if it were someone completely new.
| gxqoz wrote:
| That is surprising to me. I'd expect that your peer getting a
| promotion over you drives a lot more people to leave than
| someone external being hired for that position.
| yardie wrote:
| Psychologically, I think I understand. Selecting a peer
| over you means they were slightly more qualified than you,
| it could happen to anybody. Selecting an outsider means you
| weren't even remotely considered. And if they aren't seeing
| you and your contributions maybe another organization
| might.
| wldcordeiro wrote:
| Given how often you are also routed to the same application
| process as externals and the effort required to fill out those
| applications you may as well apply elsewhere too.
| mkl95 wrote:
| I was rejected internally once, so I got the job I wanted at
| another company a few months later. There's not much to it.
| gootler wrote:
| Well that's amazing captain obvious.
| cushychicken wrote:
| This is me!!!
|
| I applied for a product manager job in March of 2020 as a
| transition from engineering.
|
| The hiring committee approved hiring me on March 9, 2020. They
| were gonna make an offer the following Monday, March 16. However,
| that Wednesday was March 11. I decided to work from home because
| I was spooked by COVID-19. We were all told to WFH at end of
| business that day.
|
| The role ended up being eliminated on March 16 instead.
|
| It wasn't a personal factor, but goddamn I was salty about it.
| Getting denied that internal transfer, even though it had nothing
| to do with me, really soured my feelings on that company. That
| plus the feeling of not having any more interesting advancement
| opportunities in my existing role were big factors in why I left.
| ThePhysicist wrote:
| Make sense. If you want to grow and your company doesn't give you
| any opportunities it's best to look elsewhere, so not surprised
| by this.
| Kranar wrote:
| But that's not the implication of the study itself, or at least
| it's not at all obvious. That would be the implication strictly
| from the headline and a lot of people are making comments that
| suggest that they only read the headline or perhaps the first
| two sentences.
|
| The study itself shows that if the company hires someone else
| from within the organization, the effect disappears. So at very
| least from the data one can't immediately conclude what you
| assumed.
| ipaddr wrote:
| That makes sense as you see the possibility of being next in-
| line. If they hire externally they will never promote you. If
| they interview you and pass they will never promote you.
|
| With external candidates if you interviewed somewhere and
| they rejected do you ever really apply again? I wouldn't..
| maybe if I'm trying to get into google perhaps but never for
| a typical company.
|
| The effect works for both internal and external candidates.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Are there any meaningful career advantages to focusing on
| internal roles over all roles?
|
| The standards seem higher, you have to overcome your flaws and
| mistakes (rather than just hide them), you need to get your
| manager to get over his first impressions and think about you
| differently, you have to fight for a raise other companies will
| throw at you, etc.
|
| Other than stock and maybe a pension, why is sticking in the
| company so important to people?
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Often people are following other "rising stars". In larger
| companies, as managers ascend to more significant roles, a set
| of trusted "loyalists" is very valuable as you move up.
|
| In those cases you can move as fast as the "rising star" and
| not deal with the massive chaos/uncertainty of switching jobs.
|
| Every new job is a sea of uncertainty: you don't know
| underlying power structures, and for techies, your technical
| ability is strongly constrained by the intricacies/NIH nature
| of build systems, frameworks used, libraries, and existing code
| bases.
| FroshKiller wrote:
| So I don't have to move, make new relationships, make my kids
| change schools, tons of reasons.
| playpause wrote:
| These are good points, and maybe people don't always consider
| them enough. But I guess on the positive side, with an internal
| move you usually have a clearer idea of what it will really be
| like to do the job, and that may be worth a lot.
| jonfw wrote:
| It really depends on the company culture. Yeah if the standards
| are higher, and your manager will give you a hard time over it,
| and you have to fight for a raise, it looks terrible.
|
| If the company has lower standards for internal hires, and
| tells managers to expect and encourage internal mobility among
| their reports, and gives raises and salary transparency (i.e.
| you're a level 2 engineer, this is the range that we pay level
| 2 engineers, and you're in the Xth percentile), internal
| mobility looks awesome.
|
| While there are some inherent advantages (location and benefits
| consistency), you're right that many companies try to price
| those advantages in or worse, and it's often a bad deal. It's
| up to the company not to do that
| etempleton wrote:
| I think hiring externally is often over valued in many
| organizations today.
|
| There is a number of reasons for this, but one is that if you
| hire someone external they are more under your control than an
| internal hire who already has ideas of how things should work and
| relationships and therefore has their own amount of political
| clout. A new hire has no reputation to lean on so must be a bit
| more cautious at first.
|
| Another reason is that there is a "grass is greener" mentality.
| You know what you like and don't like about an internal hire. You
| don't know what you like or dislike about the external hire yet,
| not really. Additionally, someone from outside may have the
| silver bullet to solve X,Y, or, Z problem that no one else can
| seem to solve. You know your internal candidates don't have the
| quick easy solution you want, but maybe this new person will!*
|
| * hint: They don't.
| jonfw wrote:
| And in the longer term- it builds stronger incentives for
| employees.
|
| Most devs, if HN is any indication, believe that jumping ship
| every 1-2 years is the best way to move up. But if you have
| senior devs who were juniors at the same company just a few
| years ago, you'll probably be more likely to stick around.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Most devs, if HN is any indication, believe that jumping
| ship every 1-2 years is the best way to move up.
|
| It's not just developers. The old model of companies
| rewarding loyalty and actively investing in furthering their
| employees' skills has declined across the board, and it's no
| coincidence that the timeline correlates with the timeline of
| the demise of unions and collective wage/employment condition
| agreements.
| jonfw wrote:
| Lots of other things are happening too- people are
| educating themselves more, people have more jobs available
| from their locations (remote + commute distance increases +
| increases in population density), etc.
| closeparen wrote:
| One problem with sticking around is that the number of things
| you had a hand in, and will therefore be consulted about,
| grows unbounded. Being peripherally involved in a wide range
| of initiatives can give you a kind of global view and
| influence that dovetails nicely with certain visions of a
| "senior" or "staff" role. But it does come at the expense of
| being able to go deep on something new.
|
| I've been with my employer for much longer than average.
| They're taking care of me well financially. Even the variety
| of projects and domains is pretty good. If I leave, it will
| be to declare bankruptcy on being an advisor/carrier of
| institutional memory.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > if you have senior devs who were juniors at the same
| company just a few years ago, you'll probably be more likely
| to stick around.
|
| I've had some bad experiences with this one. The devs in the
| senior positions had only ever worked at this one company,
| and they'd learnt a lot of bad habits that they then
| proceeded to enforce on the devs in junior positions, who
| despite having fewer years of experience were in many cases a
| lot more competent than the supposedly senior developers.
| mywittyname wrote:
| I think this goes to the importance of promoting on talent,
| not years of experience.
|
| Good developers look at what they've done, and critically
| analyze what is good; what can be improved; and what needs
| to be replaced. It's these people that you want to promote
| and provide with enough autonomy to do what needs to be
| done.
| delecti wrote:
| Speaking from experience in a more positive direction,
| there's also a lot to be gained from learning a second
| company's culture and tech stack. I spent several years at
| a FAANG, and my technical skills improved considerably when
| having to apply my existing experience to a new set of
| tools and environment. I'm not sure a third company would
| have quite a stark difference, but I'm sure I'm a better
| developer after 5+4 years than I would have been after just
| a straight 9.
|
| I don't think it's necessary to move every year or two, but
| I'm not sure it's ideal to go too far in the other
| direction either.
| andrew_ wrote:
| I'd argue the same goes for technical leadership that were
| hired in originally as senior/staff/principal. The bar for
| breaking into a technical leadership position at every
| company I've worked for seems impossibly high, while they've
| been more than willing to hire that from the outside. That
| doesn't just go for myself, but the colleagues I've seen
| leave as a result of not being able to break that barrier.
| cortesoft wrote:
| I think the biggest reason is that the company already knows
| the person is good at their current job, and already have the
| experience and knowledge to do the job well with no more
| training.
|
| If you move the internal person and hire someone to backfill,
| you have two people who need to be trained and who might not be
| a good fit at for the particular job.
| ctvo wrote:
| > If you move the internal person and hire someone to
| backfill, you have two people who need to be trained and who
| might not be a good fit at for the particular job.
|
| I have 1 opening at my company.
|
| Someone internally transfers to fill it. I still have 1
| opening at my company.
|
| Alternatively, someone externally joins and fills it, and the
| person who was unhappy and looking to transfer leaves shortly
| after instead for an outside role. I still have 1 opening at
| my company.
|
| Except in the first scenario the person transferring is most
| likely familiar with internal tools, practices, systems,
| deployment, culture, goes on and on. Not only that, I have
| tangible, full fidelity data on their performance in the form
| of artifacts produced for their current team. Externally, I'd
| need to rely on data collected in their interview process.
| cortesoft wrote:
| I get it, and don't think it is a smart long term choice to
| not hire internally.
|
| I was just trying to think about reasons a company might
| choose not to. How much training you have to do for the
| internal transfer is going to depend on how similar the old
| and new job are.
| antasvara wrote:
| Alternatively:
|
| I have 1 opening at my company. I set up a team to handle
| the hiring process for that position. They choose an
| internal candidate, who then transfers. I still have 1
| opening, despite having completed the hiring process _for
| the open position._
|
| Being rejected from an internal position didn't guarantee
| that the person would quit, just increased the likelihood.
| From an "expected hiring committees" perspective, having an
| internal transfer guarantees two hiring processes. Having
| an external hire, provided the number of internal
| candidates is somwehat low, should result in (on average)
| less than two hiring processes.
|
| >Except in the first scenario the person transferring is
| most likely familiar with internal tools, practices,
| systems, deployment, culture, goes on and on. Not only
| that, I have tangible, full fidelity data on their
| performance in the form of artifacts produced for their
| current team. Externally, I'd need to rely on data
| collected in their interview process.
|
| This part I fully agree with. It could definitely turn out
| that the benefits of an internal transfer more than
| outweigh the increase in resources used on hiring.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| An excessive bias to internal hires, though, runs the risk of
| organizational ossification.
|
| I've spent most of my career in consulting organizations, and
| sometimes our clients have been orgs with a high percentage of
| "lifer" employees for whatever reason. (Often, this is because
| the employer is one of only a few good, white-collar employers
| in an area, which is its own cost.)
|
| Orgs with insufficient new blood get stuck. They think of the
| Company Way as the only way, and policy begins to replace
| thought pretty much across the board.
|
| One example, early in my career -- before I went to consulting,
| even -- was a place I worked for 2 years in the mid-90s. They
| were a 100% VAX shop much later than the rest of the industry,
| and were known to pretty much hire new technical people only
| right of of college. As a result, they ended up technically
| isolated from the mainstream.
|
| Once they realized that they were spending WAY more on
| homegrown solutions than they would on a commercial DB, it was
| really too late -- new grads didn't want to work on a dying
| platform, and the veterans had no experience working on
| anything other than the homegrown stuff.
| tw04 wrote:
| I'd argue the biggest hurdle isn't even what you like or
| dislike, it's that when someone gets used to you being in a
| given position, that's all they see in you. I actually had that
| happen at one point in my career, kept getting an "I don't
| think you're ready". When I finally told them I'm leaving if it
| doesn't happen, they did the right thing. Afterwards I got a
| lot of "I'm sorry I pushed back, I couldn't see you in that
| role but you're killing it!"
|
| I think sometimes management is their own worst enemy in not
| taking a chance on their own people.
| couchridr wrote:
| That's a great point. I have seen secretaries take training
| after hours to get certificates and degrees. When finished
| they apply locally and perform well, since they already had
| an idea what the job is. Some employees who have known the
| person in the old role find it hard to treat the colleague
| equitably. In that situation sometimes the best way forward
| is to take the new credential to a place where no one knew
| you before you got it.
| subpixel wrote:
| > I think sometimes management is their own worst enemy in
| not taking a chance on their own people.
|
| I've seen it in start-ups where they are anxious about their
| own talent, and are somewhat desperate to 'level-up'.
|
| The mindset is like 'I married the first person I kissed, but
| I get the sense I could do way better now.'
|
| This often leads to overpaying for people who have had the
| director or VP title in a larger, but minor company, and
| being told by them that the solution is to hire 5 more people
| under them.
| dtjb wrote:
| That sounds like a failure of management, not a symptom of
| it.
| nuclearnice1 wrote:
| I agree it's a failure. On the other hand, they failed
| their way into eventually making the right decision,
| recognizing they had been wrong, and apoligized. I've seen
| worse!
| outside1234 wrote:
| The shiny candidate outside the company is always somehow
| more appealing than the candidate you know 99% of the
| attributes of.
| wwweston wrote:
| I'm absolutely convinced this happens -- with roles, with
| capabilities, with salary. It's got to be related to normalcy
| bias and other anchoring phenomenon. Probably less than half-
| conscious, too.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Also, there is a desire to avoid disrupting two teams rather
| than one. "We need you here Bob."
| sneak wrote:
| Your comment makes it sound like you are biased toward internal
| hiring being better. Why is that?
| dahfizz wrote:
| There's also the simple fact that an internal hire is strictly
| more work for management / hr to deal with.
|
| If a certain position is filled from an internal transfer, that
| transfer leaves a new open position. Eventually, you need a
| hire a new person. A chain of internal transfers beforehand is
| just extra people to train and more paperwork to deal with.
| Shorel wrote:
| HR are lazy. Noted.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| The Japanese railway JRC or JRE can't remember which one has
| a great program for this. Everyone being promoted needs to
| train their own replacement for leveling up. In practice or
| works great, and it is much easier to hire entry level then
| experienced and they even have their own university for
| training the entry level hires.
| Closi wrote:
| > Additionally, someone from outside may have the silver bullet
| to solve X,Y, or, Z problem that no one else can seem to solve
| [...]
|
| >* Hint: They don't.
|
| But they also might. Sort of...
|
| You don't usually hire someone with the expectation that they
| will come up with a magic bullet solution - Usually you already
| know the silver bullet and are actually hiring someone who can
| sledgehammer it in while existing internal teams are reluctant.
|
| Sometimes its easier for an external person to do this, rather
| than an internal person.
|
| I'm a supply chain consultant and regularly get brought in to
| implement change where there are often change-reluctant
| internal teams, which are held back by legitimate reasons why x
| won't work, even though x needs to be made to work. I say
| sledgehammer only to mean that sometimes you have to be very
| steadfast in the fact that the change _is_ happening, and that
| all the reasons people give you for it not working are problems
| that you /them need to solve rather than reasons it won't go
| ahead.
|
| Despite what I said above, personally I think companies just
| need the right mix of internal and external candidates - too
| many internal and the company gets too held back in 'the way
| things are done, and have always been done'. Too many external
| and there is a total lack of organisational memory and nobody
| knows how to do anything.
| [deleted]
| ravenstine wrote:
| To be fair, I think the same thing is true of individuals, and
| it's not necessarily a bad thing. Often times the grass _is_
| greener on the other side. Granted, it 's industry dependent,
| but if you are in tech then there are countless green pastures
| to pick from. From a company's perspective, they know they
| don't want to pay someone significantly more for the same
| position, so they figure they won't lose much by waiting for
| employees to leave and hire a fresh new employees for roughly
| the same wages as the preview ones. It also means any potential
| baggage created due to office politics and or bad attitudes
| work themselves out to some respect.
|
| Unless one is an outright wizard at what they do, which is
| rare, what should make anyone think a company needs to keep
| them around? We are all replaceable. Companies should only hire
| internally if it makes sense. The fact is that 99% of us are
| just adequate in the eyes of our employers, and if they play
| their cards right, they have more to gain by hiring new team
| members than ones they know they aren't that enamored with.
| a3n wrote:
| It makes sense to hire external if you're trying to grow
| headcount, or trying to "frontfill" before firing people.
| BizarroLand wrote:
| Also, when you hire from within at some point you still have to
| bring in a new employee to fill the vacuum, so you end up doing
| more work.
|
| It's worth doing right as most work is, but managers want fast
| solutions and typically are not incentivized to take their
| time.
| ourguile wrote:
| This just happened with me, applied for a few internal positions
| I was told I was qualified for, then later found out they had
| changed their minds. No other opportunity for growth internally
| otherwise, so my only option is to look outside of the company.
| lvspiff wrote:
| I've applied for 6 various higher level roles after being with
| the company I'm at for 5 years and getting numerous high level
| ratings each year - I got non responses and even one "oh we've
| only posted this one for someone else" on all of them so far.
| Started looking externally because of that.
| wcunning wrote:
| I had a similar thing -- I wanted to get out of powertrain
| controls software (engine code) and into the much more
| lucrative, much longer term AV/driver assistance space. I found
| a position in the research department, interviewed for it, got
| accepted and then was blocked by my manager (supervisor's
| supervisor). This was sold as a "we'll look out for
| opportunities in 6 months" which (surprise surprise) turned
| into 18 with no hope in sight and a bunch of ugly reorg on the
| horizon, so I bailed for a different automaker.
| aejnsn wrote:
| It happened to me too a few years back. A posting cropped up
| with the company hiring for two positions right above mine to
| fill out direction needs, I was a technical lead already. I
| wanted the position, because I was already filling the role
| they were hiring for.
|
| I was shut down right when I inquired, and told that the
| company wanted some outside talent. Wow okay, even though my
| performance reviews were dazzling. So they hired two guys who
| had zero familiarity with the industry and zero familiarity
| with our stack. One had to be fired because he was insane and
| did nothing all day but try to be some motivational speaker in
| a technical role. I liked the other guy, but it was another
| person I had to explain stuff to when he had preconceived
| notions that were incorrect. He was cool, but HR/execs really
| screwed up the positioning.
|
| There was a later time when they were going to have a
| leadership vacuum. I decided it best to quit at that time
| because they were going to ask me to help by advancing _only_
| when they needed me as a backup. However, when I asked them to
| advance, they just said not interested. So too bad, had a
| better offer to advance elsewhere and their interest in me was
| clear.
| a3n wrote:
| > So too bad, had a better offer to advance elsewhere and
| their interest in me was clear.
|
| "Their interest in me was clear."
|
| Exactly this.
|
| Enlightened and effective leadership would pair a "not this
| time" response with a series of career development meetings,
| resulting in a tailored path for advancement; not as detailed
| as "this job, then that job, then that," but informed enough
| to show the candidate that they were heard and valued.
|
| An additional bone in the form of a small raise and or
| training would also be effective.
|
| And of course the plan needs to be reviewed periodically and
| sincerely, for adjustments and progress on the part of both
| parties.
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| Yeah, as I wrote in another comment this happened to me too.
| Admittedly it was only a single position so my situation may
| not have been quite as bad, but it was a little frustrating not
| to get any response even though the role remained unfilled. I
| ended up leaving for an external position.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| Same thing happened to me. It was like my company was guiding
| me out the door, passive-aggressively.
| jollybean wrote:
| Or the signals you're getting is that you're good at what you
| are doing, and not as well suited to other jobs as other
| candidates, at least in that context.
|
| I don't think 'passive-aggressive' is the appropriate term,
| because there's not likely any conscious action by the
| company in these circumstances. You've applied, someone else
| was selected and that's it.
|
| There's a tiny bit lack of self awareness on this thread with
| people with 'qualifications' assuming that there's some kind
| of implicit right to move up higher in the company. When they
| chose 'someone else' it's usually for a reason.
|
| It's a pyramid, and just above manager it's really narrow
| there are just very few of those jobs, it's very
| circumstantial as well.
|
| Looking outside might get you a sense of 'market value' and
| of course, there may simply be more opportunities elsewhere,
| but ultimately, the same structural limitations remain
| overall.
|
| And finally, I would say that after various positions both
| contributor, managerial and also staff (i.e. reporting to
| VP's but without a team) - I'm not sure if most people
| recognize what the trade-offs are, the pay is nice but
| usually comes at a cost.
|
| If you're doing something you remotely like, if you have a
| half-decent manager, and you're getting paid somewhere near a
| reasonable rate - you're already winning. Anything else is
| gravy.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| This is an armchair psychoanalysis, and it is quite
| pretentious.
|
| > assuming that there's some kind of implicit right to move
| up higher in the company.
|
| This is so far from the truth in my situation, but yet you
| feel self-righteous in your judgement that it is laughable.
| I know your type.
|
| The company I worked for deliberately used the "reorg +
| redeploy = attrition" strategy to avoid lawsuits because
| they had been repeatedly sued for their focal procedure
| over several decades, and this was a known method for
| avoiding getting rid of people who didn't want to work 80
| hours a week.
|
| And thanks for mansplaining how management works. A
| "pyramid?" Wow, insightful, that never occurred to me after
| 30+ years. "Market value?" You don't say! I'm overwhelmed
| by your astute, 101-level observations of business
| practices. I guess you got that from the VP's you reported
| to, weirdflex but OK.
| tomp wrote:
| > mansplaining
|
| No need to be sexist.
| jollybean wrote:
| Well now you've quite clearly demonstrated why you were
| turned down for the role.
|
| As a someone who has done a lot of hiring: 'I know the
| type'.
| digianarchist wrote:
| I applied for four positions at Capital One before throwing in
| the towel:
|
| - Two of those applications were ignored. No response at all
| from the recruiter.
|
| - Another jumped on a call to say the requirements were
| "dumbed-down" to get more diverse applicants to apply. Women
| tend not to apply for jobs they think they are unqualified for.
|
| - Last was pulled as I was told I had to go through the
| promotion process.
| scrubs wrote:
| Makes total sense: the use of choice to move implies some sort of
| a mismatch. If not resolved, the worker will elect to use choice
| to quit.
| k__ wrote:
| When you apply for the next higher manager job, don't get it and
| end up being managed by your rivals, it takes much reflection to
| suck it up.
| nekoashide wrote:
| I have always given the advice to everyone I meet "Move up or
| move on". You should not work at a company more than a few years
| before you are either promoted or become highly compensated for
| your position. Far too many of my peers have become stagnant
| working at a company for 6+ years without moving up. They make
| less and miss out on the opportunity to make more money and
| expand their skills elsewhere.
|
| If you apply for an internal position you are qualified for and
| get denied it's time to start looking, you do not have a future
| at that company.
| zabatuvajdka wrote:
| Context is important though. For instance, developers applying
| for management position with no management experience. In other
| words just because they work at a company does not mean they
| are qualified for the position there (or elsewhere). Those
| people would likely quit out of resentment.
|
| I think in many cases people think they deserve a promotion
| based on seniority--but they don't show signs of going above-
| and-beyond. Simply working somewhere longer does NOT warrant
| any merit increase in my mind. Doing extra things to help the
| company in ways beyond ones role deserves merit
| increase/promotion.
|
| I'd argue more times than not, folks consider time-spent on the
| job a sole factor in guaranteeing that promotion.
|
| For instance, someone new might join a company and have a skill
| set above and beyond folks who have 2+ years of seniority. That
| new employee might demonstrate exceeding merit in two months of
| employment--and in my mind, the new hire should get the
| promotion.
|
| Granted, that's comparing two employees who work at a company
| already. I suppose in the interview process it would be based
| on fact (existing employee) versus word of reference and how
| well the new hire sells their abilities.
|
| And that's why I'm not in management because I'd rather not
| have to deal with making those decisions!
| mattbuilds wrote:
| I think this is pretty good advice. I think about if I should
| move on as two parts.
|
| 1. Am I learning? Improving Skills? Gaining Insight? Working
| with Interesting People/Problems?
|
| 2. Am I getting paid enough for the value I provide?
|
| The best positions have both, but it's not always that simple.
| I can forgo 2 for a time if 1 is really happening because in
| the end, the skills will eventually lead to better prospects. I
| also can do a boring not as growing job if it pays well. I
| think people get stuck though after all their learning and
| skill building and the friction of finding something new stops
| them. (I know from experience, its a lot of effort to switch
| things up)
| vlunkr wrote:
| Maybe your peers are content, not stagnant? Constantly moving
| up or moving on sounds highly stressful. If you like your job
| and can live comfortably with your salary, why not stay there?
| I can only see that it would be an issue if you're stuck
| working with some ancient technology and don't have other
| marketable skills.
| majormajor wrote:
| I wish there were more specific numbers than "twice" and "half"
| and such.
|
| Was this generally a 3% likelihood turning into a 6% one? A 20%
| turning into a 40%? More?
|
| The takeaways about the process - it's less likely to lead to
| them leaving if it's early (edit: misread this, looks like later
| is better) in the process, or if it's in favor of a different
| internal candidate - are very interesting, nonetheless, but I
| feel like the headline could be overstated depending on the
| magnitude of the probabilities.
| savant_penguin wrote:
| or 60% turning into 120% proobability
|
| guess we'll never know
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-03 23:02 UTC)