21–30 of 230 posts
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.
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.
That’s almost 180° 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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s almost 180° 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.
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.
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.
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. Ano…
I think sometimes management is their own worst enemy in not taking a chance on their own people.
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. Ano…
"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?
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)
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. Ano…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
An interview will generally offer a much stronger signal than a rejection by email