Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit • Hacker News Board

Re: Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit

#31

Post by mrtranscendence » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

nuclearnice1 wrote: post #5

hart_russell wrote: post #2

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.

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.

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?

Re: Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit

#32

Post by gxqoz » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

resoluteteeth wrote: post #16

chipgap98 wrote: post #8

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.

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 cand…

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.

Re: Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit

#33

Post by me_me_me » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

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.

Re: Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit

#34

Post by 0x426577617265 » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #17

co2benzoate wrote: post #7

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.

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 position…

> 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.

Re: Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit

#35

Post by autarch » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #17

co2benzoate wrote: post #7

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.

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 position…

> 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."

Re: Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit

#36

Post by SavantIdiot » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

ourguile wrote: post #10

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.

Same thing happened to me. It was like my company was guiding me out the door, passive-aggressively.

Re: Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit

#37

Post by bachmeier » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 4:16 PM UTC

> 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.

Re: Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit

#38

Post by Gunax » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 4:16 PM UTC

hprotagonist wrote: post #4

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.

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.

Re: Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit

#39

Post by Kranar » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 4:16 PM UTC

ThePhysicist wrote: post #23

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.

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.

Re: Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit

#40

Post by Closi » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 4:19 PM UTC

etempleton wrote: post #24

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…

> 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.