Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit

news.cornell.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 230 posts

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

#51

Post by zabatuvajdka »

nekoashide wrote: post #44

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 f…

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!

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

#52

Post by xyzelement »

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.

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

#53

Post by hprotagonist »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #25
hprotagonist wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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…

>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!"

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

#54

Post by [deleted] »

Closi wrote: post #40
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 te…

[deleted]

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

#55

Post by ipaddr »

Kranar wrote: post #39
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 ca…

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.

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

#56

Post by tlogan »

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)

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

#57

Post by tyingq »

tlogan wrote: post #56

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…

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.

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

#59

Post by mattbuilds »

nekoashide wrote: post #44

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 f…

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)

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

#60

Post by jonfw »

MattGaiser wrote: post #42

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 co…

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

Post reply on HN