71–80 of 230 posts
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…
guess we'll never know
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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…
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'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…