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

121–130 of 230 posts

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

#121

Post by behringer »

yaacov wrote: post #79
lvspiff wrote: post #76

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…

If you can’t get promoted internally, try getting promoted externally :)

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.

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

#122

Post by Jochim »

castlecrasher2 wrote: post #102
lvspiff wrote: post #76

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…

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.

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.

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

#123

Post by jollybean »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #36
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.

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.

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

#124

Post by twobitshifter »

dahfizz wrote: post #29
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…

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.

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.

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

#125

Post by behringer »

wldcordeiro wrote: post #74
notjustanymike wrote: post #3

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.

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.

Well. I didn't get the new role, but I did send my updated resume to the 5 different recruiters I'm cool with.

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

#126

Post by jollybean »

notjustanymike wrote: post #3

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.

"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.

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

#127

Post by behringer »

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…

As an employee, this signals to me that I'm not ready for the better position.

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

#128

Post by asdff »

bdowling wrote: post #101
lvspiff wrote: post #76

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…

> 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 ar…

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.

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

#129

Post by vkou »

abalashov wrote: post #108
bdowling wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ar…

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.

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.

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

#130

Post by jollybean »

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.

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.
Post reply on HN