Doesn't surprise me. I'd get an external one as an extra insurance.
Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit
11–20 of 230 posts
Re: Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit
#12In 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.
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.
Re: Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit
#13"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?
Re: Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit
#14Essentially, the conclusions of this article and research can be summarised as: Employees stick around if they think that they have a future within the company. If they get rejected in a way that makes them conclude that they don't then they leave if they can.
Re: Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit
#15well, 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.
Re: Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit
#16Yeah 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 candidate.
Re: Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit
#17Sometimes 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 positions due to circumstances) or turn selection of candidates over to a star chamber.
Sounds great for morale. Lol.
Re: Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit
#18That's probably an intentional outcome in some cases.
Yeah, this is win-win, isn't it? Both sides want something else, and move along.
Re: Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit
#19Earlier 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.
Let me see if I’m following you.
The guidance might be: if you want to keep people, let them follow the internal transfer process to the interview and feedback stage.
Your counter claim is: nah, the data don’t necessarily support that. Maybe the people who got further in the process were different. High skill employees who knew they had another shot at an internal transfer, for example. Simply giving everyone an interview is not likely to fix the problem.
Re: Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit
#20>Keller and Dlugos found that getting an interview signaled to candidates that they have many of the characteristics needed to move into the job. An interview also allowed candidates to receive feedback from hiring managers about any knowledge and skills they may currently lack, as well as how to acquire them if they want to be hired for a similar job in the future.
Makes sense that it can be mitigated by ... working with the employee.
A simple rejection without much contact sends a very different message. Nobody likes be rejected without a shot / by some corporate machine.
And for the hiring manager meeting these people might be a good thing to do by default anyway. I've gotten jobs where I was told "I didn't even know you'd want that job / that you would be a good fit until we talked about it." from folks I worked with for 10 years.