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

161–170 of 230 posts

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

#161

Post by zz865 »

plutonorm wrote: post #135
yaacov wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is very very hard to do if you want to go from software engineer to manager. Almost impossible - I have tried sending out hundreds of resumes over periods of years. You need to be promoted internally - but that is impossible unless you know someone. The internal job postings are a sham. I absolutely HATE software development but have been stuck in this role for 15 years and 5 years since I genuinely started loat…

I agree its true but its easy to change your resume to make your current job a lite manager. Put the title in and list all the responsible stuff you've done. With a bit of exaggeration you've been some kind of middle manager the last 5 years I'm sure.

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

#162

Post by jollybean »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #136
jollybean wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

This is an armchair psychoanalysis, and it is quite pretentious. > assuming that there's some kind of implicit right to move up higher in the company. This is so far from the truth in my situation, but yet you feel self-righteous in your judgement that it is laughable. I know your type. The company I worked for deliberately used the "reorg + redeploy = attrition" strategy to avoid lawsuits because they had been repea…

Well now you've quite clearly demonstrated why you were turned down for the role.

As a someone who has done a lot of hiring: 'I know the type'.

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

#163

Post by e4325f »

plutonorm wrote: post #135
yaacov wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is very very hard to do if you want to go from software engineer to manager. Almost impossible - I have tried sending out hundreds of resumes over periods of years. You need to be promoted internally - but that is impossible unless you know someone. The internal job postings are a sham. I absolutely HATE software development but have been stuck in this role for 15 years and 5 years since I genuinely started loat…

7 companies in 15 years is a lot of moving around, maybe this has something to do with it?

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

#164

Post by pitterpatter »

yhoiseth wrote: post #159
insomniacity wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once applied as an external, rejected on grounds of being too experienced/senior. Then later heard they went the other way and hired someone more junior than me, by their own measure!

That sounds… perfectly logical?

lol yea, I had to reread that but still

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

#165

Post by jldugger »

nuclearnice1 wrote: post #19
jldugger wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inte…

Correct. Perhaps the study addresses this somehow, but I'm not paying 30 bucks to find out there was no causal analysis.

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

#166

Post by phkahler »

thinkharderdev wrote: post #143
vkou wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How much of it is "hiring friends" vs just hiring someone you have better information about? A lot of people interview exceptionally well but it's always something of a crapshoot how well they will do in the actual job. But for an internal candidate you should have a lot better information on how well they performed in other roles. You can have actual frank conversations with their managers/coworkers instead of getti…

Yeah, there are a few jobs I could recommend a specific person for because I know they are very good due to past experience. When opening come along though, they are usually not looking to change. But if they were... some would say I just recommended a friend, which happens to also be true.

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

#167

Post by karaterobot »

asdff wrote: post #128
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…

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.

For my first ever job, I was hired from an internship, and one of my last tasks was to write the job description I'd be applying for, such that I would be the only viable candidate. What a pointless exercise. I think that might have been my introduction to how dumb the world of working for a living was going to be!

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

#168

Post by jldugger »

jonfw wrote: post #30
jldugger wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Take it as a signal of your likelihood to be promoted in the near future. If I'm interested in a promotion, and I get a strong signal, I'm going to stay. If I get a very weak signal, I'm going to go elsewhere. An interview will generally offer a much stronger signal than a rejection by email

But if you change the process, you're getting a hiring manager interview is not longer a strong signal. You're basically hoping to implement a management behavior change without anyone noticing. Good luck on that.

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

#170

Post by a3n »

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…

It makes sense to hire external if you're trying to grow headcount, or trying to "frontfill" before firing people.
Post reply on HN