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

91–100 of 230 posts

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

#91

Post by nuclearnice1 »

dtjb wrote: post #41
tw04 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That sounds like a failure of management, not a symptom of it.

I agree it’s a failure. On the other hand, they failed their way into eventually making the right decision, recognizing they had been wrong, and apoligized. I’ve seen worse!

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

#92

Post by antasvara »

ctvo wrote: post #72
cortesoft wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 a…

Alternatively:

I have 1 opening at my company. I set up a team to handle the hiring process for that position. They choose an internal candidate, who then transfers. I still have 1 opening, despite having completed the hiring process for the open position.

Being rejected from an internal position didn't guarantee that the person would quit, just increased the likelihood. From an "expected hiring committees" perspective, having an internal transfer guarantees two hiring processes. Having an external hire, provided the number of internal candidates is somwehat low, should result in (on average) less than two hiring processes.

>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.

This part I fully agree with. It could definitely turn out that the benefits of an internal transfer more than outweigh the increase in resources used on hiring.

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

#93

Post by Spooky23 »

autarch wrote: post #35
Spooky23 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 position…

> 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. This exactly the opposite of what the article says: "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."

How about candidates rejected by the pre-screen?

Internal job transfers are always rife with politics.

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

#94

Post by dehrmann »

markus_zhang wrote: post #11

Doesn't surprise me. I'd get an external one as an extra insurance.

Exactly. When you present your employer with "I want to do something different" and they say "no," nothing has really changed. It's the same reason people leave within six months of accepting a counteroffer.

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

#95

Post by dylan604 »

Xavdidtheshadow wrote: post #86
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…

> Working at a fortune 100 top 10 company Isn't that the Fortune 10?

Only if you had a math teacher that harped on you to reduce your fractions.

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

#96

Post by subpixel »

tw04 wrote: post #26
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…

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…

> I think sometimes management is their own worst enemy in not taking a chance on their own people.

I've seen it in start-ups where they are anxious about their own talent, and are somewhat desperate to 'level-up'.

The mindset is like 'I married the first person I kissed, but I get the sense I could do way better now.'

This often leads to overpaying for people who have had the director or VP title in a larger, but minor company, and being told by them that the solution is to hire 5 more people under them.

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

#98

Post by delecti »

nicoburns wrote: post #77
jonfw wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 ca…

Speaking from experience in a more positive direction, there's also a lot to be gained from learning a second company's culture and tech stack. I spent several years at a FAANG, and my technical skills improved considerably when having to apply my existing experience to a new set of tools and environment. I'm not sure a third company would have quite a stark difference, but I'm sure I'm a better developer after 5+4 years than I would have been after just a straight 9.

I don't think it's necessary to move every year or two, but I'm not sure it's ideal to go too far in the other direction either.

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

#99

Post by Areading314 »

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…

Simple reason is if they hire someone internally they just get another open req to fill.

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

#100

Post by closeparen »

jonfw wrote: post #46
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…

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.

One problem with sticking around is that the number of things you had a hand in, and will therefore be consulted about, grows unbounded. Being peripherally involved in a wide range of initiatives can give you a kind of global view and influence that dovetails nicely with certain visions of a "senior" or "staff" role. But it does come at the expense of being able to go deep on something new.

I've been with my employer for much longer than average. They're taking care of me well financially. Even the variety of projects and domains is pretty good. If I leave, it will be to declare bankruptcy on being an advisor/carrier of institutional memory.

Post reply on HN