Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit(news.cornell.edu)
news.cornell.edu
Rejected internal job applicants are twice as likely to quit
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/08/rejected-internal-applicants-twice-likely-quit
229 comments
> 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 are insincere in this way.
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 are insincere in this way.
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.
Sometimes that ‘favored’ person has done a lot of work to create the opportunity that they are going to fill.
(For instance that person might have done a lot of work to get a grant, or convince higher ups to make money available.)
(For instance that person might have done a lot of work to get a grant, or convince higher ups to make money available.)
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.
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 getting BS references from people the candidate themselves chose for you to talk to.
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.
And full-on nepotism is known to be bad. My bet is that blind recruits would perform just as well or better as the family and friends of the recruiting manager would if you'd run the experiment.
That may well be true, but I would not necessarily equate "hiring internal candidates" with "hiring family and friends".
I think this is an overly cynical take. Reputation and VERIFIABLE track record are what is being selected for here. If a hiring manager views this as known for a candidate, there is basically nothing someone else can do to complete. The hiring process simply isn't sufficient to do this fact finding.
In my org, managers aren't really friends, but they do have trust. A strong recommendation is impossible to overturn.
In my org, managers aren't really friends, but they do have trust. A strong recommendation is impossible to overturn.
It's the same reason why friends set up friends for dates. If you go "public" with apps, you can be setup with literally anyone. It often doesn't go well.
Trust is really the main motivation in a lot of these situations. Imo, the value of “networking” in business is building trusting relationships with other people. I’ve gotten jobs by referrals from others, and helped other people get jobs via referrals. In those situations the referred candidate had an enormous advantage over the candidate off the street, but it’s not a system of buddies looking out for each other. It’s a system of people who’ve spent time establishing trust with each other.
> why wouldn't you hire and promote your friends?
Furthermore, do you want your colleagues to be motivated by loyalty or by competition?
Furthermore, do you want your colleagues to be motivated by loyalty or by competition?
Loyalty, obviously. Competition means focusing on competing with other employees and not focusing on the company's goals.
Loyalty means hiding miss-steps, cronyism, and incentive to make your boss look good no matter what. That is orthogonal to the company's goals.
Competition means hiding miss-steps, sandbagging your co-workers, and optimizing for looking good. These are also orthogonal to the company's goals.
What's funny is when it backfires.
ie, there's an alumni who now works at a top 5 lab in the field and is now looking for an opportunity to move back to his hometown (for whatever reasons). Job description was obviously written with someone within the institution in mind, but then this person shows up.
ie, there's an alumni who now works at a top 5 lab in the field and is now looking for an opportunity to move back to his hometown (for whatever reasons). Job description was obviously written with someone within the institution in mind, but then this person shows up.
I wish I remembered where I read this so I didn't have to post it unsourced and lacking so many details, but I heard about something exactly like this happening: some government agency conducted a search with a tailor-made job description, intending to hire an internal candidate. Along comes an external candidate who also happens to tick all the boxes, but also has slightly more experience with one of the skills. Since they were required by law to hire the "most qualified" applicant, this presented a problem.
So, what did they do? Close the search without hiring anyone, then open a new search with the same job description, adding another skill that only the internal applicant has (I think it was fluency in Italian).
The moral of the story, if there is one, is to never underestimate the ability of people to get a desired result by exploiting the system in an unforeseen way (i.e. hacking). :)
So, what did they do? Close the search without hiring anyone, then open a new search with the same job description, adding another skill that only the internal applicant has (I think it was fluency in Italian).
The moral of the story, if there is one, is to never underestimate the ability of people to get a desired result by exploiting the system in an unforeseen way (i.e. hacking). :)
I have been that external candidate. I saw a random job on USAjobs a few years ago that really seemed to fit all of my experience so I figured I would apply for the heck of it. Within a few hours the listing was withdrawn. Weird. Then the same thing popped up again and again over the next couple of weeks and I would apply and it was immediately withdrawn again.
Good to know what was really going with that now.
Good to know what was really going with that now.
I experienced this when a job req was opened specifically for me. It was odd having to interview knowing good and well I was getting the job. I used the time to talk with the professors like a real interview and then used the last 15 minutes to ask for advice for how I could interview differently in the real world.
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.
Ditto. I've had my a set of requirements that generalized one level of abstraction over my niche resume so it wasn't nearly as obvious. The org wanted to hang on to me because they knew I'd leave if I didn't get a significant raise and no good mechanism to give me raise except advertising a new position at a higher starting salary (my raise) than closing my old position. Their retention strategy worked and I stayed another 2.5 years.
I went through hiring committies and even had to recompete for my own position, of course the cards were stacked in my favor.
Hiring processes are a joke across the board. I feel sorry for anyone who applied to the position wasting their time. I'm confident I've been on the other side of this before where a position matched so well the chances a real competitive qualified candidate that wasn't already targeted seemed low considering how good a fit I was for the role.
I went through hiring committies and even had to recompete for my own position, of course the cards were stacked in my favor.
Hiring processes are a joke across the board. I feel sorry for anyone who applied to the position wasting their time. I'm confident I've been on the other side of this before where a position matched so well the chances a real competitive qualified candidate that wasn't already targeted seemed low considering how good a fit I was for the role.
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!
> I think that might have been my introduction to how dumb the world of working for a living was going to be!
If that's the case, then maybe it wasn't a pointless exercise. Just an annoying and silly exercise.
If that's the case, then maybe it wasn't a pointless exercise. Just an annoying and silly exercise.
This just happened to me. Recruiter reached out, asked for my resume because he had a job that looked good. I gave it to him, and 2 days later he called back saying that while they liked me, they were going with an internal candidate. Why bother with the whole charade if you're going to go with an internal person anyways?
> Why bother with the whole charade if you're going to go with an internal person anyways?
My understanding is providing a nice song and dance for legal reasons.
My understanding is providing a nice song and dance for legal reasons.
One of many ways that what the HR function has grown into simply adds overhead and friction with no actual value. An HR leader could argue that they are adding value by protecting the company from lawsuits or other risk by instituting this "fair" hiring process. But if everyone knows it's a sham, and that the internal candidate is going to get hired regardless, there is no protection in fact. It slows things down and increases costs, and does not truly reduce risk, improve results, or anything else it might be claimed to do.
> A company can't allow for nepotism or favoritism, so it requires a public posting for any open position
It's not even just a feel-goody policy by dysfunctional HR depts. The US DoL literally requires a company to advertise a role for a position that is currently filled by a PERM labor certification applicant (which is required for green card applications).
It's not even just a feel-goody policy by dysfunctional HR depts. The US DoL literally requires a company to advertise a role for a position that is currently filled by a PERM labor certification applicant (which is required for green card applications).
Many parts of the USG require "veterans preference" for most positions, meaning they have no choice but to hire one. You can see the reasoning for it, but it limits your abilities to hire who you want.
I had a boss once the said “nepotism will get you everywhere “. I didn’t agree with his philosophy, but his candor was refreshing.
In Ottawa the federal government is required to post jobs publicly like that and people were still gaming it by opening the posting for just a short period of time and telling the preferred candidates when to apply. Now there's a minimum number of days they have to be up.
Usajobs.gov, is that you?
"The managers hire the internal candidate they wanted to hire anyway"
I was surprised how common that is. I've seen that dozens of times happening at Amazon (also for keeping external contractors, when the whole teams fled; the whole hiring process is pretty much bs btw)
I was surprised how common that is. I've seen that dozens of times happening at Amazon (also for keeping external contractors, when the whole teams fled; the whole hiring process is pretty much bs btw)
If the team is growing and getting more work, then these are most likely genuine. If not, they're quite likely insincere. The "insincerity quotient" will rise depending on level :) . So, for internal staff/sr. staff positions, the decision has already been made or the candidate pool has been narrowed to 1-2 people even before the position is posted.
The far more common scenario (At least at the companies I have worked at) is that an external applicant is desired but because US laws require a posting, one is made, even though that posting is there only to comply with the law and the company is basically already in the process of hiring the external candidate.
> because US laws require a posting
US law does not generally require a job posting before hiring an employee. There are exceptions, however, including government employers, some government contractors, and employment of foreign nationals (e.g., H1-B visa workers).
US law does not generally require a job posting before hiring an employee. There are exceptions, however, including government employers, some government contractors, and employment of foreign nationals (e.g., H1-B visa workers).
I was definitely talking about these cases and they are very common.
Immigration law also requires it too, which is sometimes why some job postings are hyper specific; they’re tuned to fit literally one person.
If you’re still on the fence at all, apply elsewhere today. If your current employer isn’t fulfilling your personal goals, you have zero obligation to wait around until they do. It’s just a job. If your current management would react poorly to you acting in your own interests, you probably don’t want to make a career with these people. If opportunities or rewards are only handed out under threat of an external offer, again—you don’t want to work with these folks.
If you can’t get promoted internally, try getting promoted externally :)
Believe it or not, it can be easier. Often you're seen as a certain type or level in your current job. They can't imagine you doing a different one. Plus, if they promote you, they just have to fill a lower position. A new company doesn't have any of these biases.
A friend in night school said he fully expected to have to move to a new company to get promoted. His current boss didn't see him as someone with a masters-level intellect.
Of course it's not always this way. Etc. Etc.
A friend in night school said he fully expected to have to move to a new company to get promoted. His current boss didn't see him as someone with a masters-level intellect.
Of course it's not always this way. Etc. Etc.
Yeah, as far as I've observed, this is one of the key reasons for consistent short (1-2yr) durations working at companies in the tech industry. You get a raise by getting hired at a new company. Personally for me, each time taking a job at a new employer has resulted in far greater compensation increases than if I had stayed at the same place and waited for a bonus/raise.
And even if you manage to convince your manager to consider you for the promotion/transfer often they'll ask you to start doing the new job on the side for a bit to prove yourself. Now, how good are you going to be at something new that you are doing part time with nobody taking you seriously and supporting you? It's much easier to get the title first and grow into the job afterwards.
There's the perception, yeah. I've also been told that I was so productive in my current role, they saw it as a loss to move me to my target role. Of course, they lost me entirely...
There's a place for that: just because someone's a good engineer doesn't make them a good leader or manager, for instance. But such stiff attitudes really hurt an org, IMO.
There's a place for that: just because someone's a good engineer doesn't make them a good leader or manager, for instance. But such stiff attitudes really hurt an org, IMO.
As someone who has never been promoted internally, and has been promoted externally on about half my new roles , I can tell you that taking a job elsewhere is the easier path.
I wonder if anyone with success getting promoted internally can chime in on what are some good tactics/resources?
I wonder if anyone with success getting promoted internally can chime in on what are some good tactics/resources?
This may not be helpful in the context of Fortune 500 companies, but here it goes. I started at my current small company as a designer in 2011 with minimal formal training and a couple of years of self-taught experience. In the past ten years, I’ve been proposed to Sr. Designer, Consultant, and now Sr. Consultant. Moving from $10/hr to $95k/year in the process. The line of work is AV consulting and programming for commercial architecture.
Let me contrast this with my job experience immediately preceding this, circa 2007 to 2011. I worked as an IT Manager at a University Law School. I started as a student help desk and eventually managed the AV systems in the classrooms. I couldn’t get promoted because it was part of a sprawling organization with super rigid job roles. I’d get in trouble for going above and beyond my job role. I wanted better pay at one point, so I applied for the tiniest move-up at a different school on campus and made it through a bunch of interviews until I met with the CIO of that school. She figuratively spit on my resume and told me to get fucked. I swear that she had a chat with the CIO of the law school, and they plotted her performance with me.
My educational background is a BA in music, so I don’t have rock star credentials. Well…I have very modest rock music credentials, but hiring managers don’t give a shit.
So what happened with my current job? It’s a small company. 10-20 people for most of the time I was there. Everything that pissed off the university delights the small business. I was able to wear new hats and jump into little side projects and demonstrate the value of my intelligence and enthusiasm. Also, I can’t overstate this; I work for the best boss I can imagine. She assumes the best in everyone and has a mental growth trajectory for all that isn’t marred by fuck ups. She sees the mistakes as learning, as they should be.
I’m far enough along in my line of work where I can see that I’d need to change companies if I wanted a quick and easy promotion or a 20% raise. However, I can build/grow the position I’m in. My ambitions are more tied up in my family and personal wellness and growth lately.
Let me contrast this with my job experience immediately preceding this, circa 2007 to 2011. I worked as an IT Manager at a University Law School. I started as a student help desk and eventually managed the AV systems in the classrooms. I couldn’t get promoted because it was part of a sprawling organization with super rigid job roles. I’d get in trouble for going above and beyond my job role. I wanted better pay at one point, so I applied for the tiniest move-up at a different school on campus and made it through a bunch of interviews until I met with the CIO of that school. She figuratively spit on my resume and told me to get fucked. I swear that she had a chat with the CIO of the law school, and they plotted her performance with me.
My educational background is a BA in music, so I don’t have rock star credentials. Well…I have very modest rock music credentials, but hiring managers don’t give a shit.
So what happened with my current job? It’s a small company. 10-20 people for most of the time I was there. Everything that pissed off the university delights the small business. I was able to wear new hats and jump into little side projects and demonstrate the value of my intelligence and enthusiasm. Also, I can’t overstate this; I work for the best boss I can imagine. She assumes the best in everyone and has a mental growth trajectory for all that isn’t marred by fuck ups. She sees the mistakes as learning, as they should be.
I’m far enough along in my line of work where I can see that I’d need to change companies if I wanted a quick and easy promotion or a 20% raise. However, I can build/grow the position I’m in. My ambitions are more tied up in my family and personal wellness and growth lately.
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.
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 loathing it. But there is no escape unless I want to go work in Tescos. I've not seen a promotion into management in my 15 years in the industry across 7 different companies. For all intents and purposes it does not happen and if you go into software, you aren't getting out.
Is this a UK thing? I think I’ve read this before on HN, “getting promoted from software engineer to manager is hard”.
It seems to be a cultural thing. In the US, the manager is not seen as “superior” necessarily and many people actively do not want to be promoted (and a bunch of kids pouring into the field every year) so getting a management position is not particularly hard, even if you’re under 30.
It seems to be a cultural thing. In the US, the manager is not seen as “superior” necessarily and many people actively do not want to be promoted (and a bunch of kids pouring into the field every year) so getting a management position is not particularly hard, even if you’re under 30.
I'm in the UK and at you wouldn't have any issue where I work(big AAA games publisher) - very very very few people want to be managers, so if someone expressed interest in managing they'd be given all training and support to make that happen, probably would get them promoted within a year or less. In fact I'd say that with some seniority under your belt you have to start actively avoiding management roles if you don't want them.
I don't believe it - have you seen it happen? If someone actually tries to follow that path, they get managed out rather than promoted, I bet you.
>>I don't believe it - have you seen it happen
Yes, I have gone exactly through this myself, and now that I'm a manager I've helped several people become managers themselves, and it always starts with people expressing interest in the path. It's generally very encouraged where I work.
>>get managed out rather than promoted, I bet you.
That's a pretty wild bet to make, given that you know, I'm actually talking from experience.
Yes, I have gone exactly through this myself, and now that I'm a manager I've helped several people become managers themselves, and it always starts with people expressing interest in the path. It's generally very encouraged where I work.
>>get managed out rather than promoted, I bet you.
That's a pretty wild bet to make, given that you know, I'm actually talking from experience.
Maybe it's a cultural thing but my experience has been the exact opposite. As a software engineer you have to actively avoid taking a management position after a few years at any given company.
Exactly. I’ve been dodging management positions for the last 21 of 23 years. I’ve had to leave two companies to do so.
Are you working at a large org? If you want internal mobility, particularly for IC -> manager in software eng, I would highly recommend moving to a startup. My experience at startups has generally been that the company can't convince enough of the engineers to move into management so the transition is extremely easy for those who are willing.
Or even just a smaller company that is not a start-up. In my experience, smaller companies are always looking for a way to become larger companies, and at their size, a single hire can make a significant difference. In fact I'd say the odds are better than in a start-up, because a start-up often has tons of cash to burn up along the way of learning which people could be additive.
Even large orgs can be like this, as long as they (the whole company, or more likely just the small part you work for) are growing. It’s usually much harder to hire managers. Just go anywhere that’s growing, prove you’re a competent tech lead by organising/coordinating your IC work, and you’ll get the manager twisting your arm to become a lead.
Ask how many reports the hiring manager has, and how many it was a year ago. If it was 10 and now it’s 20, that hiring manager is probably desperate to hire a lead to take care of some of the people managing.
I’ve seen this at Facebook and Google, so it’s not just small companies.
With startups, it’s much easier to determine if the team hiring is growing, because the answer is yes.
Edit: typos
Ask how many reports the hiring manager has, and how many it was a year ago. If it was 10 and now it’s 20, that hiring manager is probably desperate to hire a lead to take care of some of the people managing.
I’ve seen this at Facebook and Google, so it’s not just small companies.
With startups, it’s much easier to determine if the team hiring is growing, because the answer is yes.
Edit: typos
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.
Yeah, you don't go straight to director. Absolutely not externally for that matter.
First, you start out with "team lead" then work your way up after showing enthusiasm and reliability. Get the Fournier book, The Manager's Path.
First, you start out with "team lead" then work your way up after showing enthusiasm and reliability. Get the Fournier book, The Manager's Path.
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.
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.
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.
Believe me, I've been in your shoes multiple times. I suppose I've resolved that instead of being frustrated as I have been in previous roles, I should simply take advantage of it and be aware of those biases if the situation arises for me.
> Working at a fortune 100 top 10 company
Isn't that the Fortune 10?
Isn't that the Fortune 10?
Apparently not; the Fortune 100 is a sort of curated list, and there is no shorter list. The 10 at the top are referred to as the "Fortune 100 Top 10". https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fortune-100.asp
I guess it's seen to be a little gauche to whittle the list down beyond a certain point, i.e. the Fortune 3.
When Walmart was the most valuable company, a friend who worked at Walmart.com said he worked at a Fortune 1 company.
Only if you had a math teacher that harped on you to reduce your fractions.
Aren't folks unhappy at their current roles likely to seek other roles internally before looking externally? It sounds like they are more likely to (a) already be unhappy (b) become extra unhappy when a transfer is denied and (c) that leads to them setting off into the sunset.
I suspect that these aren't the folks companies want to keep in the first place.
On average of course, there will be exceptions. Not trying to imply anything about you, OP.
I suspect that these aren't the folks companies want to keep in the first place.
On average of course, there will be exceptions. Not trying to imply anything about you, OP.
> I suspect that these aren't the folks companies want to keep in the first place.
Why not?
Why not?
Apologies for the delayed response. My thought process at the time was that if they were the kind of folks the company wanted to keep they would have been able to make the transfer. I could be wrong.
How long have you been looking internally? Promotions at huge companies usually aren’t just a matter of checking boxes, your manager really has to push for you using both the formal and informal routes.
Also, do you trust your manager? Just because they checked some boxes in some system doesn’t mean they are actually advocating for you.
It sounds like you probably need to understand the process better.
Also, do you trust your manager? Just because they checked some boxes in some system doesn’t mean they are actually advocating for you.
It sounds like you probably need to understand the process better.
Look for other positions early, not later. Interviewing is a skill that is learned through practice, things like resumes benefit from continuous improvement and refinement.
No just that but the interviews are a good chance to learn what skills and attitudes are valued by the places that are hiring the positions that you are interested in.
No just that but the interviews are a good chance to learn what skills and attitudes are valued by the places that are hiring the positions that you are interested in.
Simple reason is if they hire someone internally they just get another open req to fill.
Turns out they have another req to fill anyway, with hardly any notice too.
This is giving me flashbacks.
Years ago I applied for a C-level position at a company I worked for, somewhat to my surprise sailed through the interview process, and was officially offered the job.
A few days later the CEO stopped by for a chat and told me they weren't going to offer me the job. He seemed surprised when I told him I'd already been offered it despite that everyone involved in the process had met and agreed to offer it to me.
Cue shenanigans, partly self-inflicted, because I really wanted that job.
Turns out they had someone else in mind they wanted to give it to (I'm not sure at what point they'd realised this) so they added some additional selections stages that were basically engineered to ensure I'd fail so they could give the job to this other person.
With hindsight I should have quit there and then, and sued them for constructive dismissal.
I didn't do that because a relative with whom I was close was terminally ill and I didn't think it was a good time to act in a way that felt rash with everything around that going on. I was also concerned about having to deal with a potentially protracted legal case in the midst of all this, and how I'd keep paying my mortgage with no income.
Still, this was a mistake. I should have done it. I'll explain why below.
I ended up staying for about another year, although I'd obviously made the decision that I was going to leave at the first opportunity. For part of that year I worked for the person they'd given the job to. It was shit. For the rest of it I was in a different team, where I actually worked pretty hard, but that work was targeted (by me) at skilling myself up to enable myself to find a new position. I'm not saying it didn't benefit the company, but any such benefit was very much a secondary objective.
As you can imagine, this was by far and away the most humiliating episode of my career, and I came away from it extremely disillusioned, and with my confidence in tatters. Even all these years later, typing this now and in some limited form reliving the experience, I find myself surprised by how angry I still feel. The one positive is that it's had a profound impact on the way I choose to deal with people, and obviously particularly when hiring. A key lesson is know what you're looking for and be clear about that.
After I left - with nothing else lined up - I had no idea what I wanted to do, so I ended up contracting for about two and a half years, just because the money was decent and I just couldn't tolerate the thought of being somebody's employee. I got over it eventually.
I'm now a CTO at a growing company that's maybe 30% larger than the company where I was originally offered/de-offered a C-level job was at that time, and have been since the beginning of 2020. For political reasons my role in 2019 was an EVP position, but you could squint and say I've been doing this role for getting on three years.
Nonetheless, that episode, and particularly the decision I made not to quit and sue, probably cost me 5 - 7 years in my career. That's time and money I won't get back. And it was, I think, that decision (or perhaps lack of a decision) more than anything else that led to the loss of confidence and disillusionment, because what I was mostly disillusioned with was myself. If I'd acted I think I would have felt quite differently because, even though the situation would still have been deeply unpleasant, showing that agency would have made it easier for me to own the outcome.
All of this is a very long-winded way of saying that if you're not progressing the way you want to with your current company, don't mess around: find a role with a different company where you can progress the way you want to.
Years ago I applied for a C-level position at a company I worked for, somewhat to my surprise sailed through the interview process, and was officially offered the job.
A few days later the CEO stopped by for a chat and told me they weren't going to offer me the job. He seemed surprised when I told him I'd already been offered it despite that everyone involved in the process had met and agreed to offer it to me.
Cue shenanigans, partly self-inflicted, because I really wanted that job.
Turns out they had someone else in mind they wanted to give it to (I'm not sure at what point they'd realised this) so they added some additional selections stages that were basically engineered to ensure I'd fail so they could give the job to this other person.
With hindsight I should have quit there and then, and sued them for constructive dismissal.
I didn't do that because a relative with whom I was close was terminally ill and I didn't think it was a good time to act in a way that felt rash with everything around that going on. I was also concerned about having to deal with a potentially protracted legal case in the midst of all this, and how I'd keep paying my mortgage with no income.
Still, this was a mistake. I should have done it. I'll explain why below.
I ended up staying for about another year, although I'd obviously made the decision that I was going to leave at the first opportunity. For part of that year I worked for the person they'd given the job to. It was shit. For the rest of it I was in a different team, where I actually worked pretty hard, but that work was targeted (by me) at skilling myself up to enable myself to find a new position. I'm not saying it didn't benefit the company, but any such benefit was very much a secondary objective.
As you can imagine, this was by far and away the most humiliating episode of my career, and I came away from it extremely disillusioned, and with my confidence in tatters. Even all these years later, typing this now and in some limited form reliving the experience, I find myself surprised by how angry I still feel. The one positive is that it's had a profound impact on the way I choose to deal with people, and obviously particularly when hiring. A key lesson is know what you're looking for and be clear about that.
After I left - with nothing else lined up - I had no idea what I wanted to do, so I ended up contracting for about two and a half years, just because the money was decent and I just couldn't tolerate the thought of being somebody's employee. I got over it eventually.
I'm now a CTO at a growing company that's maybe 30% larger than the company where I was originally offered/de-offered a C-level job was at that time, and have been since the beginning of 2020. For political reasons my role in 2019 was an EVP position, but you could squint and say I've been doing this role for getting on three years.
Nonetheless, that episode, and particularly the decision I made not to quit and sue, probably cost me 5 - 7 years in my career. That's time and money I won't get back. And it was, I think, that decision (or perhaps lack of a decision) more than anything else that led to the loss of confidence and disillusionment, because what I was mostly disillusioned with was myself. If I'd acted I think I would have felt quite differently because, even though the situation would still have been deeply unpleasant, showing that agency would have made it easier for me to own the outcome.
All of this is a very long-winded way of saying that if you're not progressing the way you want to with your current company, don't mess around: find a role with a different company where you can progress the way you want to.
Sorry to hear about your unfortunate experience. I bet everyone would get shaken up after getting an opportunity like that taken away, AFTER it was already confirmed that you're getting it.
One thing I'd like to touch upon is you saying that it cost you 5-7 years of your career. Is that really the case, though? Hear me out. I've been employed in a couple of workplaces where I've had similar experiences: employer dangling a shiny thing in front of me in the shape of a promise. "You're nearly there, it'll come soon enough. You just have to work hard." As you can imagine, the shiny thing never reached the palm of my hand. The first time it happened, I worked insanely hard with my rose-tinted glasses on. Took me a while to realise that I'm wasting my time. Once I made the decision to leave in search for better things, I was well equipped to jump higher than before. I already had the skill set AND the internal bullshit detector was calibrated. The second time it happened, I didn't waste any time. Jumped ship, got employed at, what I consider, a dream job.
The point I'm getting at is that you never truly waste time unless you're coasting. The experiences you've had add up to the person (professionally and personally) you are now. It might've taken you longer to achieve what you've set out to do but you got there in the end. You must be happier that you're the CTO at the company you're in now rather than the one you mentioned anyway, right?
The ol' cliché "the journey is the best part."
One thing I'd like to touch upon is you saying that it cost you 5-7 years of your career. Is that really the case, though? Hear me out. I've been employed in a couple of workplaces where I've had similar experiences: employer dangling a shiny thing in front of me in the shape of a promise. "You're nearly there, it'll come soon enough. You just have to work hard." As you can imagine, the shiny thing never reached the palm of my hand. The first time it happened, I worked insanely hard with my rose-tinted glasses on. Took me a while to realise that I'm wasting my time. Once I made the decision to leave in search for better things, I was well equipped to jump higher than before. I already had the skill set AND the internal bullshit detector was calibrated. The second time it happened, I didn't waste any time. Jumped ship, got employed at, what I consider, a dream job.
The point I'm getting at is that you never truly waste time unless you're coasting. The experiences you've had add up to the person (professionally and personally) you are now. It might've taken you longer to achieve what you've set out to do but you got there in the end. You must be happier that you're the CTO at the company you're in now rather than the one you mentioned anyway, right?
The ol' cliché "the journey is the best part."
> One thing I'd like to touch upon is you saying that it cost you 5-7 years of your career. Is that really the case, though?
My decision not to sue certainly was. Note: my decision. I'm taking responsibility, not blaming the company. I'm not going to get into more detail simply because I've gone over it quite enough for this decade in my previous post.
My decision not to sue certainly was. Note: my decision. I'm taking responsibility, not blaming the company. I'm not going to get into more detail simply because I've gone over it quite enough for this decade in my previous post.
Do recruiters get the same commission or bonuses if they hire internally? If not then there's your answer.
I mean it sucks, but your boss gave you solid advice: If you are looking to get promoted internally in a massive technical bureaucracy, one of the best things you can do is get an external offer.
It’s the same where I am. We’re a fortune 4 and the number of people who create jobs for their friends is outrageous.
Surely Fortune 100 firms want a docile workforce. People who will stay with the firm even when passed over for promotion and opportunity multiple times. These people tend to be easy to manage badly. You are better off finding your next job at a new firm and that firm being grateful you accepted versus staying at your current firm and you being grateful they promoted you.
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.
Another reason is that there is a “grass is greener” mentality. You know what you like and don’t like about an internal hire. You don’t know what you like or dislike about the external hire yet, not really. Additionally, someone from outside may have the silver bullet to solve X,Y, or, Z problem that no one else can seem to solve. You know your internal candidates don’t have the quick easy solution you want, but maybe this new person will!*
* hint: They don’t.
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.
Another reason is that there is a “grass is greener” mentality. You know what you like and don’t like about an internal hire. You don’t know what you like or dislike about the external hire yet, not really. Additionally, someone from outside may have the silver bullet to solve X,Y, or, Z problem that no one else can seem to solve. You know your internal candidates don’t have the quick easy solution you want, but maybe this new person will!*
* hint: They don’t.
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 role but you're killing it!"
I think sometimes management is their own worst enemy in not taking a chance on their own people.
I think sometimes management is their own worst enemy in not taking a chance on their own people.
> 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.
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.
I'm absolutely convinced this happens -- with roles, with capabilities, with salary. It's got to be related to normalcy bias and other anchoring phenomenon. Probably less than half-conscious, too.
That’s a great point. I have seen secretaries take training after hours to get certificates and degrees. When finished they apply locally and perform well, since they already had an idea what the job is. Some employees who have known the person in the old role find it hard to treat the colleague equitably. In that situation sometimes the best way forward is to take the new credential to a place where no one knew you before you got it.
I worked briefly for a large grocery chain that had a policy of promoting to management internally where possible. However, accepting a management role meant you had to change stores, to break those collegial relationships and establish you with authority somewhere fresh.
The shiny candidate outside the company is always somehow more appealing than the candidate you know 99% of the attributes of.
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!
An excessive bias to internal hires, though, runs the risk of organizational ossification.
I've spent most of my career in consulting organizations, and sometimes our clients have been orgs with a high percentage of "lifer" employees for whatever reason. (Often, this is because the employer is one of only a few good, white-collar employers in an area, which is its own cost.)
Orgs with insufficient new blood get stuck. They think of the Company Way as the only way, and policy begins to replace thought pretty much across the board.
One example, early in my career -- before I went to consulting, even -- was a place I worked for 2 years in the mid-90s. They were a 100% VAX shop much later than the rest of the industry, and were known to pretty much hire new technical people only right of of college. As a result, they ended up technically isolated from the mainstream.
Once they realized that they were spending WAY more on homegrown solutions than they would on a commercial DB, it was really too late -- new grads didn't want to work on a dying platform, and the veterans had no experience working on anything other than the homegrown stuff.
I've spent most of my career in consulting organizations, and sometimes our clients have been orgs with a high percentage of "lifer" employees for whatever reason. (Often, this is because the employer is one of only a few good, white-collar employers in an area, which is its own cost.)
Orgs with insufficient new blood get stuck. They think of the Company Way as the only way, and policy begins to replace thought pretty much across the board.
One example, early in my career -- before I went to consulting, even -- was a place I worked for 2 years in the mid-90s. They were a 100% VAX shop much later than the rest of the industry, and were known to pretty much hire new technical people only right of of college. As a result, they ended up technically isolated from the mainstream.
Once they realized that they were spending WAY more on homegrown solutions than they would on a commercial DB, it was really too late -- new grads didn't want to work on a dying platform, and the veterans had no experience working on anything other than the homegrown stuff.
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.
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.
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.
This is my exact problem right now!
I'd argue the same goes for technical leadership that were hired in originally as senior/staff/principal. The bar for breaking into a technical leadership position at every company I've worked for seems impossibly high, while they've been more than willing to hire that from the outside. That doesn't just go for myself, but the colleagues I've seen leave as a result of not being able to break that barrier.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
I think this goes to the importance of promoting on talent, not years of experience.
Good developers look at what they've done, and critically analyze what is good; what can be improved; and what needs to be replaced. It's these people that you want to promote and provide with enough autonomy to do what needs to be done.
Good developers look at what they've done, and critically analyze what is good; what can be improved; and what needs to be replaced. It's these people that you want to promote and provide with enough autonomy to do what needs to be done.
> Most devs, if HN is any indication, believe that jumping ship every 1-2 years is the best way to move up.
It's not just developers. The old model of companies rewarding loyalty and actively investing in furthering their employees' skills has declined across the board, and it's no coincidence that the timeline correlates with the timeline of the demise of unions and collective wage/employment condition agreements.
It's not just developers. The old model of companies rewarding loyalty and actively investing in furthering their employees' skills has declined across the board, and it's no coincidence that the timeline correlates with the timeline of the demise of unions and collective wage/employment condition agreements.
Lots of other things are happening too- people are educating themselves more, people have more jobs available from their locations (remote + commute distance increases + increases in population density), etc.
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.
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.
HR are lazy. Noted.
> Additionally, someone from outside may have the silver bullet to solve X,Y, or, Z problem that no one else can seem to solve [...]
>* Hint: They don’t.
But they also might. Sort of...
You don't usually hire someone with the expectation that they will come up with a magic bullet solution - Usually you already know the silver bullet and are actually hiring someone who can sledgehammer it in while existing internal teams are reluctant.
Sometimes its easier for an external person to do this, rather than an internal person.
I'm a supply chain consultant and regularly get brought in to implement change where there are often change-reluctant internal teams, which are held back by legitimate reasons why x won't work, even though x needs to be made to work. I say sledgehammer only to mean that sometimes you have to be very steadfast in the fact that the change is happening, and that all the reasons people give you for it not working are problems that you/them need to solve rather than reasons it won't go ahead.
Despite what I said above, personally I think companies just need the right mix of internal and external candidates - too many internal and the company gets too held back in 'the way things are done, and have always been done'. Too many external and there is a total lack of organisational memory and nobody knows how to do anything.
>* Hint: They don’t.
But they also might. Sort of...
You don't usually hire someone with the expectation that they will come up with a magic bullet solution - Usually you already know the silver bullet and are actually hiring someone who can sledgehammer it in while existing internal teams are reluctant.
Sometimes its easier for an external person to do this, rather than an internal person.
I'm a supply chain consultant and regularly get brought in to implement change where there are often change-reluctant internal teams, which are held back by legitimate reasons why x won't work, even though x needs to be made to work. I say sledgehammer only to mean that sometimes you have to be very steadfast in the fact that the change is happening, and that all the reasons people give you for it not working are problems that you/them need to solve rather than reasons it won't go ahead.
Despite what I said above, personally I think companies just need the right mix of internal and external candidates - too many internal and the company gets too held back in 'the way things are done, and have always been done'. Too many external and there is a total lack of organisational memory and nobody knows how to do anything.
[deleted]
To be fair, I think the same thing is true of individuals, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. Often times the grass is greener on the other side. Granted, it's industry dependent, but if you are in tech then there are countless green pastures to pick from. From a company's perspective, they know they don't want to pay someone significantly more for the same position, so they figure they won't lose much by waiting for employees to leave and hire a fresh new employees for roughly the same wages as the preview ones. It also means any potential baggage created due to office politics and or bad attitudes work themselves out to some respect.
Unless one is an outright wizard at what they do, which is rare, what should make anyone think a company needs to keep them around? We are all replaceable. Companies should only hire internally if it makes sense. The fact is that 99% of us are just adequate in the eyes of our employers, and if they play their cards right, they have more to gain by hiring new team members than ones they know they aren't that enamored with.
Unless one is an outright wizard at what they do, which is rare, what should make anyone think a company needs to keep them around? We are all replaceable. Companies should only hire internally if it makes sense. The fact is that 99% of us are just adequate in the eyes of our employers, and if they play their cards right, they have more to gain by hiring new team members than ones they know they aren't that enamored with.
Also, there is a desire to avoid disrupting two teams rather than one. "We need you here Bob."
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
I get it, and don’t think it is a smart long term choice to not hire internally.
I was just trying to think about reasons a company might choose not to. How much training you have to do for the internal transfer is going to depend on how similar the old and new job are.
I was just trying to think about reasons a company might choose not to. How much training you have to do for the internal transfer is going to depend on how similar the old and new job are.
Also, when you hire from within at some point you still have to bring in a new employee to fill the vacuum, so you end up doing more work.
It's worth doing right as most work is, but managers want fast solutions and typically are not incentivized to take their time.
It's worth doing right as most work is, but managers want fast solutions and typically are not incentivized to take their time.
It makes sense to hire external if you're trying to grow headcount, or trying to "frontfill" before firing people.
Your comment makes it sound like you are biased toward internal hiring being better. Why is that?
Required reading for every technical leader: https://randsinrepose.com/archives/shields-down/
> Resignations happen in a moment, and it’s not when you declare, “I’m resigning.” The moment happened a long time ago when you received a random email from a good friend who asked, “I know you’re really happy with your current gig because you’ve been raving about it for a year, but would you like to come visit Our Company? No commitment. Just coffee.” ... Your shields are officially down.
> Your shields drop the moment you let a glimpse of a potential different future into your mind. It seems like a unconsidered off-the-cuff thought sans consequence, but the thought opens you to possibilities that did not exist the moment before the thought existed.
> Every moment as a leader is an opportunity to either strengthen or weaken shields. Every single moment.
As a CTO of a young company, I start many mornings thinking about my team's shields. Am I asking them to focus on projects or parts of the stack they don't find interesting, or being less proactive than I should be in unblocking their needs? And most importantly, am I staying true to our values and providing them the transparency they need? Because if we get to the point where the OP article is, where team members want to find a different team, there is no other tech team they can transfer to, so their shields being down becomes a critical vulnerability! There's a balance, of course, and some weeks are just too chaotic to be perfect at this, but I try as much as I can. I like to think that this is also the type of environment that makes people the most creative they can be - it's a win-win for everyone.
> Resignations happen in a moment, and it’s not when you declare, “I’m resigning.” The moment happened a long time ago when you received a random email from a good friend who asked, “I know you’re really happy with your current gig because you’ve been raving about it for a year, but would you like to come visit Our Company? No commitment. Just coffee.” ... Your shields are officially down.
> Your shields drop the moment you let a glimpse of a potential different future into your mind. It seems like a unconsidered off-the-cuff thought sans consequence, but the thought opens you to possibilities that did not exist the moment before the thought existed.
> Every moment as a leader is an opportunity to either strengthen or weaken shields. Every single moment.
As a CTO of a young company, I start many mornings thinking about my team's shields. Am I asking them to focus on projects or parts of the stack they don't find interesting, or being less proactive than I should be in unblocking their needs? And most importantly, am I staying true to our values and providing them the transparency they need? Because if we get to the point where the OP article is, where team members want to find a different team, there is no other tech team they can transfer to, so their shields being down becomes a critical vulnerability! There's a balance, of course, and some weeks are just too chaotic to be perfect at this, but I try as much as I can. I like to think that this is also the type of environment that makes people the most creative they can be - it's a win-win for everyone.
Oof, from just reading this I felt my shield start to drop.
I wonder how much the present work-from-home situation has insulated people from this, as people can't just be invited to check out a company when the company is remote.
I wonder how much the present work-from-home situation has insulated people from this, as people can't just be invited to check out a company when the company is remote.
Nowadays you don't even need a physical visit to get your shield down. Your friend (or their coworker) can share a story on Twitter/blog and piqued your interest. You crosscheck to your trusted friend and it sounds much better than where you are right now. And the story continues the same.
I changed jobs during the pandemic. Without the gloss of the office with free snacks and cool techie coworkers, I couldn't stay focused on the turds I was being asked to polish and repolish. It was the easiest job decision I ever made.
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.
I applied for four positions at Capital One before throwing in the towel:
- Two of those applications were ignored. No response at all from the recruiter.
- Another jumped on a call to say the requirements were "dumbed-down" to get more diverse applicants to apply. Women tend not to apply for jobs they think they are unqualified for.
- Last was pulled as I was told I had to go through the promotion process.
- Two of those applications were ignored. No response at all from the recruiter.
- Another jumped on a call to say the requirements were "dumbed-down" to get more diverse applicants to apply. Women tend not to apply for jobs they think they are unqualified for.
- Last was pulled as I was told I had to go through the promotion process.
It happened to me too a few years back. A posting cropped up with the company hiring for two positions right above mine to fill out direction needs, I was a technical lead already. I wanted the position, because I was already filling the role they were hiring for.
I was shut down right when I inquired, and told that the company wanted some outside talent. Wow okay, even though my performance reviews were dazzling. So they hired two guys who had zero familiarity with the industry and zero familiarity with our stack. One had to be fired because he was insane and did nothing all day but try to be some motivational speaker in a technical role. I liked the other guy, but it was another person I had to explain stuff to when he had preconceived notions that were incorrect. He was cool, but HR/execs really screwed up the positioning.
There was a later time when they were going to have a leadership vacuum. I decided it best to quit at that time because they were going to ask me to help by advancing _only_ when they needed me as a backup. However, when I asked them to advance, they just said not interested. So too bad, had a better offer to advance elsewhere and their interest in me was clear.
I was shut down right when I inquired, and told that the company wanted some outside talent. Wow okay, even though my performance reviews were dazzling. So they hired two guys who had zero familiarity with the industry and zero familiarity with our stack. One had to be fired because he was insane and did nothing all day but try to be some motivational speaker in a technical role. I liked the other guy, but it was another person I had to explain stuff to when he had preconceived notions that were incorrect. He was cool, but HR/execs really screwed up the positioning.
There was a later time when they were going to have a leadership vacuum. I decided it best to quit at that time because they were going to ask me to help by advancing _only_ when they needed me as a backup. However, when I asked them to advance, they just said not interested. So too bad, had a better offer to advance elsewhere and their interest in me was clear.
> So too bad, had a better offer to advance elsewhere and their interest in me was clear.
"Their interest in me was clear."
Exactly this.
Enlightened and effective leadership would pair a "not this time" response with a series of career development meetings, resulting in a tailored path for advancement; not as detailed as "this job, then that job, then that," but informed enough to show the candidate that they were heard and valued.
An additional bone in the form of a small raise and or training would also be effective.
And of course the plan needs to be reviewed periodically and sincerely, for adjustments and progress on the part of both parties.
"Their interest in me was clear."
Exactly this.
Enlightened and effective leadership would pair a "not this time" response with a series of career development meetings, resulting in a tailored path for advancement; not as detailed as "this job, then that job, then that," but informed enough to show the candidate that they were heard and valued.
An additional bone in the form of a small raise and or training would also be effective.
And of course the plan needs to be reviewed periodically and sincerely, for adjustments and progress on the part of both parties.
Thanks! I really wish they would have put me through training. If I recall correctly they did do a special mid-year for me. That was because of the VP, who knew I was frustrated about the position and HR. That same VP got tired of the rest of the company’s crap, he threw in the towel, and that started the reorganization/leadership vacuum. I am glad I had a couple other options. The company lost a couple dozen good technologists in the span of the following year just because of their horrible organizational management.
I've applied for 6 various higher level roles after being with the company I'm at for 5 years and getting numerous high level ratings each year - I got non responses and even one "oh we've only posted this one for someone else" on all of them so far. Started looking externally because of that.
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.
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.
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 repeatedly sued for their focal procedure over several decades, and this was a known method for avoiding getting rid of people who didn't want to work 80 hours a week.
And thanks for mansplaining how management works. A "pyramid?" Wow, insightful, that never occurred to me after 30+ years. "Market value?" You don't say! I'm overwhelmed by your astute, 101-level observations of business practices. I guess you got that from the VP's you reported to, weirdflex but OK.
> 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 repeatedly sued for their focal procedure over several decades, and this was a known method for avoiding getting rid of people who didn't want to work 80 hours a week.
And thanks for mansplaining how management works. A "pyramid?" Wow, insightful, that never occurred to me after 30+ years. "Market value?" You don't say! I'm overwhelmed by your astute, 101-level observations of business practices. I guess you got that from the VP's you reported to, weirdflex but OK.
> mansplaining
No need to be sexist.
No need to be sexist.
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'.
As a someone who has done a lot of hiring: 'I know the type'.
You wrote a lot of stuff in response to one sentence, and seem to assume that if it triggered someone it must all be true.
Has it occurred to you that stereotypes tend to annoy people whether they are false or true?
Also, if you, off the cuff, evaluate someone you don't know at all as unsuitable for something, quite possibly they have information that tends to rule out your hypothesis, like that they were able to do in a different environment what wasn't possible in a previous one.
Has it occurred to you that stereotypes tend to annoy people whether they are false or true?
Also, if you, off the cuff, evaluate someone you don't know at all as unsuitable for something, quite possibly they have information that tends to rule out your hypothesis, like that they were able to do in a different environment what wasn't possible in a previous one.
Have a similar story: was working in a very toxic team and wanted to get out of it. They had openings in other teams but for new hires. I've applied anyway on one of those to either get in one or at least talk to somebody (my supervisor and his supervisors didn't want to talk to me at all). We'll I almost got fired. Jumped ship on first opportunity after that and never looked back.
> almost got fired
NLRB would be a good place to send a complaint in these situations.
NLRB would be a good place to send a complaint in these situations.
Yeah, as I wrote in another comment this happened to me too. Admittedly it was only a single position so my situation may not have been quite as bad, but it was a little frustrating not to get any response even though the role remained unfilled. I ended up leaving for an external position.
I had a similar thing -- I wanted to get out of powertrain controls software (engine code) and into the much more lucrative, much longer term AV/driver assistance space. I found a position in the research department, interviewed for it, got accepted and then was blocked by my manager (supervisor's supervisor). This was sold as a "we'll look out for opportunities in 6 months" which (surprise surprise) turned into 18 with no hope in sight and a bunch of ugly reorg on the horizon, so I bailed for a different automaker.
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.
> Telling an employee they have no opportunity for vertical growth in an org typically results in negative consequences.
This is totally it, putting a team member through rejection without giving them a growth plan and telling them you want them to succeed or grow basically gives them a map to the door
This is totally it, putting a team member through rejection without giving them a growth plan and telling them you want them to succeed or grow basically gives them a map to the door
"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.
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.
There are a few things here.
Primarily, job movement is motivated by the desire to get out of an existing job more often than by the desire for another position. So there's no surprise that candidates who apply internally are also applying externally due to some intrinsic dissatisfaction with the current role, and failing to find an internal transfer they take the external route.
A fraction of those looking to move, are looking because they are failing in their current role and they want to get out before a bad review/termination comes down on them. Candidates like this are much less likely to make it further in the process (eg manager interview) and more likely to just be rejected at the onset or not even be qualified for a transfer due to current performance. There's no surprise that people like this end up leaving the company most often.
Another one is ego - people often apply for positions they are wildly unqualified for because they don't actually understand the requirements (eg: a role may call for "senior stakeholder management" which means your ability to hold your own and build relationships with senior executives, but someone may not recognize that depth and think they can manage stakeholders because they have good rapport with their product manager.) When people get rejected from these roles, ideally they become aware of the qualification gap and work to close it, but it's easier to say "oh, the company doesn't appreciate me and my skills" and turn sour.
The point I am making here is that the internal transfer situation is laden with people who are either motivated to move somewhere and for one reason or another maybe shooting for roles they aren't going to get, which sets them up for an experience of rejection. Neither one of these things is good for retention.
Internal transfers are great (I probably had 10 jobs in one company I used to work in) but it's an inherently tricky situation to navigate. Often, people gripe about "oh, they just wanted to hire someone from the outside" without recognizing the skills/experience/perspective the outside hire brings in.
Primarily, job movement is motivated by the desire to get out of an existing job more often than by the desire for another position. So there's no surprise that candidates who apply internally are also applying externally due to some intrinsic dissatisfaction with the current role, and failing to find an internal transfer they take the external route.
A fraction of those looking to move, are looking because they are failing in their current role and they want to get out before a bad review/termination comes down on them. Candidates like this are much less likely to make it further in the process (eg manager interview) and more likely to just be rejected at the onset or not even be qualified for a transfer due to current performance. There's no surprise that people like this end up leaving the company most often.
Another one is ego - people often apply for positions they are wildly unqualified for because they don't actually understand the requirements (eg: a role may call for "senior stakeholder management" which means your ability to hold your own and build relationships with senior executives, but someone may not recognize that depth and think they can manage stakeholders because they have good rapport with their product manager.) When people get rejected from these roles, ideally they become aware of the qualification gap and work to close it, but it's easier to say "oh, the company doesn't appreciate me and my skills" and turn sour.
The point I am making here is that the internal transfer situation is laden with people who are either motivated to move somewhere and for one reason or another maybe shooting for roles they aren't going to get, which sets them up for an experience of rejection. Neither one of these things is good for retention.
Internal transfers are great (I probably had 10 jobs in one company I used to work in) but it's an inherently tricky situation to navigate. Often, people gripe about "oh, they just wanted to hire someone from the outside" without recognizing the skills/experience/perspective the outside hire brings in.
Early in my career I worked for a small company that was acquired by an obnoxiously large megacorp (about 40k employees). The business unit we were merged into was run by a retired Army general. His divisions beneath him were run by retired Colonels and so on down the line until they got to former Captains, Lieutenants, and if no other choice former enlisted.
Over a year or two what started to happen was when former small-corp people came up for promotion, they were evaluated for former military service, and then if they didn't have any (the majority of the company) they were silently rejected for promotion and another person from either big-corp or outside were brought in who just happened to fit precisely into this giant chain of command under "the general".
To get even more ridiculous, in some cases extremely experienced and capable former small-corp managers were replaced by "a guy I knew from officer's school" who turned out to be a failed JAG officer (military lawyer) -- as one of many examples. In another case a technical software manager was replaced with a former helicopter pilot with a (previously known) very bad drinking problem and never showed up to work but who "had served together in Bosnia".
Still I worked hard there and sort of didn't believe the situation and there were other working benefits I enjoyed (lots of travel). When it came time for my own promotion my boss (former Senior enlisted) set me up to replace him with no other candidates. I was turned down and for lack of another candidate they selected a former Jr. enlisted who had been dishonorably discharged, had active ethics investigations against him in the company, and spent most of his work days surfing Facebook. Oh, when he got the position they also gave him a corporate award for work that I and my team had done.
Lesson learned, I resigned the next day. Now I look for these kind of mindless institutional hierarchies as red flags to either not take a job or to move on quickly once I discover it.
Over a year or two what started to happen was when former small-corp people came up for promotion, they were evaluated for former military service, and then if they didn't have any (the majority of the company) they were silently rejected for promotion and another person from either big-corp or outside were brought in who just happened to fit precisely into this giant chain of command under "the general".
To get even more ridiculous, in some cases extremely experienced and capable former small-corp managers were replaced by "a guy I knew from officer's school" who turned out to be a failed JAG officer (military lawyer) -- as one of many examples. In another case a technical software manager was replaced with a former helicopter pilot with a (previously known) very bad drinking problem and never showed up to work but who "had served together in Bosnia".
Still I worked hard there and sort of didn't believe the situation and there were other working benefits I enjoyed (lots of travel). When it came time for my own promotion my boss (former Senior enlisted) set me up to replace him with no other candidates. I was turned down and for lack of another candidate they selected a former Jr. enlisted who had been dishonorably discharged, had active ethics investigations against him in the company, and spent most of his work days surfing Facebook. Oh, when he got the position they also gave him a corporate award for work that I and my team had done.
Lesson learned, I resigned the next day. Now I look for these kind of mindless institutional hierarchies as red flags to either not take a job or to move on quickly once I discover it.
Seems like a good company to name and shame.
I can certainly relate to this. I spoke with the hiring manager of a new role for which I ticked all the boxes in terms of the sort of skills and qualifications needed. I'm talking years of relevant experience with the hiring manager agreeing I was more or less perfect for the role. Except one thing, the role was posted at a higher level than I currently was and they just weren't willing to expend the political capital needed to sidestep that. I mean he was nice enough about it and offered to talk again in a couple months once they had more headcount at lower levels but the annoying thing was, if I was an external candidate that wouldn't have been a problem. In any case, I quit shortly afterwards and found a new role elsewhere.
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!
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 candidate.
> 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.
That is surprising to me. I'd expect that your peer getting a promotion over you drives a lot more people to leave than someone external being hired for that position.
Psychologically, I think I understand. Selecting a peer over you means they were slightly more qualified than you, it could happen to anybody. Selecting an outsider means you weren't even remotely considered. And if they aren't seeing you and your contributions maybe another organization might.
I can understand this. The last time I didn't get a promotion, I saw the coworker that got it and thought, "Yeah, that makes sense, she's great for that role and more experienced than I am." I didn't feel slighted the same way I may have been if it were someone completely new.
As an employee, this signals to me that I'm not ready for the better position.
Given how often you are also routed to the same application process as externals and the effort required to fill out those applications you may as well apply elsewhere too.
This is me!!!
I applied for a product manager job in March of 2020 as a transition from engineering.
The hiring committee approved hiring me on March 9, 2020. They were gonna make an offer the following Monday, March 16. However, that Wednesday was March 11. I decided to work from home because I was spooked by COVID-19. We were all told to WFH at end of business that day.
The role ended up being eliminated on March 16 instead.
It wasn't a personal factor, but goddamn I was salty about it. Getting denied that internal transfer, even though it had nothing to do with me, really soured my feelings on that company. That plus the feeling of not having any more interesting advancement opportunities in my existing role were big factors in why I left.
I applied for a product manager job in March of 2020 as a transition from engineering.
The hiring committee approved hiring me on March 9, 2020. They were gonna make an offer the following Monday, March 16. However, that Wednesday was March 11. I decided to work from home because I was spooked by COVID-19. We were all told to WFH at end of business that day.
The role ended up being eliminated on March 16 instead.
It wasn't a personal factor, but goddamn I was salty about it. Getting denied that internal transfer, even though it had nothing to do with me, really soured my feelings on that company. That plus the feeling of not having any more interesting advancement opportunities in my existing role were big factors in why I left.
Sometimes 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.
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.
> 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."
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.
Internal job transfers are always rife with politics.
> 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.
It makes sense, if the candidate is interviewed + rejected they know there is no upward mobility for them in the company. The next logical step is to look for employment elsewhere that may offer upward mobility.
It makes sense, if the candidate is interviewed + rejected they know there is no upward mobility for them in the company. The next logical step is to look for employment elsewhere that may offer upward mobility.
Opposite. If they are interviewed then they know they are being considered. Further, they are less likely to leave if an internal candidate is selected. The article opines this is because employees will then believe that future hires might also be internal, whereas an external hire signals broader competition for a role.
I have always given the advice to everyone I meet "Move up or move on". You should not work at a company more than a few years before you are either promoted or become highly compensated for your position. Far too many of my peers have become stagnant working at a company for 6+ years without moving up. They make less and miss out on the opportunity to make more money and expand their skills elsewhere.
If you apply for an internal position you are qualified for and get denied it's time to start looking, you do not have a future at that company.
If you apply for an internal position you are qualified for and get denied it's time to start looking, you do not have a future at that company.
Maybe your peers are content, not stagnant? Constantly moving up or moving on sounds highly stressful. If you like your job and can live comfortably with your salary, why not stay there? I can only see that it would be an issue if you're stuck working with some ancient technology and don't have other marketable skills.
I think this is pretty good advice. I think about if I should move on as two parts.
1. Am I learning? Improving Skills? Gaining Insight? Working with Interesting People/Problems?
2. Am I getting paid enough for the value I provide?
The best positions have both, but it's not always that simple. I can forgo 2 for a time if 1 is really happening because in the end, the skills will eventually lead to better prospects. I also can do a boring not as growing job if it pays well. I think people get stuck though after all their learning and skill building and the friction of finding something new stops them. (I know from experience, its a lot of effort to switch things up)
1. Am I learning? Improving Skills? Gaining Insight? Working with Interesting People/Problems?
2. Am I getting paid enough for the value I provide?
The best positions have both, but it's not always that simple. I can forgo 2 for a time if 1 is really happening because in the end, the skills will eventually lead to better prospects. I also can do a boring not as growing job if it pays well. I think people get stuck though after all their learning and skill building and the friction of finding something new stops them. (I know from experience, its a lot of effort to switch things up)
Context is important though. For instance, developers applying for management position with no management experience. In other words just because they work at a company does not mean they are qualified for the position there (or elsewhere). Those people would likely quit out of resentment.
I think in many cases people think they deserve a promotion based on seniority—but they don’t show signs of going above-and-beyond. Simply working somewhere longer does NOT warrant any merit increase in my mind. Doing extra things to help the company in ways beyond ones role deserves merit increase/promotion.
I’d argue more times than not, folks consider time-spent on the job a sole factor in guaranteeing that promotion.
For instance, someone new might join a company and have a skill set above and beyond folks who have 2+ years of seniority. That new employee might demonstrate exceeding merit in two months of employment—and in my mind, the new hire should get the promotion.
Granted, that’s comparing two employees who work at a company already. I suppose in the interview process it would be based on fact (existing employee) versus word of reference and how well the new hire sells their abilities.
And that’s why I’m not in management because I’d rather not have to deal with making those decisions!
I think in many cases people think they deserve a promotion based on seniority—but they don’t show signs of going above-and-beyond. Simply working somewhere longer does NOT warrant any merit increase in my mind. Doing extra things to help the company in ways beyond ones role deserves merit increase/promotion.
I’d argue more times than not, folks consider time-spent on the job a sole factor in guaranteeing that promotion.
For instance, someone new might join a company and have a skill set above and beyond folks who have 2+ years of seniority. That new employee might demonstrate exceeding merit in two months of employment—and in my mind, the new hire should get the promotion.
Granted, that’s comparing two employees who work at a company already. I suppose in the interview process it would be based on fact (existing employee) versus word of reference and how well the new hire sells their abilities.
And that’s why I’m not in management because I’d rather not have to deal with making those decisions!
[deleted]
There are two very useful points:
> 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. reply
> 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.
I guess the translation is:
- try to give feedback to your employees (even if you reject them)
- try to promote internally (even rejected internal candidates are less likely to leave)
> 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. reply
> 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.
I guess the translation is:
- try to give feedback to your employees (even if you reject them)
- try to promote internally (even rejected internal candidates are less likely to leave)
That first point seems really important. Like "I don't rate enough to get time with the hiring manager, even though I already work here?"
If you can't allow people that, you would at least need to make sure the message back to them didn't come off the wrong way.
If you can't allow people that, you would at least need to make sure the message back to them didn't come off the wrong way.
Are there any meaningful career advantages to focusing on internal roles over all roles?
The standards seem higher, you have to overcome your flaws and mistakes (rather than just hide them), you need to get your manager to get over his first impressions and think about you differently, you have to fight for a raise other companies will throw at you, etc.
Other than stock and maybe a pension, why is sticking in the company so important to people?
The standards seem higher, you have to overcome your flaws and mistakes (rather than just hide them), you need to get your manager to get over his first impressions and think about you differently, you have to fight for a raise other companies will throw at you, etc.
Other than stock and maybe a pension, why is sticking in the company so important to people?
It really depends on the company culture. Yeah if the standards are higher, and your manager will give you a hard time over it, and you have to fight for a raise, it looks terrible.
If the company has lower standards for internal hires, and tells managers to expect and encourage internal mobility among their reports, and gives raises and salary transparency (i.e. you're a level 2 engineer, this is the range that we pay level 2 engineers, and you're in the Xth percentile), internal mobility looks awesome.
While there are some inherent advantages (location and benefits consistency), you're right that many companies try to price those advantages in or worse, and it's often a bad deal. It's up to the company not to do that
If the company has lower standards for internal hires, and tells managers to expect and encourage internal mobility among their reports, and gives raises and salary transparency (i.e. you're a level 2 engineer, this is the range that we pay level 2 engineers, and you're in the Xth percentile), internal mobility looks awesome.
While there are some inherent advantages (location and benefits consistency), you're right that many companies try to price those advantages in or worse, and it's often a bad deal. It's up to the company not to do that
So I don't have to move, make new relationships, make my kids change schools, tons of reasons.
Often people are following other "rising stars". In larger companies, as managers ascend to more significant roles, a set of trusted "loyalists" is very valuable as you move up.
In those cases you can move as fast as the "rising star" and not deal with the massive chaos/uncertainty of switching jobs.
Every new job is a sea of uncertainty: you don't know underlying power structures, and for techies, your technical ability is strongly constrained by the intricacies/NIH nature of build systems, frameworks used, libraries, and existing code bases.
In those cases you can move as fast as the "rising star" and not deal with the massive chaos/uncertainty of switching jobs.
Every new job is a sea of uncertainty: you don't know underlying power structures, and for techies, your technical ability is strongly constrained by the intricacies/NIH nature of build systems, frameworks used, libraries, and existing code bases.
These are good points, and maybe people don’t always consider them enough. But I guess on the positive side, with an internal move you usually have a clearer idea of what it will really be like to do the job, and that may be worth a lot.
>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.
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.
Internal Job applications suck. 90% of the time you're routed to the same application systems as external applicants and you then need to fill out the whole application, upload resumes, etc. If I have to do all that why not just apply elsewhere?
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 like the headline could be overstated depending on the magnitude of the probabilities.
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 like the headline could be overstated depending on the magnitude of the probabilities.
or 60% turning into 120% proobability
guess we'll never know
guess we'll never know
"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?
So, basically, a internal candidate passed over for an internal candidate is no more likely to quit?
I think still likely to quit, just less likely.
I believe based on the rest of the study that people who are attempting to transfer internally care about the team/company/work area but want the mobility and if you hire external candidates they don't believe they will have a chance at other roles either (which they perceive will be biased toward external candidates as well)
I believe based on the rest of the study that people who are attempting to transfer internally care about the team/company/work area but want the mobility and if you hire external candidates they don't believe they will have a chance at other roles either (which they perceive will be biased toward external candidates as well)
[deleted]
Make sense. If you want to grow and your company doesn't give you any opportunities it's best to look elsewhere, so not surprised by this.
But that's not the implication of the study itself, or at least it's not at all obvious. That would be the implication strictly from the headline and a lot of people are making comments that suggest that they only read the headline or perhaps the first two sentences.
The study itself shows that if the company hires someone else from within the organization, the effect disappears. So at very least from the data one can't immediately conclude what you assumed.
The study itself shows that if the company hires someone else from within the organization, the effect disappears. So at very least from the data one can't immediately conclude what you assumed.
That makes sense as you see the possibility of being next in-line. If they hire externally they will never promote you. If they interview you and pass they will never promote you.
With external candidates if you interviewed somewhere and they rejected do you ever really apply again? I wouldn't.. maybe if I'm trying to get into google perhaps but never for a typical company.
The effect works for both internal and external candidates.
With external candidates if you interviewed somewhere and they rejected do you ever really apply again? I wouldn't.. maybe if I'm trying to get into google perhaps but never for a typical company.
The effect works for both internal and external candidates.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Correct. Perhaps the study addresses this somehow, but I'm not paying 30 bucks to find out there was no causal analysis.
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
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.
Yeah, a few months ago I wanted to apply for a position in what the firm called its "science" function -- data science with more machine learning (and more PhDs). I even reached out to someone on that side and got some encouraging feedback. It matched up well with my experience and career goals.
But when I applied, I got nothing. Absolute radio silence, while the role just sat there unfilled for weeks. They couldn't at least have shot me an email that I'm not a good fit?
But when I applied, I got nothing. Absolute radio silence, while the role just sat there unfilled for weeks. They couldn't at least have shot me an email that I'm not a good fit?
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.
Essentially, 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.
I was rejected internally once, so I got the job I wanted at another company a few months later. There's not much to it.
I got internally promoted once and they straight up told me the job was only posted for compliance reasons(externally) and to appear fair(internally).
The interview was not even an interview, it was a handshake and broadcasting the salary and start date, no less no more. They just asked do you want it or not. I took it, was one of the greatest opportunities ever.
Contrasting that, I had applied internally in other companies Only to go though a ridiculous interview , almost a history masters on the subject matter to be told the decision was already made and they wanted to interview all.
Corporate life is weird.
Another thing I have experienced was i was offered a job on the spot from a company , took it but then later told them I will not start, then i have seen the same company offering the same job, just in a different location, applied for fun, they rejected me.
Contrasting that, I had applied internally in other companies Only to go though a ridiculous interview , almost a history masters on the subject matter to be told the decision was already made and they wanted to interview all.
Corporate life is weird.
Another thing I have experienced was i was offered a job on the spot from a company , took it but then later told them I will not start, then i have seen the same company offering the same job, just in a different location, applied for fun, they rejected me.
> Another thing I have experienced was i was offered a job on the spot from a company , took it but then later told them I will not start, then i have seen the same company offering the same job, just in a different location, applied for fun, they rejected me.
Tech interviews have such a high degree of random in them.
Tech interviews have such a high degree of random in them.
If you are unhappy with your current team or role, you are likely going to look for another opportunity. The difficulty of getting into another team within the same company is lower than getting into another brand new company.
If the interview does not go well, then the next step is to look outside.
If the interview does not go well, then the next step is to look outside.
Getting rejected once or twice shouldn't really be a problem, unless you've worked/filled in for that position specifically (and with good results), or your competition happens to be exceptionally good.
But if it turns out to be a pattern, then it's time to move on.
But if it turns out to be a pattern, then it's time to move on.
I applied for an internal transfer to product management at a FAANG after a part time rotation for 6 months and interview prepping with PMs throughout. I was rejected without any feedback and told to find a full time 6 month rotation before trying again. But convincing your manager to pay for you when you won’t be doing your job for 6 months is a very difficult sell. And there’s no guarantee you will get the job if your performance is strong since you still need to pass the interviews.
I applied out and had multiple offers a couple months later. It’s a shame really, wanted to stay and felt I had a lot more to contribute and learn but was concerned that I would just stagnate in the interim.
I applied out and had multiple offers a couple months later. It’s a shame really, wanted to stay and felt I had a lot more to contribute and learn but was concerned that I would just stagnate in the interim.
> 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.
> 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.
Not sure where the headline comes from - it does not summarize the two main findings listed in the article.
Some elaboration: The likelihood of leaving depends on whether or not they were given an interview for the position. If they were given an interview, the headline is not accurate.
> 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.
Not sure where the headline comes from - it does not summarize the two main findings listed in the article.
Some elaboration: The likelihood of leaving depends on whether or not they were given an interview for the position. If they were given an interview, the headline is not accurate.
Water is wet.
If you are looking to change your current position, you are looking to shake things up (tech, co-workers, mgmt, salary, role scope, etc)
If you are looking for new role within org you are probably looking for it outside of org too.
If you are looking to change your current position, you are looking to shake things up (tech, co-workers, mgmt, salary, role scope, etc)
If you are looking for new role within org you are probably looking for it outside of org too.
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.
I was working for a FAANG company and had negotiated internally with another department for a job which I would have been perfect for.
My management chain veto’d the transfer, which was the day I decided to quit. I started looking for opportunities outside that company, and within six months had moved on to a job with significantly more responsibility than my original or other routes within the FAANG.
Companies that prevent internal transfer turn them into external transfers.
My management chain veto’d the transfer, which was the day I decided to quit. I started looking for opportunities outside that company, and within six months had moved on to a job with significantly more responsibility than my original or other routes within the FAANG.
Companies that prevent internal transfer turn them into external transfers.
I’ve seen a lot of job postings for a team lead developer, and I’ve always wondered why those positions wouldn’t be filled internally by default. I would never want to be in charge of a team whose project and code I had literally never seen before! How could you make any sort of decision without knowing the first thing about the technology or infrastructure?
I once interviewed an internal candidate who failed my interview miserably. I am not a manager, I am an engineer. In the coming months, whenever I saw her walk by me in the hallways, she would put her head down or not look at me. A few months later, I learned that she had quit. I felt quite bad about this although it was not my fault really.
ITT: People complaining that they only hire internally and job posting are a scam AND people complaining that they only hire externally because they have more control.
well, 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.
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.
it's entirely possible that my experience just doesn't mean anything in a big org, i should add: the different groups at microsoft or whatever seem to basically be different companies entirely, so at that scale i have no idea what i'd think about this.
> the different groups at microsoft or whatever seem to basically be different companies entirely
That's fairly typical of any large company.
But that's also mean that you are not shown the door by being rejected internally because you are as unknown as an external candidate, and the fact that you are an internal candidate won't make any difference. In fact, depending on company politics, being an internal candidate may even be a disadvantage.
That's fairly typical of any large company.
But that's also mean that you are not shown the door by being rejected internally because you are as unknown as an external candidate, and the fact that you are an internal candidate won't make any difference. In fact, depending on company politics, being an internal candidate may even be a disadvantage.
Yeah, my (very frank and helpful!) internal career counselor told me, whatever the CEO and promotional materials from HR say, be prepared for moving between groups to be much harder than moving within one, there will be bad blood afterwards, especially with how uncertain hiring was due to covid (18 months ago). If I transferred across the company, that would fulfill that groups req, without guaranteeing that the group I left would get one (since a non-official hiring freeze was in place). When I quit that job I noticed they started hiring for my position like 4 months later, so it did take them a while to get a req.
>In fact depending on company politics, being an internal candidate may even be a disadvantage.
tangentially also true in universities: there are unis that traditionally disfavor undergraduate alums from matriculation to graduate programs. "We taught you enough our way, go learn how to think differently somewhere else!"
tangentially also true in universities: there are unis that traditionally disfavor undergraduate alums from matriculation to graduate programs. "We taught you enough our way, go learn how to think differently somewhere else!"
I have been in the position of interviewing (though not hiring) internal applicants, and I certainly never regarded it oioe that. Its reaooy no different than regular hiring, where everyone is probably okay and we somewhat arbitrarily try to decide who is best.
Eg. If we have 5 internal aplocants for one position, 4 people are going to be rejected. And we certainly did not have contact with their previous team. Actualoy their managee might not even know they were trying to transfer.
Eg. If we have 5 internal aplocants for one position, 4 people are going to be rejected. And we certainly did not have contact with their previous team. Actualoy their managee might not even know they were trying to transfer.
That's probably an intentional outcome in some cases.
Yeah, this is win-win, isn't it? Both sides want something else, and move along.
When you apply for the next higher manager job, don't get it and end up being managed by your rivals, it takes much reflection to suck it up.
Makes total sense: the use of choice to move implies some sort of a mismatch. If not resolved, the worker will elect to use choice to quit.
I wonder if internal rejection should be seen as similar to being put on a PIP: a drawn out layoff.
[deleted]
Interesting but is this surprising? I imagine a good portion of those looking for an internal transfer are yearning for a change; once rejected internally, the only place to look is beyond your current company...
Surprising-ness is a not a good metric to measure social/psychological science research by.
Often a statement and its opposite can be intuitive.
If the opposite result was stated here one could have easily come up with many "intuitive" explanations.
If the opposite result was stated here one could have easily come up with many "intuitive" explanations.
Happened to me as well. I knew the guy who got the job. Not qualified. So I left because I felt very offended.
The moon is made of cheese
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.