Every company I’ve worked at seems to have a bias towards hiring externally rather than internally.
I’ve worked with some exceptional performers but the company still preferred to hire externally.
Is there reason for this that is kept quiet?
In: Other
I’ve seen this on many subs but what does bortaggen mean?
Number of external applicants is greater. More choice
Not all companies are like this though, as external recruitment can be an expensive and risky process.
There is the concept of promoting to failure. Basically you promote the best person in the subordinate job they may or may not be suited to the new job. People move up the corporate ladder until they hit the point they can no longer excel in their job. You end up people hitting their point of incompetence remaining in jobs when they would have input more to the business remaining at the lower level.
If you’re good, like your job, and you want a raise, go work somewhere else for a year and then come back.
There are advantage and disadvantages to both:
If you hire from the outside the person has to be trained up on the new company’s way of doing things. The person also has outside perspective to look at something the new company does and say “that’s stupid, we should do it differently”.
Hiring from the inside allows someone to be slotted in faster, but often that person has been gunnel visioned into that company’s way of doing things, so you don’t know if there are better (or different) ways of doing thing.
Because succession planning is almost never taken seriously. People work for years as a “deputy”, thinking they’ll move up while the decision makers know they won’t and will never tell them so because they want them to continue toiling away at the job they’re doing now.
Companies are amoral.
I’ve experienced the complete opposite in my job hunt over the past couple of months.
Extremely positive feedback but decided to go with an internal candidate
Hope. Hope that a complete unknown is better than a known imperfect. (This is what drives my particular organization.)
Many of these answers I agree with. But the one I’ve heard in the past from upper management is that it’s easier to replace a mediocre manager then an excellent technician/worker. Meaning for example if you are a bulldozer operator and know your machine and it’s operation in and out you are worth more to the company there then in a management position where you may not excel. Then the person they replace to operate that bulldozer is barely competent the company has taken a loss. So they would rather keep the good operator and hire a mediocre manager from outside.
I believe it’s law in at least some places in the US or mandated in some contracts to try to avoid nepotism/promoting favorites from within. I’ve also worked places where Union contracts said a company had to look within before looking outside the company.
Latest Answers