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
Good at one job doesn’t equate to good at another job of nominally more prestige. They’re probably looking to get someone right for the new position without sacrificing anyone already right for their current position.
Of course it all depends on the industry and the company culture. BS politics certainly can play a role. But there are logical reasons.
It depends on a lot of things like where the company is at in terms of growth and location. Hiring externally helps bring in new viewpoints that are sometimes not seen by those internationally. Internal hires are generally more used to how things are done because that is what they are comfortable with. External candidates will have experiences that are more relatable to future challenges because they have come from a place that has already delt with them and theoretically have a road map of how to navigate them.
If you hire someone outside to fill a position, you plug a hole and everything is fine.
If you promote someone to fill a position, you plug a hole, but cause another to be opened, which can then repeat this process at a lower level, sometimes several times.
If you hire someone outside, you only have to negotiate with and train 1 person.
If you promote someone, you now have to negotiate with and train 2+ people.
Basically, it is less work to hire externally on many people’s parts, so they gravitate more towards hiring them.
Any answer is bound to be a bit generalized. And every reason will have it’s promoters and detractors.
Promoting someone internally doesn’t automatically make someone qualified enough to perform in the new role. First, there is a risk that the promotion “doesn’t work” – now you have a situation where there is a gap to fill on top of someone not doing well in their new position. Second, looking outside allows a company to possibly hire someone with a proven record in the open position – less need to invest in training and possibly bringing some new ability to the organization as a whole.
In a rapidly growing company, hiring externally is also preferred sometimes. First, it possibly grows capability (mentioned earlier). Second many companies that started small hired for talent that may have been what the company needed then usually with a more generalist attitude and able to “get things done” possibly not in building systemic capability, specialized subject matter expertise or capable in management. As a company matures and grows, it typically needs more system oriented processes (consistent, scalable, appropriate checks/balances) and less outcome based processes (go for the diving catch, do what it takes) – all reasons to look outside.
I have had many conversations mentoring young professionals (especially technical/functional) that “management” is a profession not simply career progression. I usually suggest that they think really hard about what it takes to switch professions – what they like about what they’re doing now and what they will be facing as a manager. Money, responsibility, recognition and challenge are all reasons to aspire to management but it is not to their benefit to take on managerial responsibility and hate it from day one.
Maybe they don’t want to replace the good job you are currently doing. But I have wondered the same thing.
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.
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.
Hope. Hope that a complete unknown is better than a known imperfect. (This is what drives my particular organization.)
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
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.
Latest Answers