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
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.
Latest Answers