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
Maybe they don’t want to replace the good job you are currently doing. But I have wondered the same thing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Latest Answers