Rejected Internal Applicants Twice as Likely To Quit (cornell.edu) 66
Internal job applicants who face rejection are nearly twice as likely to leave their organizations than those who were either hired for an internal job or had not applied for a new job at all. From a report: According to new research from JR Keller, assistant professor of human resource studies at the ILR School, firms can systematically reduce the likelihood that rejected candidates will exit by being strategic when considering which employees are interviewed. In their paper, "Turned Down and Taking Off? Rejection and Turnover in Internal Talent Markets," published by the Academy of Management journal, Keller and co-author Kathryn Dlugos, M.S. '17, Ph.D. '20, assistant professor at Penn State University, analyzed more than 9,000 rejection experiences of employees at a Fortune 100 company over a five-year period.
"A key insight from our work is that employees do not only apply for jobs they want right now; they also apply to learn about what jobs are more or less likely to be available to them in the future," Keller said. "Even if they are rejected today, an employee is more likely to stick around when they feel they have a decent shot at advancing to a new job tomorrow." As such, employees pay close attention to two aspects of the hiring process to determine whether they are likely to move into a similar role in the future.
"A key insight from our work is that employees do not only apply for jobs they want right now; they also apply to learn about what jobs are more or less likely to be available to them in the future," Keller said. "Even if they are rejected today, an employee is more likely to stick around when they feel they have a decent shot at advancing to a new job tomorrow." As such, employees pay close attention to two aspects of the hiring process to determine whether they are likely to move into a similar role in the future.
Move up or move out (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't surprising to me at all. Many companies run on a "Move up or move out" business model. If you aren't moving up the ladder then you are probably holding job from a person that could be doing it for slightly less money than we are paying you.
Often at many companies, a promotion rejection IS intended to be viewed as a hint to move out.
Re:Move up or move out (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is absolutely insane, as technical competence absolutely does not translate to management competence. There are plenty of fantastic graybeards that would make lousy managers.
Which is why some companies have a Technical track as well as a Managerial track
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is absolutely insane, as technical competence absolutely does not translate to management competence. There are plenty of fantastic graybeards that would make lousy managers.
Which is why some companies have a Technical track as well as a Managerial track
A given division often only has room for a few principal engineers. Should they fire their dozens of senior SEs every couple of years, possibly losing 100+ years of experience at the company in the process?
Re:Move up or move out (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more and more convinced that a mandatory lobotomy is part of MBA studies.
Re: (Score:2)
If you leave them static, they will inevitably become a bureaucracy. Simply firing them every few years could be destructive, but the "Peter Principle" and its corollaries are a real problem in technology work.
Re: (Score:2)
Technical tracks typically don't work like that. You get promoted based on your level of technical expertise. You can have a basement office with no reports and all kinds of eccentricities and still hold a high technical level if you're a regarded expert in your field. Principal engineers are typically traditional managers who can straddle both sides.
Re: (Score:2)
Technical tracks typically don't work like that. You get promoted based on your level of technical expertise. You can have a basement office with no reports and all kinds of eccentricities and still hold a high technical level if you're a regarded expert in your field. Principal engineers are typically traditional managers who can straddle both sides.
Every organization I've been in over the past 25 years only allowed a small handful of such "master engineer without portfolio" types to exist. Sometimes they are called "platform architects", sometimes they are called "division software engineers", etc, but their number is generally capped. Once you hit senior SE or "tech lead" or whatever the highest technical IC rank is, you either move into management or hope one of those greybeards leave.
A lot of times these rarefied tech roles are held by engineers
Re: (Score:2)
Which is absolutely insane, as technical competence absolutely does not translate to management competence. There are plenty of fantastic graybeards that would make lousy managers.
Which is why some companies have a Technical track as well as a Managerial track
A given division often only has room for a few principal engineers. Should they fire their dozens of senior SEs every couple of years, possibly losing 100+ years of experience at the company in the process?
So how many CEOs do you see a company having? It sure sounds like the managerial track suffers from the same numbers issue as you are saying the technical track does.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is absolutely insane, as technical competence absolutely does not translate to management competence. There are plenty of fantastic graybeards that would make lousy managers.
Which is why some companies have a Technical track as well as a Managerial track
A given division often only has room for a few principal engineers. Should they fire their dozens of senior SEs every couple of years, possibly losing 100+ years of experience at the company in the process?
So how many CEOs do you see a company having? It sure sounds like the managerial track suffers from the same numbers issue as you are saying the technical track does.
They don't fire every VP if they don't become CEO after 2 years though, which is what "move up or move out" implies. That policy is usually only applied to us peons.
Also if you are a senior SE, there are probably only 2 or 3 "bespoke engineer" positions to move into on the technical track compared to probably a dozen or so team lead positions on the management track.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is absolutely insane, as technical competence absolutely does not translate to management competence. There are plenty of fantastic graybeards that would make lousy managers.
Which is why some companies have a Technical track as well as a Managerial track
The irony being in a number of cases they apply the same criteria, which makes no sense.
Imagine a process where you need other people in the organisation to vouch for you (been in such a place), when you are actually doing the magic behind the scenes, where few people get to notice you. You end up getting to point where your manger does all the arm waving about technical progress, while the system is working against you. Just easier to exit.
I left that choosing not to find another employer straight away, be
Re: (Score:2)
True, but most companies, unfortunately will not have the higher end technical track people be at the same level as the Managerial track.
Some companies feel the need that the managers pay must be more than all the employees who are "under them" so a high level architect may not get the raise because they would be paid more than their manager.
Also cases where the manager may step on the architects decisions and has all the authority and power to do so.
Re: Move up or move out (Score:2)
They should also have a Pay Me Double track.
Often the only way to earn a decent wages is to advance into positions that require less brainpower and have less real-world responsibility (i.e. Some Kind Of Lead), but are somehow better paid.
Re: (Score:2)
A company has to be big enough for senior technical staff to get the same payscale as even mid-level managerial staff. This is especially true in academia and non-profit workplaces. It's also true that gifted people in technology roles can profoundly irritate in other departments, focusing on the needed task rather than on the politics of negotiating with them. They may also be blocked from involvement in the negotiation, used by their own supervisors as scapegoats for unpopular technical demands. The resul
Re:Move up or move out (Score:5, Funny)
> technical competence absolutely does not translate to management competence
Which is weird, because management competence always translates to technical competence - signed, middle management.
lol
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny, but also true. It's really hard to be a competent technology manager, without being able to understand and do the work your people are doing.
I absolutely hate working for a CIO that doesn't know technology. It's a constant stream of "What about this product some salesman just told me was really great? Should we consider using this? He says it will make us much more productive (or secure or whatever). And worse, "Can you attend a one-hour demo with me, so this salesman can show us what he says
Re: (Score:2)
That word "competent" is a vital one. My colleagues and I have often been brought in to clean up the technical disaster of a poor performance by technology managers, who are also vulnerable to fads and misleading advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
That idea, also often suffers from the problem where there are too many bosses and not enough workers who can do the jobs.
Most organizations have a hierarchy organization business model, where there is a point where if you keep on getting promoted you have to end up in management. Vs a Grid structure where you have the ability to get promoted further and often at a higher rate than managers can.
For example for a software development company you can have programmers and other staff, that can get promoted in
Re: Move up or move out (Score:2)
That said, they are a lot of people who would actually be happy with the job that they have, and just get marit increases for doing good work, because they don't want to be the boss, or take on responsibility, they just want to do their job well and go home at the end of the day.
This.
I literally wrote that there should be a "Pay Me Double Track", in addition to a Technical and a Managerial track.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, they are a lot of people who would actually be happy with the job that they have, and just get marit increases for doing good work, because they don't want to be the boss, or take on responsibility, they just want to do their job well and go home at the end of the day.
This.
I literally wrote that there should be a "Pay Me Double Track", in addition to a Technical and a Managerial track.
I was kind of on the "Pay Me Triple Track". We had some weird issues at my work. Being a college environment, we had to employ as many women as possible, and get them promoted as quickly as possible.
We also had a promotion quota. So I was passed over several times because "We have to promote women first."
So I just asked if they wanted me to leave, and my supervisor blanched. So we arranged financial compensation instead.
It was awkward, as the women and some of the men wanted to know why I was paid so
Re: Move up or move out (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but a company that works according to the Peter Principle [wikipedia.org] is not going to last.
If your company works along these lines, get out while you are ahead. Because sooner or later, all your superiors will be utterly incompetent at their job. It's just how such a system works.
Re: (Score:2)
What's shortsighted is those people often have the tribal knowledge needed to avoid making the same mistakes over and over and over again.
It's such a common problem -
Re: (Score:2)
What's shortsighted is those people often have the tribal knowledge needed to avoid making the same mistakes over and over and over again.
Boy howdy, is that right. Which has some bearing on how many of us Old codgers get called in on Emergency re-hires. Somewhere along the line, a meme developed that if you are older, you are out of date and can't keep up, and don't know all the newfangled things the young folks bring to the table.
I remember when the millennials came into the workforce from college, they were shocked to find out I knew a lot more than they did about computers and software.
It's such a common problem - a company constantly keeps getting in trouble for making the same dumb errors like they never learn. Yet they did - then they force the guy who learned it the hard way out, and the new guy proceeds to make the same mistakes over and over again.
Efficient companies should know that making a mistake costs a lot of money, and pushing out the guy who costs more but avoids the mistake can be cheaper than making the mistake again. If you have to do a recall that costs millions of dollars, how many years would paying someone more who has the experience to avoid that mistake be that the recall was cheaper? Even if the person cost $100K a year more, a $1M recall would mean the person would hang around for over a decade before the recall was cheaper.
Alas, it's almost as if modern business only cares about the costs right now, and extraordinary costs aren't a factor.
I was lucky that I left on my own terms. Then I wen
Re: Move up or move out (Score:2)
only twice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A common question asked during the interview "Where do you see yourself in 5 years" however after you are working there for 5 years, they don't bother to evaluate that you got there, or are on your way, and will not ask you that question again.
Also I have found the technical experience to do a job well, is often rather quickly picked up and learned, especially if they are promoted from within, because they know the actors and personalities involved. So coming from the C++ Coding Unit, you may not have prac
captain obvious (Score:2)
News flash - people who don't like their current jobs (who are unable to switch to something else) more likely to quit.
Re:captain obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
studying the obvious is still a good idea.
Studying the obvious may sometimes be a good idea.
Reporting the obvious is never "news".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:captain obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost everyone gets bored with a specific job after at most 4-5 years. (I used to think K-5 teachers were an exception until I got to know a bunch of K-5 teachers). A person who applies for an internal job transfer is saying, I'm ready for something new but would like to keep using the firm-specific knowledge and skills I have developed for our mutual benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Great! I like my job to be "boring" and (mostly) predictable.
That's what my non-work hobbies / activities are for - intellectual stimulation.
You know what's not boring? The paychecks ;)
(so that I can do what I really want to do)
Re: (Score:2)
Not always.
New CIO brought in someone doing the same job as me, 25% higher pay. I heard he was creating another role for another friend, monitored the internal system. applied for it when it had its mandatory 'must be advertised internally' day.
He didn't even interview me, just a 20 minute chat about other stuff.
After my manager was prevented by 'the system' from giving me pay parity to the CIO's two friends, neither of whom had as broad responsibility as me (and one of whom was not operating anywhere close
ok but (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're applying to another position, you're likely looking for something you're not getting where you are. If the internal transfer is rejected before you even get to speaking with the hiring manager, the message seems pretty clear: you have no career path with this employer.
This is how many companies devolve into mediocrity. Anyone with any prospects eventually leaves for greener pastures or is poached away. There are groups and entire divisions that over time become nothing but folks who either have no where else to go, lack the ambition to go, or lack the confidence to take a chance on a new position.
This includes management, ESPEICALLY management.
Re: (Score:2)
the message seems pretty clear: you have no career path with this employer.
Critical thinking skills. The message is you don't have the career path you wanted. And it is implied that it is different than the one you were hired for. Promotions are usually offered, you don't have to apply for them.
Tom Wychowski is one but that Milton guy (Score:2)
Tom Wychowski is one but that Milton guy after one of them he burned an building down and skipped off to an place where there is no expedition treaty
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Which expedition did they require the treaty for?
Re: (Score:2)
Duh. (Score:2)
The headline should be
Willfully Angering Employees Increases Chances of Employees Quitting
Seriously, if you are stunting growth in your own employees then you should be expecting this.
Concept of employee development is gone (Score:2)
The concept of organizations as having an employee development function, and there being multiple paths and opportunities to grow and move over a period of time which existed through 1995 or so is essentially gone. Some orgs still hire entry level people and provide some development support for the first 5 years (although in some of those "support" = "here's the deep end of the pool; let me give you a push"). But almost all organizations today view themselves as associations of independent contractors who
Re: Concept of employee development is gone (Score:3)
Lots of large organizations offer growth opportunities to entry-level employees. The biggest factor working against internal promotions is the candidate's history versus the story/image the outside candidate creates to win a position.
The smallest mistake in the past can tank an internal candidate for ever. An outside candidate creates a resume, spins takes, and presents themselves as the perfect candidate without actual known history to back up their claims.
Internal candidates have more to overcome, it's un
Re: (Score:3)
I then talked to personnel and got a "you need a BA in Management to be a manager." With that, I took classes and bot my BA in Management. Then I got the real answer, They don't promote from within. The version they gave me was a lot longer, but that is what it meant. Needless to say, I was not long for that company after that.
Re: (Score:3)
One company that I worked for that had 12 manufacturing plants in the region was really good about this: they had an employee education support plan, and when an hourly or non-degreed employee completed a bachelor's degree they would work to find them an appropriate management job. And that job would be at another plant or division, so that they would have a fresh start as a professional employee without the potential burden of the former life. One of those guys went on to be company President (when there
Those two aspects... (Score:4, Interesting)
I would have added a brief quote of those two aspects to the executive summary, personally. Let's do that now, actually... from the article:
(First), Keller and Dlugos found that getting an interview signaled to candidates that they have many of the characteristics needed to move into the job. ...
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.
With that context in mind, the article's findings mesh quite well with my own experience: At one point in my career, I had been on a team for over a decade. The vast majority of that time, I worked under the same team lead, who then decided to move on. Nobody else still on the team at that point had anywhere close to my own seniority... and I needed a raise anyway, so I went ahead and asked the upline manager to consider appointing me as the new team lead. I figured, I was the obvious candidate, so this should be an easy win, right?
Not so much. I was passed over, without an interview, in favor of an external candidate. When I asked why they chose someone else, they said that it was because they wanted someone with "managerial experience."
I suppose I would have been fine with that answer... if the guy who got the job had any managerial experience. He really, really didn't.
After I left, I got calls from one of my former team mates every now and then with updates on how badly the ship was sinking. She even practically begged me to come back and help them out... but sadly, that prospect wasn't even remotely interesting to me, at that point.
The denouement of my little anecdote? Well, fast forward from there a couple of years, and I was the team lead at another company. Fast forward from that point another couple of years... I've moved on to yet another company, and now I never, ever want to be a team lead again. Turns out, upper management apparently loves yes men... and I just can't bring myself to be that kind of person. Who knows? Maybe that's the real reason that I was passed over, in that previous role.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed they do. I have a very similar story except I didn't leave my position, I just sucked it up and grumbled about it at home (this was during the last recession so jumping jobs wasn't a great idea). The guy who ended up getting the position wasn't a bad person, just a bad fit. He openly admitted that he was only taking it for the raise and had zero managerial experience (and a bit of a language barrier which didn't help). I was shocked t
Re: (Score:1)
Our team of 8 specialists got a new Director. The Director increased the team size to 18 layering in some structure. Many of the original 8 applied on the new job postings. We were certainly qualified. The Director had no intention of hiring internals (we did not know this) and this really pissed off a lot of us.
5 of the original 8 have left, I was the most recent.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of applies to me (Score:2)
Internal transfer - depends on your level? (Score:2)
In my experience, the higher up the "food chain" you are within an organisation, the fewer placements you will find for an Internal transfer and the harder it is.
A junior can move up the pecking order reasonably quickly in the right type of forward thinking organisation, but a senior will obviously find less opportunity.
Having been involved in the yearly shit-fest that is discussing who should get the performance rewards, it is always the higher levels that cause friction.
Most companies have a limited amoun
Re: (Score:2)
The remaining 20% are the type who will go out and learn new things on their own, just because, and put those new skills to work in the advancement of the company. They're the ones who go looking for problems in the company that nobody asked them to solve, and solve them. We can identify these people during the interview process, and rarely, one of those 80% will develop these behaviors spontaneously and get on the performance track, but it's pretty rare.
Either way, this 20% must be culled. Because they are rocking the boat, causing discontentment among the 80% and not marching in lock step with the wishes of mahogany row. Worse yet, they might interfere with one of the side deals that some manager or group of managers has put together with their incessant poking around and improving things.
Re: (Score:1)
The 20% are the ones that are getting the jobs done. The 80% lazy fucks are just that. Lazy fucks. You have to watch them and cajole them into doing work. If you don't then they will goof off. Pull up facebook or youtube all day. Some lazy fucks will even pull up slashdot and we can't have that.
Sounds passive-aggressive to me (Score:1)
Look at it this way: you're a middle manager. You've got someone working for you that you don't like no matter how good they are at their job. You know the statistics. They apply for an upgrade. You reject them knowing that there's a good chance they'll quit. The exit interview won't matter because HR doesn't work for the peon employee. It'll just be chalked up to disgruntlement. This isn't anything new, really. Make someone's work situation so miserable that they quit so you can hire a replacement
D & I is part of the problem (Score:2)
Easier to leave than to change departments (Score:1)