Recruiting Internally - Fair or Unfair?

BunnieJ

Hi everyone

As you may have seen on one of my previous threads, I had an interview a couple of weeks ago and was unsuccessful. I mentioned how odd the interview was (really short, quite casual considering the role, interviewer asked random question and didn't seem interested in my employment history etc...)

Since then I have found out that they had recruited internally from their office. Then it clicked why the interview was so odd. It was just a formality, the pretty much knew who was getting the job.

So my question is this:

Do you think it's fair that companies are made to recruit externally "for show" when they have already chosen somebody internally?

Andy_L

AFAIK the only companies "made" (ie by legal compulsion" are the Civil Service departments when recruiting for Senior Civil Service (the "Sir Humphry" level). The rest choose to do so.
IMO it makes sense to recruit externally at the same time as internally if you have a limited pool of internal candidates since it saves time & you might get a better external candidate

InsideInsurance

Outside of certain public bodies then companies arent "made" to. Now managers may be made to because HR Director or someone else above their pay grade has decided to make it a company policy but thats an internal choice for them.

Personally never worked anywhere which forces external advertising of jobs but have been in many places that do force all jobs to be advertised internally even if you know who you want (and they be internal or external)

BJV

No No absolutely not. It just wastes everyone's time if they have already decided to promote from within.


P.s sorry you did not get the job.

BunnieJ

Thanks BJV

I know not ALL companies are "made" to do this practice, but many do. In my current company they have an internal vacancies website, then they advertise with agencies/externally if they can't find a suitable candidate from inside the office. IMO I think that it's quite a fair way of recruiting.

I have another example of this kind of practice, when my brother got his first job. He was sent on a placement by the job centre (ridiculous scheme, but I'm not getting into that debate). He worked for a well known high street company for 8 weeks and was then offered a job. They told him he must apply trough their website the same as all other candidates as it was protocol. What was the point of advertising online to candidates when they had already offered my brother a position?

Makes no sense to me :-/

Carl31

If you go for a job and don't get it, move on, you will never know the true reason you didn't get it, and even if they did tell you, maybe its something you don't want to hear?

BunnieJ

I'm not really bothered. It just makes you think, doesn't it? So I thought I'd ask the question...

~Beanie~

It happened to me but I was the internal candidate.

I had been doing the job for 6 months anyway on a fixed-term contract. When the 6 months were up, the job was advertised internally and externally and I had to apply the same way as everyone else.

On interview day, they were running a bit behind and so there were 3 of us in the waiting area, when the other 2 candidates found out that I was doing the job already they both walkd out, saying that it was a waste of time them being there.

I did get the job as it happened but I wouldn't have been happy if I had been one of the other two, preparing and making time for an interview that they were not likely to get.

InsideInsurance

~Beanie~ wrote: »

It happened to me but I was the internal candidate.

I had been doing the job for 6 months anyway on a fixed-term contract. When the 6 months were up, the job was advertised internally and externally and I had to apply the same way as everyone else.

I had similar but had been on a secondment with the promise the job would become perm if it went well. During the 6 months the director that had promised this left and his former boss wouldnt allow the automatic job because it breached company rules and as a board member he couldnt be seen to do so despite me having it in writing and my boss, who'd taken over from the director who'd left, confirming this is what the agreement was.

This time they only advertised internally, they put it on the job board for the minimum time possible and pretty much made the required experience/ skills etc as hard as possible for anyone who wasnt in the job already to apply. I recall they only got half a dozen applicants other than me and only one other person had an interview.

My interview was a farce done by my boss and I used to get a much harder time at the quarterly performance reviews than I had in the interview and we used most of it to talk shop.

I'd have certainly been annoyed to be any of the other candidates who wasted their time applying and had to tell their line manager they were applying (the internal system automatically notified your boss) etc when in reality they were never contenders

On the plus point, this process took 3-4 months to sort out end to end but the company did back date the pay rise to the end of the 6 month secondment once the perm job was finally given

BunnieJ

That's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about ~Beanie~ :mad:

I would have been pretty p'd off it was me! They may have taken time off work, paid for transport, bought interview clothes etc. It's ridiculous!

Dizzy_Ditzy

the NHS is rife with it.

I've been on the receiving end of it, when three of us doing the same job had to apply for two jobs. I didn't get it because both positions had already been earmarked for the other two.

I've applied internally for jobs and got as far as interview, because I met the criteria and therefore had to be. As much as I'd like to, I can't just email when I see a job and ask if it's already a done deal because they have to tell me no.

I've also been on the interview panel for a done deal and felt that it was very unfair, because the person concerned was already lined up to work with someone else in the department.

So no, I don't think recruiting internally is fair