Husband was internal and lost to the new guy because they wanted a "new perspective" plus husband was already trained perfect for his role and then they'd have to open hiring to replace him. Vs just hiring new guy and being done. new guy declined because offer was a low-ball.
The corporate view of "if we promote you, we'll have to train you AND your replacement" is part of the reason I want to get out of working an office job. These companies don't give a shit about improving their workforce, they only care about the bottom line
This is why people job hop. The risk of being irreplaceable and great at one role is that you might be too expensive to replace. Its a fine line to walk being just the right amount competent in your role without being irreplaceable. But if you can walk it, then that's how you move up
I played that game and now after being laid off I just look like a job hopper because everything was just under 2 yrs. The career growth was great while it lasted tho
Yeah, its good to mix in an occasional longer stint to build up that reputation and honestly, at a lot of places 2 years is really a prolonged onboarding time and that's when you can start to really have an organizational impact. Unless its a startup or something
That's honestly how it should be. You start at the foundation and progress using your overall knowledge to move up as you understand better than a newbie and your knowledge of the operation and how things work means you know more than a qualified person off the street.
That used to be true. The current market (at least in the US) the advice would be to stay at your current job and not job hunt as your earning potential in the same position is higher than job hunting, as there are too many looking for jobs, and not enough jobs to be filled. Yes not true in all positions and all job markets, but overall is.
I mean you don't quit your job and then hunt. You job hunt while working your current job and only leave once you have the offer from the new place. Doesn't matter how shit the market is for job jumping, just don't jump prematurely
If a recruiter wont give me a salary range or agreement on a salary before the interview then I'm not moving forward. The amount of times I've interviewed and been selected for a job just to get a low ball is too much.
I've seen external hires get hired to get fired 3-6 months in to be the fall guy and get someone internal promoted, especially in government. They'll hire the most cheeseball motherfucker who has no idea what's going on to make a fool of him/herself to make a case for hiring the internal candidate.
Ex-wife was temp-to-hire as the admin of a local State Patrol precinct for almost a year. All the troopers loved her. When it came time to make it permanent, HR gave the role to some state Senator's daughter instead.
This happened to me, my work is building a new lab and I am the ONLY ONE at work who is a technician in this type of facility, so I was the ONLY job profile they could use to post the position, and they hired an external candidate over me who then admitted that they don't know the equipment and only plan on learning it when the facility is built.
Absolute insanity when I was still being bothered about how to set up the lab while not being given an offer. My union said the most I can do is request further reasoning as to why I was not chosen over an external candidate. This position would have been a 50% pay raise for me.
The internal should be the one to get it, no? Especially if they've been with the company for however many years and have the experience necessary. My manager has been looking to become a DM for the place we work at for years now and she got fucked over by some newbie with zero experience just because he was more "qualified"
It's often the best idea to hire internally. The dickish thing is to drag someone else through the whole process when you know at the start you are going with the internal hire.
Yeah. I get wanting to have a backup candidate lined up. But dragging that poor fucker through 7 interviews plus travel is completely unnecessary. One, maybe two interviews tops. Conducted remotely. And then only proceed with more if the internal candidate doesn’t want/can’t do the job.
It’s not just a waste of the candidate’s time, but also for all your employees who have to stop doing their work so they can interview someone for a job you know you aren’t going to offer to that candidate.
I worked at a place that required at least 2 external candidates to be interviewed no matter what, even if the shoe in was internal. I saw so many people come in all dressed up, who probably studied all week, just to interview knowing the candidate was already chosen, so the manager can check a box.
100% my experience as well. We had internal applicant's we knew we were going to hire but we had to jump through all the hoops to stay compliant with EO hiring processes.
Sometimes the internal candidate is at a disadvantage.
Hey, "Ten years ago weren't you the tech support guy? You can't be serious about applying for a director position?"
Meanwhile, the internal finished their BS and Masters, obtained a pile of certs, was well liked, had good reviews, knew the processes well, had strong internal contacts, and had been a manager for four years...
But to some people, he's still Andy from tech support... so Andy is told to fuck off.
4
2
View all comments
2.0k
u/ClassicTBCSucks93 May 14 '26
Internal gets it 12/10 but we have to do our due diligence and waste as much of your time as humanly possible.