Nepotism in Dallas, have you seen it? (Atlanta, Post: home, costs)

[lh_newbie]

Originally Posted by Bjones1976

The response is a little vague and I don't want to misinterpret anything. So I'll ask.

Was she hired because she was a friend of a friend or because she was a friend of a friend and has the know-how for the job she was hired for?


Thanks for your repsponse.

She got the interview because she was a friend of a friend of the hiring manager, but was hired based on her know-how.

My point was that a lot of people also get into positions because who they know, but the original poster said that they were not qualified. There are a lot of qualified people in positions, also due to who they know.

Heck, I got my current job because my sales engineer at a previous company knew I was looking and passed my name to another client of his. Without that introduction, I most likely wouldn't have gotten the job.

[Bjones1976]

Your wife's situation is different. She was ultimatley qualified for the job, the fact that she knew someone only helped her to show her qualifications.


My issue is with people who are hired or hire people because their friends or because they know someone, not because they necessarily qualified. Networking and Nepotism are not the same thing and I wonder sometimes if people know the difference.

Originally Posted by lh_newbie

She got the interview because she was a friend of a friend of the hiring manager, but was hired based on her know-how.

My point was that a lot of people also get into positions because who they know, but the original poster said that they were not qualified. There are a lot of qualified people in positions, also due to who they know.

Heck, I got my current job because my sales engineer at a previous company knew I was looking and passed my name to another client of his. Without that introduction, I most likely wouldn't have gotten the job.

[momof2dfw]

Being an employer I can say most of it just might boil down to the fact the person/company looking to hire will hire someone they feel is trustworthy and reliable and train them IF they are told by people they respect the person is worth interviewing and possibly hiring. They hire the "friend" and then train them to do the job. Hiring someone that is a complete unknown even if they do have the qualifications can backfire if the person is unreliable, changes jobs often, etc. Then they have to start all over again (this is a VERY common problem). So after the HR person or manager has been hit w/ this problem a couple of times they are more than willing to hire someone that comes as a good reference and is capable and willing to learn the new skills required for the job.

[Bjones1976]

We aren't talking about people with a bad work history (that wouldn't make a person qualified to me)...what I got from what you said was this.

Your saying companies would rather (not you personally) hire the person they know but have to train, whether than hire the person they don't know and don't have to train, because they don't know them.

Originally Posted by momof2dfw

Being an employer I can say most of it just might boil down to the fact the person/company looking to hire will hire someone they feel is trustworthy and reliable and train them IF they are told by people they respect the person is worth interviewing and possibly hiring. They hire the "friend" and then train them to do the job. Hiring someone that is a complete unknown even if they do have the qualifications can backfire if the person is unreliable, changes jobs often, etc. Then they have to start all over again (this is a VERY common problem). So after the HR person or manager has been hit w/ this problem a couple of times they are more than willing to hire someone that comes as a good reference and is capable and willing to learn the new skills required for the job.

[lh_newbie]

Originally Posted by Bjones1976

We aren't talking about people with a bad work history (that wouldn't make a person qualified to me)...what I got from what you said was this.

Your saying companies would rather (not you personally) hire the person they know but have to train, whether than hire the person they don't know and don't have to train, because they don't know them.

You've dismissed two of the people's responses on how some "friends" get hired. What do you want us to say? We like hiring incompetent friends because we like to give our friends our company's money?

[momof2dfw]

Originally Posted by Bjones1976

We aren't talking about people with a bad work history (that wouldn't make a person qualified to me)...what I got from what you said was this.

Your saying companies would rather (not you personally) hire the person they know but have to train, whether than hire the person they don't know and don't have to train, because they don't know them.

How does a total stranger REALLY KNOW a perspective employees work history? We can call their past employers only if they give permission and then they can't really say much. About the only question they can answer is, "are they eligible for rehire?" Someone could still be eligible for rehire but have had a terrible work ethic by calling in sick often, being late, etc. The past employer can not say, "oh man, they were late every single day that they did show up for work." The past employer has to tip-toe thru this process in order to avoid a potential lawsuit. This is why so many companies have really gotten away from even bothering to check out past employment. Same goes for even "professional" and "friend" references. No one in their right mind will put down someone that will say something to disqualify them. The future employer does not know these references personally either. When you hire someone and come to find out they are not all they were cracked up to be even if they are "qualified" for the job and you have to start the process all over again it does get frustrating. Posting job openings is not cheap not to mention the costs of any type of training, shifting workloads to cover the empty position, etc

I'm not saying that the person doing the hiring has to know the person but they could get their name from a very good reliable source they are acquainted with. Getting "burned" a couple of times makes it much easier to not even post the job and just get it out by word of mouth to those that you can trust. When we were hiring for one position a few years ago this is how we ended up w/ the person we hired and still have in that position. I mentioned it to a friend that told me about a good friend of hers and how great she was. I got her name and told my friend to have her call and come in. She has worked out PERFECTLY!!!! Every single one of the other candidates were kind of just flinging around and not taking anything serious and surely would not have lasted much more than a year if that long.

Another tactic that is common are companies hiring people that already have a job but they are connected w/ them in some way thru their daily dealings at work. We have lost several employees this way and not one of them was looking for a job. They were noticed for their hardwork and dedication by companies we dealt w/ that were looking to hire. We have done the same thing ourselves. It just happens. We want dependable people to do the jobs that they are required to do. I'd rather hire someone that I have some experience w/ and KNOW that they are reliable and trainable. I've had enough of hiring people that I had not one clue of who they were and within a week or a few months they are not what they said they were and if they don't leave on their own we have let them go and started looking all over again. Chances are that person will not put down that job on their next application/resume so the next employer will most likely not be calling.

[momof2dfw]

Originally Posted by lh_newbie

You've dismissed two of the people's responses on how some "friends" get hired. What do you want us to say? We like hiring incompetent friends because we like to give our friends our company's money?

LOL!!! Yep, my customers don't care if we make them happy or not as long as we have our friends working for us. Isn't that how a successfull business happens...... No, my customers would rather have a DEPENDABLE person taking care of them that CARES to take care of them no matter if they are properly trained and know everything or not. It is okay to tell a customer, "I do not know the answer to that but I will find out for you" and then DO IT! Even the best trained most qualified person out there can be a complete nitwit when it comes to taking care of customers.

[lh_newbie]

Originally Posted by momof2dfw

Being an employer I can say most of it just might boil down to the fact the person/company looking to hire will hire someone they feel is trustworthy and reliable and train them IF they are told by people they respect the person is worth interviewing and possibly hiring. They hire the "friend" and then train them to do the job. Hiring someone that is a complete unknown even if they do have the qualifications can backfire if the person is unreliable, changes jobs often, etc. Then they have to start all over again (this is a VERY common problem). So after the HR person or manager has been hit w/ this problem a couple of times they are more than willing to hire someone that comes as a good reference and is capable and willing to learn the new skills required for the job.

Actually, the whole longevity thing within a company thing annoys me. I hear management talking about wanting long-term, quality employees. But when they did the huge push away from defined benefits plans and moved into defined contribution plans, they ENCOURAGED short-timer syndrome. It's even becoming more and more common place for company contributions to be vested day one - even further encouraging employees to be loyal only to their paycheck. How is this supposed to keep an employee long term?

[Bjones1976]

Speaking from experience here (I'm a freelance designer) I would rather hire someone who could show me that they can do the job required, period. Just because someone I respect refers someone doesn't necessarily mean that that person is what I need for that particular job. In fact the whole hiring "friends" or "friends of friends" breeds (from my experience) a certain type of work environment, but that's my observation.

Originally Posted by new2sa

Put the shoe on the other foot... if you were the
employer and one of your highly-regarded employees, or coworkers, or even friends, recommended someone for a position, wouldn't you show preference to that candidate that was being recommended by someone you knew and whose opinion you valued, rather than an unknown candidate coming into an interview?

[Bjones1976]

And whose responses would that be? So far I've addressed everyone's responses, including yours.
As I said earlier to you the issue is with people who are hired or hire people because their friends or because they know someone, not because they necessarily qualified. Networking and Nepotism are not the same thing and I wonder sometimes if people know the difference.

Originally Posted by lh_newbie

You've dismissed two of the people's responses on how some "friends" get hired. What do you want us to say? We like hiring incompetent friends because we like to give our friends our company's money?