U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Job Search
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-15-2013, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Massachusetts
6,106 posts, read 7,274,829 times
Reputation: 4492

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak View Post
Well, they shouldn't waste a candidate's time on a futile interview that will end up nowhere. It also wastes the company's time as well and in my experience, I have had to delay some of my work because some of my coworkers weren't available since they were too busy interviewing candidates they had no intention of hiring.
It's not so great. But given the choice of interview or no interview I would consider it a chance to have a good interview and build some connections I didn't already have should another opportunity come up in that department or company. If I get a business card from someone I made a good connection with they may eventually move on to a different company and I could find that out on Linkedin. If I had a list of companies I was interested in working for, it would also give me an opportunity to see the company firsthand and make a decision to put my efforts towards getting into other companies that were a better fit for me. Only so much to learn about a company or the people from reading online reviews or business articles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-15-2013, 01:26 PM
 
5,920 posts, read 6,727,222 times
Reputation: 15268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Boy View Post
You have to understand that if you have an internal candidate that has demonstrated they can do the job effectively and has shown potential, they are going to have an advantage over an outsider.
Very true...and when the company is trying to argue for a VISA extension, for example, they have to go through the motions of appearing to attempt to hire a US person before they extend the job offer to the ex pat which they really want in the job to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak View Post
Well, they shouldn't waste a candidate's time on a futile interview that will end up nowhere. It also wastes the company's time as well and in my experience, I have had to delay some of my work because some of my coworkers weren't available since they were too busy interviewing candidates they had no intention of hiring.
True this...but XYZ Corporation is more concerned with appearing to comply with the law and showing that they did not exclude/discriminate/whatever than they are about your time/feelings. etc.

Life is not fair, and certainly the hiring process is a great example of 'life'. You roll with the punches, do what YOU have to do to get your foot in the door and get hired. All is fair in the hiring game. Sadly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2013, 02:54 PM
 
10,604 posts, read 14,217,570 times
Reputation: 17203
Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak View Post
Before I go any further, I want to mention that I work for a gigantic non government organization that I am sure 99% of all Americans have heard of. I recently had a conversation with my coworkers about jobs and interviews. These coworkers of mine work often with hiring managers and often know what is going on during the job interview and etc. They told me that in many job interviews that were conducted that there was absolutely no intention to hire anyone they interviewed no matter how well the candidate performed in the interview or how strong the candidate's resume was. The hiring managers often already chose a person before the process began and were only conducting interviews because it was mandated by the organization and the government. Essentially, it was like the Rooney Rule only it applies to everyone not just minorities. I told them that this is quite cruel to the candidates and they agreed although they said there is nothing they can do about it.

In any case, to people who have been suffering from job rejections, don't always assume it is due to a bad interview or resume; in many cases it is because the hiring manager simply already chose someone before the job hiring process began.
As someone else pointed out, you got hired there, right?

As far as internal versus external goes, this is old news. Maybe your coworkers think they discovered something exciting, but no.

When a large company floats a job, say Fortune 100, and have candidates in mind, it all depends on the company's process and going through it. I've had job titles/descriptions WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY for MY qualifications which would seem to eliminate ALL other applicants. And I've been the one requisitioning people, too. That doesn't fly any more. The hiring manager doesn't get to solely determine the qualifications, the description or the pool of applicants to interview.

They STILL have to have ALL candidates apply through HR, be approved to interview, and in some cases the hiring manager MUST go externally at the same time.

You never know if your "favorite" internal candidate is going to make it all the way through, quit, get sick, or the hiring manager QUIT or be OVERRULED by her own boss, etc. YES, the candidate may be a shoe in. Or they might not.

This system exists to still allow internal candidates who are QUALIFIED to advance/lateral while still ensuring there are fewer hijinkx than back in the day. IT also gets new blood in to keep things from getting stale even if you THOUGHT you had the perfect person...it just may not be so.

I've hired PLENTY of people off the street that I wanted when I didn't have headcount when I knew the skills I was looking for weren't in my company. As temps or contractors. So it goes both ways.

Last edited by runswithscissors; 12-15-2013 at 03:05 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2013, 03:26 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
1,424 posts, read 2,433,009 times
Reputation: 1776
I worked in HR and participated in many interview sessions that were mandated and the individual they planed to hire had already been selected. Such a waste of time for everyone, HR employees, job seekers, and managers. What was really sad was that many of the people we interviewed were far superior to those we were forced to hire and they actually wanted to work at our company. After interviews, we would talk about who we wish we could hire rather than who we were stuck with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2014, 12:06 AM
 
1,230 posts, read 1,499,015 times
Reputation: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by twins4lynn View Post
I worked in HR and participated in many interview sessions that were mandated and the individual they planed to hire had already been selected.
Just curious,
Mandated by what or who?
Is there a law that says this? They want to avoid legal consequences of an illegal action?
Or is it a company rule? What is the purpose of this rule? Does anyone know why they are doing this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2014, 12:19 AM
 
8,980 posts, read 8,120,601 times
Reputation: 19502
The answer why they do it is Simple. And the bigger the company, the more likely they will be doing it.

The government wants to make it look like everyone has a fair shot at getting a job. So they pass laws and regulations that to keep their noses clean and out of be investigated and big fines, companies are forced to make it look like everyone has an equal chance at getting a job. There are court decisions, that are also considered.

The companies legal department, tells them what the have to do, when the are hiring someone for a job, even if the person to get the job is a current employee.

Also some unions, need to be appeased, and they have to promote or let employees bid to move from one part of the company to another, and even though they want to hire from the outside, they are forced to move someone from another department to the job. Often the one they are forced to move, is not really qualified for the job, but union contracts say they get it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2014, 08:43 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
1,424 posts, read 2,433,009 times
Reputation: 1776
Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
Just curious,
Mandated by what or who?
Is there a law that says this? They want to avoid legal consequences of an illegal action?
Or is it a company rule? What is the purpose of this rule? Does anyone know why they are doing this?
It was mandated by the company to create fairness in employment (which it obviously didn't). We weren't allowed to just hire Bob the Manager's Son, even though Bob's son was getting the job. We had to go through a "fair hiring process" ... open the job to all interested applicants, interview x number of applicants (including Bob the manager's son), and make a selection of the best individual (which of course was Bob's son). Not all jobs had pre-selected individuals (thank goodness!!) but such a waste of time for all parties when it was.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2014, 08:54 AM
 
7,422 posts, read 13,723,744 times
Reputation: 4944
i haven't read this whole thread, but i have a friend who's a hiring manager and she just encountered basically the opposite of the premise of this thread.

a job from another department, which is already being done by candidate 1, is moving to her team. but it's a new position and he has to apply for it. if he doesn't get it, he'll still have a job but it will be changed a lot from what he's doing now. they interviewed him and candidate 2, who is also internal but is currently in a totally different, lower job in another department. basically my friend saw it as doing due diligence and giving candidate 2 some interview practice, because candidate 1 was a shoo-in for the job.

however, my friend and her team were blown away by candidate 2, and though they haven't made a final decision yet (it's tough because candidate 2 is a great team fit, has a lot of the skills needed for the job, and is smart enough to be trained quickly on the job, but candidate 1 already knows how to do EVERYTHING), it's going to be very close.

so keep in mind, even if people THINK they're going into hiring with a foregone conclusion, that doesn't mean they'll stick with it when they see the other candidates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2014, 09:02 AM
Bo Bo won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Tenth Edition (Apr-May 2014). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Ohio
16,826 posts, read 33,233,153 times
Reputation: 13617
I once had a manager of another department at my employer tell me he wouldn't be able to consider my application for a position, because he had a mandate from his bosses to hire a woman or a minority for the position. Even though this happened ~25 years ago, I'm pretty sure it was illegal for him to admit that to me. It was disappointing at the time, but in retrospect, it was better than going through the interview process and having no chance at getting the job for those reasons. He saved us both some time and trouble.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2014, 12:11 PM
 
1,335 posts, read 1,016,862 times
Reputation: 1097
I've seen it happen. Pretty much every employer hires at least some people without doing a truly open search. I am sure that we've all seen it.

Here is a little different hiring scenario but one that is definitely illegal: on the project team that I am a part of in my office, we interviewed several candidates for a lower-level IT position. We had it narrowed down to two candidates and our management preferred of the candidates. At the end of the 2nd interview (which otherwise went well) she dropped a bomb on us: she would begin undergoing cancer treatment soon, which would obviously require a great deal of time away from work. Management never admitted to it since it is illegal but they didn't extend the job offer to her and instead went with the person that we viewed as the #2 choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Job Search
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top