Need your opinion

HR in NY · February 2004

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 02-06-04 AT 09:48AM (CST)[/font][br][br][font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 02-06-04 AT 07:36 AM (CST)[/font]

For the last five years we have been posting all open positions in the company to the employees first with the exception of Sales Reps. We have had a lot of success with this program and have promoted from within a number times. This program has greatly improved morale and the sense that the company truly wants to better their employees and it's stated in the employee handbook that we will post all positions except for Sales Reps (another story). We now have a situation where we are going to have a newly created, highly technical position. A couple members of Management do not want to post this position because they feel no one internally will be qualified. The other side says we have always posted every position, why stop now. This could create some dissention among the employees. There was a two hour debate on this yesterday. I would like to get some thoughts from you guys. Do we post or do we not post??? Thanks as always for your help.

Don D · February 2004

Let's see.....You've done it up until now and IT HAS IMPROVED MORALE. Your handbook says IT WILL BE DONE. And you've "had a lot of success with it". Seems like a no brainer to me.

Whatever · February 2004

Post the position. You've always done it. Besides, you may be pleasantly surprised.

sonny · February 2004

I would post it. A couple of times we have been surprised at what "came out of the wood work". What do you lose if you post it? There have been times when we have begun outside advertising at the same time we post so that we don't lose time. Maybe that's a compromise.

On another note, 2 hours is WAY too long to debate this item, in my opinion.

Balloonman · February 2004

Really why undue 5 years of success? Sounds like some or one of the higher ups may have someone they know in mind for the position. Hmmmmm. Post it, make sure the requirements are clear, that way there will be no wasted time.
My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

JM in ATL · February 2004

If noone is qualified anyway, what is the harm in posting it? You don't HAVE TO interview everyone who applies do you? Only the qualified candidates.

Just post it. I post open jobs company wide in 5 states internally. I've had out of town employees apply for jobs here at corporate.

I think to not do so will cause more controversy than actually posting it. Like others said, no brainer!

SteelBoy · February 2004

I ditto Sonny.

Lot's of unutilized talent out there that lies beneath (or above) the scope of the current job.

Don D · February 2004

That's a good point. How in the world could posting or not posting a job notice generate a two hour debate, heated or unheated?

Pork · February 2004

POST IT; someone in the organization at the upper level has a hidden agenda. Follow your past history of success.

PORK

LisaMN · February 2004

In my experience, when individuals do not want to post their positions internally, it generally means that they have already selected someone for the position.

We frequently post internally and advertise externally at the same time. It's a compromise that works pretty well.

SMace · February 2004

As other's have stated, if there are no ee's qualified, why not post it? What is the argument not to post it? I can't see one. I would not be surprised if the person arguing so hard to keep it from being posted has underlying issues with someone who may apply for the job. Discriminatory issues, I don't know?

marc · February 2004

If the arguement centers around a timing delay, waiting for the internal posting process to run its course, then just run the inside and outside recruiting on a parallel track.

As I read your post and the replies to date, there does not appear to be a strong reason not to internally post.

We often have positions open, such as Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists, that we know cannot be filled internally. We still post the jobs, but as suggested above, we also recruit from the outside at the same time. If we receive internal interest, we scrutinize the qualifications just like we would an outside resume and application. If they do not meet the qualifications, we let them know and move on.

lnelson · February 2004

Post the position if you can not find a qualified existing ee then go outside the company.

But do not assume that because your ees are not doing that type of work that they may not have some hidden talents you may be unaware of and surprise you and the other dept heads.

Nicole · February 2004

I say post it.

Besides..... You never know who your employees know. They may know a friend who is the exact right fit for the position in their circle of friends and acquaintances.

Patti · February 2004

I agree with Sonny, post and advertise at the same time.

Beave · February 2004

Ditto Sonny. If it's a non union position, I post and advertise at the same time. This saves time and will give you a larger pool to select from.

HR in NY · February 2004

I just wanted to let all of you know that we are going to post the position. Those of you who stated that they probably didn't want the posting up because they already had someone in mind are right. He accepted the position yesterday. No announcements or anything else will be done until the posting has been put up, stays up for the appropriate number of days and comes down. Thanks to all of you who responded. It gave me the backup I needed to make them see we needed to do the right thing.

Don D · February 2004

I respectfully disagree with your final analysis. You are not doing the right thing. The process is deceptive, in this case, at best and fraudulent at worst. If they already have the selection made, following the posting procedures will only waste people's time, yours included. But, hey, I understand your predicament. I suggest this is a battle you should choose to fight, because this will come up again. The top managers there will have, or already do not have, any respect for your posting procedure. Have a great day. x:-)

SMace · February 2004

You came close to doing the right thing. You should not have hired someone before it was posted. I will go out on a limb and guarantee your people will find out. If they had any trust in you, kiss it goodbye. Here's the scenario, "Welcome to your job Bob. Now you can't tell anyone when we actually hired you. They'll figure out that we posted a job that wasn't available. Now get to work. And remember anything else we tell you will be the absolute truth, you can trust us." There he stands like a deer in the headlights, wondering what he got himself into. When someone asks, he'll tell them.

HR in NY · February 2004

Let me defend myself here. Don D and Smace I understand where you are coming from. But, I really felt strongly about keeping the job posting program consistent. I was just informed yesterday that this guy was hired. The owners did this one. Normally they leave the hiring process up to HR, but for some reason unknown to me they feel really strongly about this guy. At least they have enough respect for me to say OK, I see your concerns and have agreed to the posting. Yes, I think it will be a sticky subject for a while with the employees. I know that they have great trust in the HR Department and we will do everything in our power to keep that trust. We will get through this.

Don D · February 2004

Didn't mean to imply this was your doing. I understand you went up the hill and fought the skirmish and came back down with your marching orders. We all do that, except those of us who are executives. I understand fully what you had to do and wish you luck with the outcome. But, I would continue to press this issue if the company values a viable posting/bidding program and the morale that goes with one. x:-)

shlshsm · February 2004

It's best to post even if there is no one in the company qualified to make an application for the position. EE usually don't pay attention to the posting unless a job is being advertised and it was not posted in-house in advance. Not posting internally first creates more hassle than it's really worth. Once I made the mistake of not posting internally for a technical position in I.S. Recognizing that no one in the building had the skill requisites, employees grumbled and complained until I felt like I had caused them some form of psychological harm or something. It's safer to post than not to post, particularly if your Handbook's policy suggests posting is routine for all positions.

Whirlwind · February 2004

Okay, I realize that this situation has run its course, but I'll tell you what I have done the few times someone in my organization has made the very unfortunate mistake of making a hiring end-run around HR. I tell them that they will call the person they offered the position to (or I will) and say, "I'm so sorry; I've offered you the job without following our hiring procedure and have found out that we will need to post the job for the minimum time specified by our policy. We will need to consider all qualified applicants, and while I'm sure you will be among those, I must rescind my previous offer until a full selection process has been completed." Of course, I'm in the public sector and I realize if I told a business owner that piece of news I might be looking for another job, but around here the motto is Don't Mess with HR.

On another note, regarding some of the replies above, I don't get those that advise to post internally and externally at the same time. Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of an internal posting? I mean, are there situations in which an internal applicant CAN'T apply when the job is open to the public? To me, the purpose of an internal posting period that precedes the general posting is to give current ee's the chance at a promotion without outside competition, but there may be another angle on this I'm not aware of.

sonny · February 2004

WW I am in the public sector too and if I tried that I would be looking for another job! I love your motto tho and will strive to make it ours.

The only thing that concurrent postings has done is save time. IE we have to post for 7 days. If a supervisor is really in a crunch and we don't think there will be anyone inside I will do both and then at the end of the 7 days if there are no internals, there will already be some applications for them to look at. This has back fired tho. Evidenced the time they were SURE there would be NO ONE inside. There were 3, one was hired and I sat looking at 45 useless resumes.

Whirlwind · February 2004

Thanks, Sonny; I see what you mean. Under our procedure, we don't save time by posting outside concurrently, because we either post 5 working days inside and then 5 more outside - or - if we go external from the beginning, it's 10. So, it's 10 either way if not filled from within. Our procedure does not guarantee ee's that we always post internally first. It says something like, "Positions that offer an opportunity to current employees are posted internally for five days before they are open to the public." That way, when we know FOR SURE that no one inside qualifies, we go straight to the public. For example, when we have a nurse position open, I know good and well we don't have any closet nurses on our staff.

Carey · February 2004

We also have a five day posting period even if the hiring manager has a candidate all picked out. If we have internal candidates who are qualified for the job, the manager must interview them. Of course, they are still free to select who they want, but we make sure the process is consistent.

mbeam · February 2004

Tough spot to be in - my personal choice would be not to post it - would rather explain the circumstances (HR is not in the wrong and wouldn't go out of my way to point this out but also wouldn't endorse the method used).

I would prefer to do this than to explain to a qualified internal candidate who has in good faith prepared their resume and themselves for an interview that it was basically a sham.

Don D · February 2004

Whirleygig: What I think you are missing is that there is no advantage to the company, or the public body in your case, to restrict your announcement to one pool of people for a while and then release it to another. To maximize your pool, thus maximizing your opportunities, concurrent announcement is, in my opinion, the way to go. Ads in papers can run $400-$700 for a relatively small black-box line ad. Why mess around with the bulletin board, then run one in the paper, skip a wasted week, then run it again? It occurs to me that the objective is to fill the position with the applicant that will bring maximum strength to the table. That does not necessarily mean someone from within. A newspaper ad can drag the hiring process out 4-10 weeks. Don't waste time. Advertise early and maximize the potential of the net you cast.

Whirlwind2 · February 2004

Don, your point is well made and I agree that the ultimate goal is to hire the best applicant. The sequence you describe would, indeed, be inefficient, but it's not exactly what we do. Due to the size and nature of our workforce, we almost always know when we have one or more suitable internal applicants for a job vacancy. If so, we post the job internally for 5 days on both electronic and physical bulletin boards and are usually able to fill the job within two weeks with no advertising expense. When the job doesn't appear to have qualified internal applicants, or when it is a high-level job for which we want to consider both internal and external applicants, we post to one and all from the get-go for a minimum of 10 days or however long it takes to attract qualified applicants. Usually our advertising expenses are still minimal in these cases due to special ed. websites, university departments related to our specialty professions, etc. It works out well; no complaints so far.

SMace · February 2004

Whirleygig? Don, are you jealous that I'm actually 3 people and now trying to morph in Ritaanz? :oo

martman99 · February 2004

Not following prior protocol will definitely impact morale. Regardless of the first blush at whether there are "qualified" individuals on staff, you may run awry of some discriminatory issues as well if those who perceive themselves as qualified are not entitled to apply for this position. Especially if they possess the necessary posted qualifications established by your company.

We have had similar issues, but have ALWAYS posted internally, regardless if we know we might go "outside" the company for a prospective employee

Need your opinion

Comments