Comments on: The 3 questions to consider when promoting internal candidates

By: Dorothy

Dorothy — Wed, 06 Oct 2021 21:08:12 +0000

I had an assignment from 2007 through 2010 in which I promoted 21 internal candidates from craft jobs into management and one internal candidate from one level of management to the next.

These candidates all had superb subject matter expertise and, I believed, very good management potential. I was willing to provide the training and mentoring needed to help them with the management skills, knowledge and ability.

One of the biggest benefits of these promotions to everyone concerned was that they created a more diverse and equitable management team. I took over a team of mostly Black craft workers and mostly White mangers; my internal promotions transitioned the management team to mostly Black mangers. I felt this plan showed respect for capable, smart, willing employees, and for the team as a whole.

We had only one disappointment involving a newly-promoted manger who behaved 0poorly and was returned to her craft position. In the same timeframe I fired one of the few external management hires I made for cause. So I feel my strategy was successful.

By: MariaRose

MariaRose — Wed, 06 Oct 2021 19:41:23 +0000

I don’t know if it was mentioned but the interviews for the candidates ( no matter where internal or external) should be done exactly the same. So unless the persons who do these evaluation interviews are the immediate supervisor, an internal candidate should be meeting with exactly the same interviewers and the only difference maybe is how their current resume is received, as it can be forwarded thru the internal mail directly to the person where an external candidate’s resume gets passed on after HR review as an acceptable candidate. An internal candidate only has to submit an updated resume because they are already an acceptable person for the company.
Going through the similar interview will also give the candidate a way to measure their expectations of the job to the actual job because of the questions asked. The interviewer should be expecting the candidate to explain what they can contribute and evaluate their answers as the skill needed without prejudice as sometimes the lack of a fancy degree but in-house knowledge of the job is the better candidate. The choice should not be determined by the need to replace the candidate’s current position as a deterrent but should be part of the questioning of the leadership skills. Anyone can fill a position but being the one in charge means you also can develop others to job skills. The key to choosing the correct person for the job is what proof they can provide of job skills in a tangible manner not a verbal ability, unless communication is the main skill needed not results.

By: Mr. Cajun2core

Mr. Cajun2core — Wed, 06 Oct 2021 13:45:52 +0000

Another reason to hire an internal candidate is that it will often demoralize the person who does not get the job and the amount of effort they put into the job may diminish.

Also, and this is covered some what in question #1, but you should hire people for potential not necessarily skills they already have. I thought there was an article on this site that covered this but I can’t find it.

With a current employee you know if you are getting someone with a strong work ethic (or not), someone who will fit into your organization (or not), and other similar things.

With an internal candidate you will also have someone with institutional knowledge which can be helpful.

I am not saying that you should always hire the internal candidate but I am saying to not dismiss the internal candidate just because some else has a certain skillset which the internal candidate can learn.