An internal candidate who feels like the process was flawed, and as a result they were unsuccessful in being offered the position, is a candidate who is probably going to leave that company sooner than if they never applied for the job in the first place.

When I say ‘consider’, I do not mean for compensation purposes. Rather: policies, respect, and consideration should be given under the belief that ‘if it shouldn’t be done to a CEO, it shouldn’t be done to anybody else’. In other words, I advocate an egalitarian application of the Golden Rule as applied to hiring and personnel practices.

It is my strong belief that the vast majority of people will respond positively to conditions where they are truly respected and well-treated. Furthermore, if employers aren’t prepared to give respect, loyalty, and support to employees, they shouldn’t be expected to receive it. Isn’t this obvious?

Cheers,

This dilemma is being faced by many companies who have the choice of either paying people more money or offering more promotions. There are not that many layers of management in many corporations compared to how things use to be in the traditional corporations of the 1960’s and the 1970’s. The challenge for most companies is how do you keep these top performers content…

Most companies insist on maintaining the status quo and not recognizing top performers…..These unsatified and unchallenged employees will leave regardless of whether the company likes it or not while the under achievers with tenure remain.
How inconvenient for the hiring manager to find a capable employee.

Employees are not assets but then again they are not corporate drones to be controlled and manipulated.

I couldn’t agree more that employers need to transform their attitudes toward their employees. I never particularly liked the ‘asset’ analogy in good times or bad. It always gave the impression that employees were held in the same light as capital equipment when, in fact, the equipment doesn’t perform if the workers aren’t sufficiently skilled in its use.

The employees as investors concept it solid. It puts employees on the same par as those on Wall Street to whom management is known to pander a bit. The thought that companies should encourage job sharing and other job experiences of its employees is great as well…as long as these employees have the behaviorial characteristics and the skill sets to perform in the desired postion.

It is easy for employers to fall into the trap of assuming that just because someone does a job well that this job is all they ’should’ or ‘could’ be doing for the organization. Fact is there is a lot of untapped talent potential within all organizations and management just doesn’t see or realize it.

A comprehensive company wide assessment program that identified the capabilities and inherent traits of both internal and external applicants might be of significant value to employers. They could uncover talents among existing employees that could serve to be mutually beneficial while raising the performance bar for new employees.

If anyone is interested in exploring how such a program might work, I’d be happy to discuss in more detail off-line.

In the meantime, thank you, Kevin, for your fresh insights.

The first two paragraphs of this article would lead one to believe the author is unaware of this. The rest of the article made good points, as Kevin always does. Unfortunately, starting an article off with flawed premises generally leads to flawed conclusions.

The ‘talent shortage’, which currently is a mere nudge compared to the crash it will be in 10-15 years, is going to alter hiring in many ways. Can you imagine jumping through all the hoops candidates and Hiring Managers currently go through when the country is short 10 million employees? HR/Legal policies are going to change faster than the names of third-world dictators, and it’s going to create a bumpy ride for all.

Part of the human resource management function is to create processes that make sense and are perceived as ‘fair and equitable’ around internal transfers. Without ’some’ fences around this, a ‘free-for-all’ chaotic climate could be created, thus jeopardizing an organization’s overall performance in the marketplace.

It takes a bit of time to not only assess an employee’s functional capabilities within the job they were hired to perform, but almost as importantly, their ‘culture fit’ within the organization.

I would be the first one to champion a culture that first looks internally for talent. However, this should be done within the parameters of a systematic approach, and not the ‘free agent’ mentality that Mr. Wheeler’s approach would create.

If organizations would focus on creating ‘extraordinary’ internal relationships as their ‘default’, their employees would feel empowered and most certainly have a ‘longer term’ perspective.

If anyone is interested in this approach, please feel free to contact me at rleventhal@rmrginc.com

I’m not sure I agree with Point #1 though, ‘All policies should be abolished that limit or control how or when employees apply for positions within an organization.’ is a little too broad. I’ve seen deadwood float within an organization and I think that performance guidelines can still be used to enhance mobility within an organization. However this is only effective when the organization has a validated and effective talent management process and the managers buy into using it and are trained in how to manage their people.

Thanks though for again sharing your unique perspective.
Ron