Do employers already know who they're looking for?

I have absolutely no numbers, but the impression I've gotten--from media coverage, from my acquaintances in various sectors, including a couple of HR people--is that, for many jobs, the employer already has a pretty good idea of whom he's looking to employ. Ie. he has one or a few people in mind, and announces an available position mostly to comply with laws. I realise this can't be true for everyone, or for most people, and probably not in very many jobs. But I was just curious as to whether or not you guys've gotten the same impression.

Not in my experience. Maybe for some, but it seems weird if true.

Since when do you have to announce positions as a matter of law? In the US, a large number of jobs in certain fields are filled without ever being publicly announced; the ones that ARE announced normally aren't filled by some pre-ordained individual.

According to the brain trust around 80% of all jobs in Sweden are never announced, but many jobs in the public sector--as well as things like PhD positions and the like--must be announced.

Do you mean publicly "advertized"? Sounds fair enough to me---for public sector positions. They're not really open to the public if the public never knows about the openings.

It hardly ever pays to apply for a public job that isn't entry-level or so super specialized that they really have to hire from outside. For all other jobs they basically know who will get the job. In other businesses it's very often more important who you know than what you know. There typically are at least 100 other people with similar qualifications and the only way to stand out in that crowd is having the recruiter know your name and face before the real selections start.

Finally, employers fall in love with an applicant or they don't, if they are not in love with the idea of you doing the job, you could be qualified to rule the universe and not get the position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

According to the brain trust around 80% of all jobs in Sweden are never announced, but many jobs in the public sector--as well as things like PhD positions and the like--must be announced.

---

Public sector positions are fine, and I imagine that in a very small community of potential applicants, it's often possible that they already have someone in mind. But I'm sure the vast majority of gov't positions are not already filled when they are announced.

(Why would private PhD positions need to be announced?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

It hardly ever pays to apply for a public job that isn't entry-level or so super specialized that they really have to hire from outside....

---

That's a fallacy, or an urban myth among public employees. There's no way all public positions can be filled from within, and they don't have to be entry-level or super-specialized, either.

GGT, almost all the public job postings in my city have very limited requirements in that they would have an extremely small pool of applicants to choose from. (ie: they already know who's getting the job!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

GGT, almost all the public job postings in my city have very limited requirements in that they would have an extremely small pool of applicants to choose from. (ie: they already know who's getting the job!)

---

That might reflect the nature of the job criteria, not that it's a "public" position.

So, every position I've been hired for, and every position I've hired was based off knowing someone, or being in the know.

There's an old saying, it's who you know, that holds even more so in the workplace in my opinion.

Now, if you are going to be hired to run a cash register or do some type of easy work, this isn't a problem, but if a company is going to invest 100k or more in an employee, they probably want to know that person is going to do a good job and what better way then to actually know the work ethic of the person you are hiring.

And as far as a company publisizing their positions, it's because HR forces a company to do that, to create the illusion that canidates are being selected from a pool.

Yes, my evidence is anecdotal, but I've hired a ton of folks, and those positions are/were very taxing analytically.

When you hired those people did you publicly advertise the position and interview multiple people, or simply hire the one you wanted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImAnOgre

So, every position I've been hired for, and every position I've hired was based off knowing someone, or being in the know.

---

That's fucked up. It might reflect that you're a home-grown southern boy, or southern ways in general, but it's definitely not how the rest of the world works.

Maybe you should be asking where the interstate, international, or new graduate applicants are, and if they're not applying because of some good 'ole boy reputation that's a total turn-off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Public sector positions are fine, and I imagine that in a very small community of potential applicants, it's often possible that they already have someone in mind. But I'm sure the vast majority of gov't positions are not already filled when they are announced.

(Why would private PhD positions need to be announced?)

---

If it's a brand new position, maybe. The rest of the time, they already know who they're going to shuffle around to where, what position is [i]actually[i] open, and frequently which temp or other person the unit is used to working with in other capacities is going to get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Public sector positions are fine, and I imagine that in a very small community of potential applicants, it's often possible that they already have someone in mind. But I'm sure the vast majority of gov't positions are not already filled when they are announced.

(Why would private PhD positions need to be announced?)

---

Tbh some of my info is outdated and we're moving away from some of these regulations. Re. some jobs it seems it's not so much legislation as it is a part of deals negotiated between employers and unions (esp. for municipal workers). Universities here are of course gummint brainwashing centres so they're more public than private :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImAnOgre

So, every position I've been hired for, and every position I've hired was based off knowing someone, or being in the know.

There's an old saying, it's who you know, that holds even more so in the workplace in my opinion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

That's fucked up. It might reflect that you're a home-grown southern boy, or southern ways in general, but it's definitely not how the rest of the world works.

Maybe you should be asking where the interstate, international, or new graduate applicants are, and if they're not applying because of some good 'ole boy reputation that's a total turn-off.

---

I dunno 'bout the US but iirc it's far easier in Sweden for an already-employed person to get a new job--either in his present organisation or in a new one--than it is for an unemployed person to get one. Re. how these things work, looks like racism and xenophobia aren't the only reasons why highly educated immigrants have such a hard time finding jobs in Sweden :o

So, can you imagine how fun job-hunting can be under these circumstances? :D If you're not on the list or being head-hunted I mean. If you're unemployed and actively looking for work while getting unemployment benefits you're required to cast a very wide net. Which is reasonable, except that you spend a great deal of time applying for jobs that have already more or less been filled; jobs for which you're under-qualified; jobs for which you're over-qualified; jobs for which you don't have the right name; jobs for which you don't know the right people. And then there are those 80% of job openings that aren't publicly announced :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

So, can you imagine how fun job-hunting can be under these circumstances? snip

---

Yes, and it's a problem created where none should exist. The person best-able to do the job should matter more than who they know, their connections to powerful people, or "time served". Anything else is crony-ism or favoritism.

Ironically, that's often how we elect our legislators. Next in line, working through the rungs, party establishment endorsements. That hasn't worked out so well, either, and even keeps away those with fresh ideas we desperately need. It's a crappy way to run any endeavor, company, or government.

To throw my 2 cents in as a public sector employee.

Around here, only the most basic of job entry jobs are opened up without knowing who is going to fill it. Even then, I've seen us hold opening positions until our volunteer group shows promise. Yes, we have to publicly announce them, so yes we do get some people applying from off the street. Yes sometimes, very rarely, we hire someone who is coming in from a different county, and its almost never done if the person is overqualified (they expect special treatment, or don't stick around).

I don't know of a single other LTA, Senior or Principal position in this place that wasn't filled with a promotion. Higher ups go to crazy lengths to make sure that when they open up a position their predetermined pool and applicants are well aware of the chance to move up, and they will hound those that don't apply in an immediate fashion (I had everyone bugging me when the Senior LTA over me opened). I know of several qualified people who applied for that position who didn't even get interviews.

I once was denied a job because I was considered too close a friend to a rival of the hiring manager :)

OG, do you like that type of work environment, and think it's an optimal way of doing things? If inner promotions matter more than competing with "outsider" applicants, sounds to me like your organization has gone stale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

If it's a brand new position, maybe. The rest of the time, they already know who they're going to shuffle around to where, what position is [i]actually[i] open, and frequently which temp or other person the unit is used to working with in other capacities is going to get it.

---

I know of some cases when this is true - for example, I have a friend who was enlisted in the US Army and worked for MI; he chose to quit after his term was up and accept employment with a consultancy which was embedded with his MI unit. So it was a no-brainer that he was 'hired' for the government contract, essentially doing the same job he had been doing beforehand. And I have no doubt that internal promotions are often like that as well (but do they have to advertise the job? I'm not sure about the relevant regulations/law). But a lot of that is because veteran positions require extensive knowledge of the inner workings of gov't bureaucracy, so the actual pool of qualified non-insider candidates is vanishingly small.

My knowledge of government organizations is limited - mostly, I have contact with people who work in the FDA, CMS, or the DoD. My understanding is that there's plenty of fudging when it's essentially an internal promotion or moving employees/contractors from column A to column B, but for any genuine job opening, they don't have a shortlist available - if the individual is going to be a new hire, they probably won it in a competitive process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

....

My knowledge of government organizations is limited - mostly, I have contact with people who work in the FDA, CMS, or the DoD. My understanding is that there's plenty of fudging when it's essentially an internal promotion or moving employees/contractors from column A to column B, but for any genuine job opening, they don't have a shortlist available - if the individual is going to be a new hire, they probably won it in a competitive process.

---

Every job opening should be "genuine". It shouldn't just mean shuffling column A to column B from within, as internal promotions. Sure, they can do it that way because it's faster and easier. But they lose out by excluding people new to town, or cross-over applicants. The employees also lose out by coming to believe---and expecting---that "outside" competition won't matter. It shouldn't just be new hires held to that competitive process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

OG, do you like that type of work environment, and think it's an optimal way of doing things? If inner promotions matter more than competing with "outsider" applicants, sounds to me like your organization has gone stale.

---

I would hardly call it stale from just that. County spends a good deal of time sending us to trainings and webinar type things. The ALA is huge around here. The county covers a wide variety of incomes, environment, political, and social space. So internally there are plenty of different visions competing against each other. I used to think some new blood higher up would do our digital services some good, but now that I'm actually in that department, I see we have some of the brightest girls and guys here, and the problem lays with legal.

Bringing in outsiders into supervisory positions can be a morale buster, and they are harder and take longer to train, and they usually act before learning how to rock the boat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

That's fucked up. It might reflect that you're a home-grown southern boy, or southern ways in general, but it's definitely not how the rest of the world works.

Maybe you should be asking where the interstate, international, or new graduate applicants are, and if they're not applying because of some good 'ole boy reputation that's a total turn-off.

---

How is that f*ed up? I bust my ass to do a good job. I work longer hours than everybody else, and I do my damndest that the product I put out is always easy to understand, use, and will hold up in a court of law.

And I’m not going to take a change and hire someone that will take a year to train, just so they can leave when their year is up. I want someone to come work for me that I know I’ll get along with, I know will do the job, and I know I can leave them alone instead of micromanaging them….

People know my ethic and how I perform. How is that some ‘good ole boy’ network? That comment sounds prejudiced to me…. Perhaps you should read the thread on low IQ, and conservatism….

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

I would hardly call it stale from just that. County spends a good deal of time sending us to trainings and webinar type things. The ALA is huge around here. The county covers a wide variety of incomes, environment, political, and social space. So internally there are plenty of different visions competing against each other. I used to think some new blood higher up would do our digital services some good, but now that I'm actually in that department, I see we have some of the brightest girls and guys here, and the problem lays with legal.

Bringing in outsiders into supervisory positions can be a moral buster, and they are harder and take longer to train, and they usually act before learning how to rock the boat.

---

Morale. If ALA is huge there, that should mean consistent standards and not needing "hard and long training" for outsiders, especially not management positions. I was thinking beyond your county or state, and fielding applicants from other states along with the internal promotion seekers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImAnOgre

How is that f*ed up? I bust my ass to do a good job. I work longer hours than everybody else, and I do my damndest that the product I put out is always easy to understand, use, and will hold up in a court of law.

And I’m not going to take a change and hire someone that will take a year to train, just so they can leave when their year is up. I want someone to come work for me that I know I’ll get along with, I know will do the job, and I know I can leave them alone instead of micromanaging them….

---

Quote:

---

So, every position I've been hired for, and every position I've hired was based off knowing someone, or being in the know.
There's an old saying, it's who you know, that holds even more so in the workplace in my opinion.

---

It's not an evaluation of how hard you work. Simply reading your words that said quite clearly you're not much for "change" (or did you mean chance?), and that every position you've held and hired for was based on knowing someone. That's not the meritocracy and freee market principle you've supported in other threads.

Quote:

---

People know my ethic and how I perform. How is that some ‘good ole boy’ network? That comment sounds prejudiced to me…. Perhaps you should read the thread on low IQ, and conservatism….

---

Oh, FFS. :donkey:

As a former public employee myself, I can back up what OG is saying. Yes, the position is open to the public, but management (unless they are assholes) usually try to inform their subordinates that there is an upper level position opening up. Especially if they think that person may be a good fit. There are times where it has been better to get an outside person into a position. But often we saw someone coming in from somewhere else being hired from outside due to their managerial experience but not their knowledge in that sector. And that caused extreme headaches. Promoting from within made transition times smoother. Many of those "outside" people tend to move on after a year or two because they have no loyalty to the locality they were hired to, and they've usually disrupted the flow so badly it leaves that section reeling from their "grandiose"changes (which just really wasted tax dollars and lacked planning). It may be anecdotal on my part though. I still think that public positions should always be open to the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Morale
It's not an evaluation of how hard you work. Simply reading your words that said quite clearly you're not much for "change" (or did you mean chance?), and that every position you've held and hired for was based on knowing someone. That's not the meritocracy and freee market principle you've supported in other threads.

---

Sure it is. The free market allows me to hire whom I choose for whatever reason I choose to. That’s the definition of free market. Putting rules and regulations on said choices takes away from the free market.

Quote:

---

Oh, FFS. :donkey:

---

Exactly

If anything, the free market response would be companies that vet people for other companies, kind of like expanded temp agencies except for full-time positions, where they do extensive psych profiles, work history check-ups (thorough), comb through academic records, check family history, criminal record, juvie record, church affiliation, the works. Then they sell the cream of the crop, or the best CVs backed with their recommendation, to the highest bidder, or their contractual companions, or whatever. I'm sure once this kind of big brother you need a colonoscopy to work at Mickey Dees horror became widely accepted in the corporate world, most would-be employed people would submit to this probing just for the privilege of eating bread every now and then. The question is, can any start-up company in this line of work remain viable until such time that they're perceived as selling a valuable product?

edit: Response to the "old boy network", ie. corporations needing to know they're hiring worth-while people as pointed out by Ogre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

If anything, the free market response would be companies that vet people for other companies, kind of like expanded temp agencies except for full-time positions, where they do extensive psych profiles, work history check-ups (thorough), comb through academic records, check family history, criminal record, juvie record, church affiliation, the works. Then they sell the cream of the crop, or the best CVs backed with their recommendation, to the highest bidder, or their contractual companions, or whatever. I'm sure once this kind of big brother you need a colonoscopy to work at Mickey Dees horror became widely accepted in the corporate world, most would-be employed people would submit to this probing just for the privilege of eating bread every now and then. The question is, can any start-up company in this line of work remain viable until such time that they're perceived as selling a valuable product?

edit: Response to the "old boy network", ie. corporations needing to know they're hiring worth-while people as pointed out by Ogre

---

Why would that be the free market response?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Why would that be the free market response?

---

How else would private companies find out which people are worth hiring? Aside from "old boy networks". I know I wrote it so that it sounds dystopian, but honestly these kind of background-checking firms could sell a fine product, the best workers for each task. Isn't that what the free markets do, optimize the output?