[ghaff]

I got hired on for a position once where the job description was retroactively written for me after I came in for an interview. I suppose in retrospect that means it was written in a way that it probably wasn't a good fit for most people.

[jcims]

That seems a little odd, maybe they had some KPIs around hiring/fit or something and wanted to fluff their numbers.

[ghaff]

I'm not going to be specific, but at a certain level, companies will hire people that execs know/have worked with and figure out the best role for them.

[vishnugupta]

> but at a certain level, companies will hire people that execs know/have worked with

This happens more frequently than people realise. Execs depend on, to state the obvious, a loyal next line leaders to get work done. And more often than not newly hired execs are under pressure to begin showing results in about 8 months or so. Hiring their loyalists gives them a very good chance of showing positive impact. Otherwise they need to wrangle with existing reports and peers to win their trust and loyalty which is a time consuming process.

I've seen this happen almost at all the places I've worked in

[goatinaboat]

at a certain level, companies will hire people that execs know/have worked with

In Wales we call this “jobs for the boyos”.

[ghaff]

"Old boys network" in the US. Companies do need to guard against excessively hiring only people with the right connections. On the other hand, personal networks are certainly a thing and companies rely heavily on referrals for hiring. I have to confess that I haven't gotten a job by applying blind/via a recruiter for 35 years.

[jcims]

Oh yeah, totally, I just never saw anyone update a rec to suit. Maybe I just never paid attention. :)

[ghaff]

I don't think there was a rec, or at least a published one :-)