[Spooky23]

In this case, reacting to the headline is less outrageous.

The sage wisdom from the ILM professor was essentially to avoid pissing off rejected candidates by not interviewing them, as interviewing is a signal that the employees are qualified.

That’s pretty fucked up, when you think about what that means from a practical perspective. You’re either interviewing people who are unqualified (some of whom will get positions due to circumstances) or turn selection of candidates over to a star chamber.

Sounds great for morale. Lol.

[autarch]

> The sage wisdom from the ILM professor was essentially to avoid pissing off rejected candidates by not interviewing them, as interviewing is a signal that the employees are qualified.

This exactly the opposite of what the article says:

"First, internal candidates who were rejected after interviewing with the hiring manager were half as likely to exit as those rejected earlier in the process."

[Spooky23]

How about candidates rejected by the pre-screen?

Internal job transfers are always rife with politics.

[0x426577617265]

> The sage wisdom from the ILM professor was essentially to avoid pissing off rejected candidates by not interviewing them, as interviewing is a signal that the employees are qualified.

It makes sense, if the candidate is interviewed + rejected they know there is no upward mobility for them in the company. The next logical step is to look for employment elsewhere that may offer upward mobility.

[burnished]

Opposite. If they are interviewed then they know they are being considered. Further, they are less likely to leave if an internal candidate is selected. The article opines this is because employees will then believe that future hires might also be internal, whereas an external hire signals broader competition for a role.