How to deal with the requirement of having to interview multiple candidates even though we are offering the role to an internal candidate.

41 Comments

1. AnonymousAugust 6,2023 at 4:54PM UTC

   So far as I know, a company legally has to post a position, but is not required to interview outside candidates for it. Wow, yes waste of your valuable time.

2. AnonymousAugust 7,2023 at 10:26PM UTC

   It depends on the position and response. I work in government and see this all of the time.

3. AnonymousAugust 6,2023 at 6:30PM UTC

   It's pretty common. The company must go through the motions.

4. AnonymousAugust 6,2023 at 7:21PM UTC

   There's no lawsuits.
   Who said that???? Never heard of a lawsuit in wasting time.

   It's unreal the games some organizations play. I'm sorry you have to deal with this

5. Joan Williams, Senior Talent Acquisition SpecialistAugust 7,2023 at 1:44AM UTC

   When you say "I was told we can't even follow up with the candidates as that could be a possible lawsuit. " , what specifically do you mean?

   Do you mean you were told not to release candidates or you were told not to give feedback?

   I don't understand why you would be unable to release candidates for legal reasons. In over 20 years of recruiting I've never heard that.

   Legal saying you can't give feedback, yes but not that you can't release candidates. That's just common courtesy.

6. AnonymousAugust 12,2023 at 2:01PM UTC

   I was told not to give feedback afterwards and that we needed to interview the candidates but internally we already made an offer. That's what I object to, not the opportunity for external candidates. Sometimes bringing in an outside candidate affords a fresh perspective and additional skills that the internal doesn't have. In this case, it's ticking a box that it was done rather than affording others an opportunity. I don't like to waste job applicants time on a role that's not really available.

   On in other circumstances, I've interviewed an internal candidate but an external provided a better fit. In that case, I've offered the role when working for another company to the external applicant.

7. Joan Williams, Senior Talent Acquisition SpecialistAugust 12,2023 at 4:44PM UTC

   It's pretty standard now, and has been at the companies I've worked with for at leas the last 10 years plus, that we do not give feedback. And yes, it's for legal reasons. But we can still close the loop with the candidate. I've also given candidates resume and job search advice on those release calls.

   I understand your frustration regarding having to interview external candidates when an offer has already been made to an internal candidate.

   It may be your company policy that you need to do this but it's not the law:

   https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/do-companies-have-advertise-job-openings-get-hired-by-linkedin-news/

8. AnonymousAugust 7,2023 at 3:25AM UTC

   This explains why we don't hear from companies no matter how well we interview...

   To me this is dishonest. If the job was going to be offered to internal candidate, why didn't HR already done that? Is there favoritism, unfair treatment?

   I would consider reporting this anonymously through hot line if your company has one

9. AnonymousAugust 7,2023 at 12:49PM UTC

   My former supervisor did follow up with them and told them although they did not get the job, she gave them feed back about the interview and other places to look.

   i always hated that people were doing so much and didn’t have a fighting chance. It broke my heart also. I knew my cousin was apply for a position she was so excited. I found out that department already picked somebody, but she still had her to interview. Well I told my cousin the truth.

10. AnonymousAugust 7,2023 at 1:17PM UTC

    Crappy situation for sure. I will say, however, while working for a large company, I saw a few external candidates end up getting a job for which an internal candidate had been the focus. You never know. But still, knowing the effort I put into my resume and assorted other interviewing documents, I likely would focus my efforts elsewhere if companies were up front about already having a candidate. Not so great for the preferred candidate, either.

11. AnonymousAugust 8,2023 at 1:48AM UTC

    I've had several hiring rounds where an internal was favored going in but we hired a surprise (internal and external) candidate who shone brighter than the early favorite.

12. AnonymousSeptember 3,2023 at 11:08PM UTC

    This has also happened. And those are the good cases because it means the recruitment process was truly unbiased, which is what the compliance is for.

    But the problem is, hiring managers have that one track and they stick to it.

13. AnonymousAugust 7,2023 at 2:54PM UTC

    This literally just happened to me... I was super qualified for a role, had many internal references, and was told I was moving to the next step - only to be told a few days later that they were promoting an internal candidate instead. It's really, really hard to take, especially when one has been unemployed for 7 months.

14. maria roseAugust 7,2023 at 3:50PM UTC

    If you are merely going through the motions of interviewing alternative candidates just to follow the mandate when the position is already knowingly filled , the least you can do is to send those follow up letters of acknowledgment immediately to let those candidates know that the position was filled. Sure sounds like your company likes to cover all their options, carefully, and tends to internally promote, which in itself is rare in todays market. If they have never hired someone who doesn’t already work for the company, it would be, maybe a problem, but all applicants know that the interview process is only one way to get considered for a position. Since you didn’t mention your position, I don’t think it’s your place/role to change how your company decides who and how they promote, however you feel about the candidates’s potential for the company.

15. AnonymousAugust 7,2023 at 4:04PM UTC

    Many companies do this for compliance sake and to be sure they fairly consider all possible candidates. If you truly felt that this person was worthy why not write an internal memo saying " we should find a place for this person because they are amazing" You could decline to participate in the interviews though in some companies that is required as part of your job. It's a tough thing, but I get how hard it is to jerk someone around and play a game. It's truly not fair and there isn't really a path around it if the company is suggesting that there could be a possible lawsuit to you. Truly the only lawsuit would be if a candidate suggested they were treated with bias in the interview but that would be very hard to prove if an internal person was selected.

16. AnonymousAugust 8,2023 at 12:56PM UTC

    If you think the concept of a lawsuit, at least, is unlikely, you haven't been reading the posts on this and other sites.
    People ask for feedback from interviewers, then attack the message when someone is kind enough to try to help them. Lawsuits are often mentioned (and suggested). Vast majority with no merit and unlikely to get past an initial consult with a lawyer, but it's a valid concern.

17. Michelle S.August 7,2023 at 4:35PM UTC

    First, I think this is great that you all hire within first. From my years in HR, I remember having to post the job internally, but I don’t remember anything about legal or compliance, saying the jobs had to be posted externally. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have any interviews on the outside because I just don’t see that as being professional or Reasonable. If someone is making you do it, then I would ask them about the legality of it. Because really, are used to post internally, and then try to fill as many of the roles as I could and then eventually if I did hire externally, it was a entry-level position because I was able to hire within and promote. But I don’t blame you for being uncomfortable with it. I don’t feel like it’s reasonable that they do that.

18. AnonymousAugust 7,2023 at 5:04PM UTC

    Some organizations must search externally, even if they have a qualified internal candidate. I'm not sure what the legalities are, but this happens often in the government sector and for contracting jobs. I believe it reduces the appearance of nepotism. The main issue with ONLY hiring from within is that it reduces the ability to bring in new ideas and concepts, so some industries that rely on innovation will often hire externally before internally. Most companies will utilize a balance. I think it is bad form to do actual interviews when the job has been promised to an internal candidate unless there is no promise. Someone who shows exceptional talent should be given a chance, even ahead of a promising internal candidate. The biggest issue is the expectations that the internal candidate has.

19. AnonymousAugust 9,2023 at 12:24AM UTC

    I've seen this in academia too--always. I think it's a mistake b/c s you've said,, it limits freshness. It becomes too narrow a product. Same reason grad programs like to take on students from other schools (for the BA degree)

20. AnonymousAugust 7,2023 at 7:51PM UTC

    Non-competitive hiring policies mandate that the job needs to be posted, X amount of candidates need to be interviewed, even if an internal candidate has been identified for the position.

21. AnonymousAugust 7,2023 at 10:05PM UTC

    Yes, from both sides. I work for a public University, and I see this all the time and it is heartbreaking. The candidates ultimately get an auto-generated email, and no contact or commentary. It is all a charade when an internal candidate has been decided on already and there are requirements to post and interview as part of the process. I have been on committees where I feel terrible for the folks being interviewed, and I have been a candidate in this process as well. It is a nightmare when it includes a project, or more than one interview. I have commented to folks here and in my life that not all job postings are real.

22. AnonymousSeptember 3,2023 at 11:05PM UTC

    That's strange. I too work for a Public University. Our recruitment process still requires the hiring manager to at minimum contact those you took time to interview and let them know that they were unfortunately not selected.

    And if they don't want the hiring managers to do, then for sure the Recruiters contact them directly. They should not be getting the automated rejection email like everyone else in the applicant pool.

    And I myself do keep those stellar applicants in mind. If another job comes up in our unit or another, I recommend them to apply. That's just good recruitment business.

23. AnonymousAugust 7,2023 at 11:07PM UTC

    I appreciate everyone's comments and I feel horrible about this situation. I hold a senior position at the company and due to legal issues they have to keep records of each job post that the position was advertised, we interviewed 5 second-round candidates, I held third rounds, provided a project and then a final round to make a decision when we already selected an internal candidate. I need to do this for a short-term employee as well.

    It's strictly going through the motions at this stage. I questioned that since HR already interviewed the candidates, wouldn't that count instead of wasting people's time? While I feel it's a waste of my own, I'm more concerned about the amount of prep candidates are spending going through the process that we've already selected an internal candidate. This feels so dishonest and while I understand I'm not going to change their policy, why does it need to be so involved as candidates are getting invested in the process?

    I spent a year looking for a job and so many times I felt like it was a sure thing only to be ghosted or told they went with an internal candidate. Looking back, I wonder how many were these type of situations. I was so devastated each time I spent months applying only to be written off by a generic email.

    I've already been warned not to reach out the candidates afterwards as they could open up a possible lawsuit if they knew the truth or would have been the best candidate. Thank you for listening as this breaks my heart and wish I could do something to fix the situation or at least make it better for the applicants.

24. Joan Williams, Senior Talent Acquisition SpecialistAugust 8,2023 at 4:08AM UTC

    When you say "I've already been warned not to reach out the candidates afterwards as they could open up a possible lawsuit" , what specifically do you mean?

    Do you mean you were told not to release candidates or you were told not to give feedback?

25. AnonymousAugust 10,2023 at 1:04PM UTC

    As I mentioned above, it is common practice (and essential to prove no bias in recruiting practices) for a hiring team to interview more than just one candidate. Not only does it create a bench of potential great talent for the next time the position opens, but it also provides a point of comparison and helps identify the best fit for the essential skills needed in the role, even if just for the next time a leader hires for that role. HOWEVER, in response to this additional context you've noted, there is a limit for everything. In general, if you've come to a hiring decision you shouldn't need to continue on to 2nd and 3rd level interviews with additional candidates (especially more than 1-2 others) if it's evident that the internal is better suited for the role from the first round of interviews.

26. AnonymousAugust 8,2023 at 2:32AM UTC

    This really brushed me the wrong way. I really feel for the people interviewing. I agree with the person who suggested to see if there are other open positions that would be a good fit for the best candidates.

27. AnonymousAugust 8,2023 at 3:36AM UTC

    Say whatt!?!? Oh my

28. Liz MilneAugust 8,2023 at 10:39AM UTC

    Instead of telling her the truth, can you not offer to keep her in mind for another position within the company as she was a very strong candidate, albeit ultimately unsuccessful? I would be gutted if I thought I'd interviewed well, but then just got a 'no' - it would knock my confidence... Knowing I was 'nearly' chosen would be a bit of comfort... :/

29. AnonymousAugust 8,2023 at 11:06AM UTC

    I'm going to guess you're not a regular leader who typically hires. You need to have more than one candidate, and bringing in externals brings an amazing value pov along with internals experience. Staying fair and consistent is imperative. What you're allowing is for others not to feel that the position was handed to them #1. Then, speaking with externals bring a great value and allows a company at the same time build a bench for the future. The perception of bias can bring a long possible discrimination lawsuits, even from externals. It's not that we 'deal' with it, it's the process of interviewing. Concerned as a leader with the shared concern. Why? Because of the message you could be sending not only to the external about this opportunity but the internal, to be honest. And, you never know that external may end up outshining the internal.

30. AnonymousAugust 10,2023 at 12:59PM UTC

    Absolutely this! As a Corporates recruiter, it's common practice (and essential to prove no bias in recruiting practices) for a hiring team to interview more than just one candidate. Not only does it create a bench of potential great talent for the next time the position opens, but it also provides a point of comparison and helps identify the best fit for the essential skills needed in the role, even if just for the next time a leader hires for that role.

31. Bradford McCormickAugust 8,2023 at 12:15PM UTC

    If everybody was as sensitive to this kind of thing as you, maybe it wouldn't hapen so often. It doesn't help to say you are not alone in feeling as you do.

32. AnonymousAugust 8,2023 at 1:22PM UTC

    I had to deal with this once when converting a temp position to FTE. What really sucked was that we had a fabulous candidate apply, but we were only converting the position so the incumbent qualified for benefits. New candidate would have been loads better than incumbent, but it felt more unethical to leave the incumbent without a job.

    I have a small staff and I've since been able to stagger hiring by promoting in-place first and then backfilling, which helps when everyone is niche and already in the same department. I know this is trickier when there are multiple people in the same role within the department and you have to give everyone a "fair" chance even when you know who is ready and able to do the job.

    And I have seen rockstar candidates come out of nowhere and get the role anyway, so it's hard to say the system is a complete waste of time in all cases.

33. AnonymousAugust 8,2023 at 5:11PM UTC

    I was in an internal temp position during my final year at the university I attended. The position was initially for one year. As the end-date approached, I was given the opportunity to come up with additional grant money and was able to stay with the department for a second year. I did so well, that the head of the department decided to make the position permanent. There was a hiring process which included myself and external candidates. I was told that I definitely would not be asked to leave, since I had held the position for two years, and that the external hiring process was necessary. I was so terrified that an external candidate would be so amazing that my department head would be forced to say, "Sorry but....", and I would be out of a job. Then all my plans for an advanced degree would be right out the window. So, you know what I did? I self-sabotaged. Rather than just jump through the necessary hoops that would allow me to keep the job of my dreams and get a master's degree, I left. I had no confidence in myself or in the hiring process. Three months later, I was part of a company-wide layoff at my new job. I've kicked myself ever since. Fast forward 23 years. I am unemployed again and trying to reboot my career. I am on an emotional knife-edge. I know that I have what it takes to do any position I apply for. I know that this hiring practice is real because I've been through it from the inside. I can put myself in each person's shoes and understand their perspective. I know the department head hiring for the position. I know the employee who holds the job. I know the external candidate. In my opinion this hiring practice is unfair at so many levels. Is there a better way? Probably. But how do you make it fair for every person involved? Obviously the process hasn't changed in 23 years, so there may not be a fair solution. It is unfortunate, but it is what it is.You are in a tough position, but like the rest of us, you have to jump through the hoops and do your job, regardless of whether you think it is unfair. I am glad that you shared this with us. It lessens the blow to know that in any other situation, you would have considered one of us for that position.

34. AnonymousAugust 9,2023 at 4:08AM UTC

    OP: Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. I want to clarify that I've hired before and blended interviewing internal and external candidates. My goal is the best person for the role and while I want to encourage hiring from within, it should be the right candidate.

    While I recognize that this company needs to go through their protocol, my issue that for one of the roles, a candidate was already chosen, they are going through the motions for their diversity and legal requirements.

    They have no intention of giving those candidates a chance. I said we should at least let them know about other openings or reach out to the candidates afterwards. I was denied that options stating they don't want the candidates to know they didn't have a shot at the role as that could be lawsuit.

    For the other role, we have an internal candidate but I'm open to external interviews as I have more freedom to hire the right fit. I've worked at others places that required posting the role and possible HR interviews but not releasing candidates when an internal offer was already made and this is simply a box ticking exercise that even includes projects. Thank you for n as I've been on the other side of this situation during the pandemic and what it feels like to put your heart into an application process and unknowingly not having a shot.

35. AnonymousAugust 9,2023 at 1:24PM UTC

    If they have already decided and are doing it just for their diversity and legal requirements, that tells you much about what they think about diversity and legal requirements. They aren't worth the paper they are written on. I would never want to work for this company.

36. AnonymousSeptember 3,2023 at 10:56PM UTC

    Any federal or state contractor, such as State Universities are the same. It's not them wanting to do it. It's them being required to show unbiased hiring by the OFCCP.

    I'm in somewhat of the same predicament. I simply wanted to promote my employees, but am required to post and advertise and allow others an opportunity. It's not necessarily the company needing to change, it's the federal contract that does.

37. AnonymousSeptember 3,2023 at 11:40PM UTC

    https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ofccp/CAGuides/files/OFCCP-EI-TAG.pdf

38. AyianAugust 10,2023 at 4:09PM UTC

    This is not just unfair, it's basically fraud and that's why you're being told not to contact them. If you want something to change at your company, you will need to speak to an employment attorney to determine next steps. Taking action may threaten your job or include resigning to no longer be complicit with your employer. If you do so, take the contact information with you and let those people know. They can join your case. If you're forced to leave, you'll have a whistleblower lawsuit as well.

    What they're doing is illegal and you were forced to participate. It's really just your sense of ethics that determines what to do next. I've never experienced it myself, but I would leave. This situation falls well outside my code of ethics.

39. Bradford McCormickAugust 10,2023 at 7:18PM UTC

    Of course you are correct. But it happens all the time, and as you yourself observe trying to do something about it can cost the person their job. "Ethics" is fine theoretically but what would you do if your spouse had cancer and you could not afford their medication if you lose your job? Would you murder them for your ethics?

    "It is easy for people to get themselves into situations where there are no good solutions" (Dr. Jordon Peterson, from iperfect memry)

    Student: "Happy the land tha breeds a hero"

    Galileo: "No. Unhappy the land that needs a hero."

    (Bertolt Brecht)

40. AyianAugust 11,2023 at 1:55AM UTC

    First of all, losing a job and insurance is NOT murdering an ill person on your insurance. Your false equivalency is not a good faith argument. Most people are not in this situation to start with and neither did I state that all people should leave an employment situation like this unilaterally. *I* would not stay in this situation, regardless of my familial health status. If there was a health concern, I would see to that first, but still leave - most likely by finding another employment solution before leaving.

    It is easy to find situations with no good solutions when you make them up and make assumptions that a person would not compensate in some way for the complications you fabricated.

    If no one questions an illegal practice, then it is practically legal. Changing the status quo requires that people take direct action and risks. Period.

    Best wishes tho.

41. AnonymousAugust 10,2023 at 7:38PM UTC

    This scenario is very typical in government and has been for decades. The way hiring processes are documented on the federal, state and local level, it will most likely never change. I have also seen it rampant in media.