Job ad there but position has already been filled... inofficially

[Tasmania]

Where I work, there seems to be this HR policy that every job that becomes available should be advertised. This is DESPITE management already having found an internal candidate to fill that role.

I am sure this wastes a lot of candidates' time who send in their CVs, etc. - they even interview them to see whether some have potential. But 99.9% of the time, they go with the pre-selected candidate.

Why is this? It baffles me a little. Why not just go with the internal candidate and NOT participate in the charade? I find it a bit of a joke, really.

Is there some legal guideline of having to make a position "available to anyone"?

I'm not up to date with current requirements, but a decade or so, public sector jobs did have to be advertised so that the best candidate could be found, even if a "good enough" internal candidate could be found.

I think it must be a legal thing. My company does the same. They add a note if an internal candidate is under consideration and write the ad specifically to mat h the candidate!

I work in the public sector hr and its about recruiting the best person for the job.

Just because somebody internally is doing a job, doesn't mean they are the best person, especially of there are only a few people in the organisation who have the skills.

It stops managers giving permanent jobs to their friends and families, which used to be rife I the public sector.

If there are more than 1 internal candidate, it gives them all a fair chance at the job.

I agree, that it can be a bureaucratic nightmare, but there have been loads of occassional when I have appointed external candidates over internal ones, if they are the best person for the job.

Wanted to add

Internal candidates have the advantage of knowing about the role and organiaation but the disadvantage that the managers know their weaknesses.

It's not a legal thing at all. Some organisations have a policy of always doing it though, often public sector or where public money/grants are involved.

My view has always been advertise internally first, then if you don't get a suitable candidate, advertise externally. Otherwise you can waste thousands on pointless recruitment campaigns, but by advertising it internally you give all employees a genuine chance rather than just giving it to the person you think is best.

I'm not in the public sector. It's a big financial company... but to me, it seems a little unfair on those poor souls who apply from outside (and never really stand a chance).

It might make sense from an HR perspective (about being fair, etc.). But chanie44 - in our company, HR has nothing to do with the final decision. They may "weed out" the less qualified applicants from the outside world, but ultimately, the decision lies with the manager who is recruiting... who will always get who they want for that job.

It has happened many times that a job was advertised - internally and externally - but internally, a lot of people already knew that the job was "created" for someone else. So someone who would have been in a more junior role, but probably cut out for the more senior one created would often not be selected because management already had a person in mind to do the job before it was even advertised - and who may have been in a different team previously, and would have had a steeper learning curve than the more junior person would have.

From an HR employee's perspective, it must be slightly frustrating if what you're doing is actually just a waste of time, and is simply just about following policies...

... in addition to the above... sometimes, they don't even bother to post such jobs internally/on the website. I just happen to find them on Google searches, and think... Ha! They have already filled that role.

Funnily enough, a lot of the adverts often appears on days when there's a lot of rumor that someone has already been pre-selected.

It's as though it's a gut reaction... "We've got one. Advertise quickly please, so that we can say we advertised the post before offering the job."

... with Google searches, I mean on external job search websites.

"It might make sense from an HR perspective (about being fair, etc.). But chanie44 - in our company, HR has nothing to do with the final decision. They may "weed out" the less qualified applicants from the outside world, but ultimately, the decision lies with the manager who is recruiting... who will always get who they want for that job."

Absolutely right, and HR should not be making recruitment decisions for departments other than their own anyway. Guidance yes, opinions when sought, yes, but decisions, no.

Plus actually I think it doesn't make sense from an HR perspective anyway, it's a spectacular waste of time and money.

Sorry, what I meant was that when I interview for my own department, I have appointed externally,

Personally I'm a big fan of trying to promote internally where possible. Some of the main reasons employees leave their jobs are that they feel they are not being developed, are undervalued and become demotivated.

Sometimes there might not be any suitable internal candidates, of course. But encouraging internal development and promotion improves morale, retains key talent and saves a fortune on recruitment and administration costs.

I actually don't mind recruiting internally - actually, I rather like that due to the things flowery quoted above. BUT the whole charade of putting up a job ad, interviewing people, etc. when the decision has long since been made, is just... an utter waste of time for the people in the company and those outside.

In our organisation (NHS) we have to advertise internally only for a short period to make sure people at risk of redundancy get first shot - but only if they meet criteria. Then it goes to outside advertising.

We haven't yet had anyone internal get a job with us, but then what we do is very, very specialist indeed.