# Job not advertised internally



## LFC Murphy (6 Dec 2006)

Just would like to know if any knows about the legality of a job not being advertised internally. 

Basically just found out that a position that I would be in line for has been filled and I seen no advert (on notice board). I was keeping a look out for it.

Anyone have any ideas?

Thanks,


----------



## ajapale (6 Dec 2006)

As far as I know there is no obligation for an employer to advertise jobs internally (or externally). On occasion there may be a union-management agreeement in which certain jobs may be advertised internally.


----------



## GA001 (18 Apr 2008)

Just wondered about this - the company has advertised the position EXTERNALLY but did not advise (and usually does) that they were advertising it externally, before they advertised it internally ????


----------



## ajapale (19 Apr 2008)

GA001 said:


> Just wondered about this - the company has advertised the position EXTERNALLY but did not advise (and usually does) that they were advertising it externally, before they advertised it internally ????



Hi GA001,

Your post does not make much sense to me.

You do realise that the thread is a year and a half old?

aj


----------



## GA001 (19 Apr 2008)

Hi ajapale,

Regarless of the time scale (I'd rather not have started a new thread)

I was querying the reliability of your statement ie. in my own company, they advertised a job internally, but I found the same job on an external website, but it was advertised over 1 week ago - I just was querying any possibly legality of it.


----------



## flattea2 (20 Apr 2008)

It's not illegal. Thankfully we have not got that PC yet. Why should they have to advertise internally anyway?


----------



## GA001 (20 Apr 2008)

flattea2 said:


> It's not illegal. Thankfully we have not got that PC yet. Why should they have to advertise internally anyway?


 
The unusual scenario this time is that on each vacancy it is stated "this may be advertised externally" this was not the case..

also with this type of job - they would not want to be employing outsiders... need a working knowledge of the company system.. I just found it very odd they would advertise it externally first...


----------



## Sue Ellen (20 Apr 2008)

Do you have a trade union and if so what is the agreement with them with regard to vacant positions?  Have you queried the matter with them?


----------



## Purple (20 Apr 2008)

GA001 said:


> The unusual scenario this time is that on each vacancy it is stated "this may be advertised externally" this was not the case..
> 
> also with this type of job - they would not want to be employing outsiders... need a working knowledge of the company system.. I just found it very odd they would advertise it externally first...



Maybe they thought that new blood was needed? 
What's the big deal?


----------



## Complainer (20 Apr 2008)

Purple said:


> Maybe they thought that new blood was needed?
> What's the big deal?


The big deal is that it shows considerable disrespect for their existing staff. It is unlikely that any employers knows exactly what all employees are capable of, e.g. what night courses they have done, what part-time work they do at weekends, what family interests they have. If they have made a decision that 'new blood was needed', they did so from a position of ignorance.


----------



## ajapale (20 Apr 2008)

GA001 said:


> Just wondered about this - the company has advertised the position EXTERNALLY but did not advise (and usually does) that they were advertising it externally, before they advertised it internally ????



Ga,

Forgive me but your post is still confusing me.

Is the quote a new question or does it relate to the original  year and a half old post?

aj


----------



## dodo (20 Apr 2008)

If the job thought they had someone in the company to fill that post they would have done it internally.That is the way our company does it when a job comes up.They only do internal  if they believe the person can do the job.Why post job internally and go throught interview process if you know that person is not right for the position.It would be rude to make a fool of someone giving them false hope.Take it that they felt you where not the best person for the job.


LFC Murphy said:


> Just would like to know if any knows about the legality of a job not being advertised internally.
> 
> Basically just found out that a position that I would be in line for has been filled and I seen no advert (on notice board). I was keeping a look out for it.
> 
> ...


----------



## flattea2 (20 Apr 2008)

Complainer said:


> The big deal is that it shows considerable disrespect for their existing staff. It is unlikely that any employers knows exactly what all employees are capable of, e.g. what night courses they have done, what part-time work they do at weekends, what family interests they have. If they have made a decision that 'new blood was needed', they did so from a position of ignorance.


 

How do we know it was from a position of ignorance or that indeed they had taken all of these things into account?


----------



## Complainer (20 Apr 2008)

dodo said:


> They only do internal  if they believe the person can do the job.Why post job internally and go throught interview process if you know that person is not right for the position.





flattea2 said:


> How do we know it was from a position of ignorance or that indeed they had taken all of these things into account?



I'll try it a second time, as I guess you missed it the first time. *It is unlikely that any employer knows exactly what all employees are capable of*. No-one is suggesting that employers go through a charade of interviews. Internal candidates should go through the exact same short-listing process as external candidates. If they don't meet the basic requirements of the job, they don't get an interview. But you won't know who meets the basic requirements of the job unless you invite applications.


----------



## dodo (20 Apr 2008)

I cant agree with you, If I have a person working under my watch for ie 5 years surely I know what they are capable of and what they are not.Jobs go up in our place a few times a year for different reasons.I do be asked do I feel that a person under my management would be suitable and capable of doing a job that will shortly be coming available sometimes I say yes and sometimes I say no.It is that simple,If I did not know of a employee's capability's then I would not be doing my own job correctly. In a lot of companies certain people are told to apply for positions that are available.Do you really want to go throught with interviews and all the stress to be told that you are not suitable. Remember if the company wants you for the job they will let you know.


Complainer said:


> I'll try it a second time, as I guess you missed it the first time. *It is unlikely that any employer knows exactly what all employees are capable of*. No-one is suggesting that employers go through a charade of interviews. Internal candidates should go through the exact same short-listing process as external candidates. If they don't meet the basic requirements of the job, they don't get an interview. But you won't know who meets the basic requirements of the job unless you invite applications.


----------



## Complainer (20 Apr 2008)

dodo said:


> If I have a person working under my watch for ie 5 years surely I know what they are capable of and what they are not.


It's not just about their suitability for a similar job - you need to know about their suitability for completely different jobs within your organisation. So do you know about your team's suitability for EVERY possible position in the company? 

Do you know if perhaps one of them has done an evening course in bookeeping? or a course in HR? Do you know if one of them volunteers as a paramedic or civil defence activist? Do you know if one of them cares for an elderly relative or a disabled child? Do you know if one of one them volunteers to cover communications and PR for a political group or campaign group?

Unless EVERY manager in the organisation can answer a positive YES to EVERY one of these questions (and a pile of other questions) for EVERY employee in the organisation, the job should be advertised internally.


----------



## Purple (20 Apr 2008)

Complainer said:


> It's not just about their suitability for a similar job - you need to know about their suitability for completely different jobs within your organisation. So do you know about your team's suitability for EVERY possible position in the company?
> 
> Do you know if perhaps one of them has done an evening course in bookeeping? or a course in HR? Do you know if one of them volunteers as a paramedic or civil defence activist? Do you know if one of them cares for an elderly relative or a disabled child? Do you know if one of one them volunteers to cover communications and PR for a political group or campaign group?
> 
> Unless EVERY manager in the organisation can answer a positive YES to EVERY one of these questions (and a pile of other questions) for EVERY employee in the organisation, the job should be advertised internally.



My apologies if I am incorrect but it sounds like you are making the presumption that the OP is working in a large company/ organisation. If I need a new design engineer I will not advertise the job internally because I know that there are no suitable internal candidates. In an organisation which employs up to 100 people the management should know all about all of their employees. If they don’t then they aren’t much good at their job since, despite the cliché, the fact is that a business’s biggest asset is their employees. If you don’t know them then you cannot utilise them properly.


----------



## extopia (20 Apr 2008)

If an employee has any special qualifications or interests that would be of interest to their  employer, by all means the employee should let the employer know of their newly gained qualifications.


----------



## Complainer (20 Apr 2008)

Purple said:


> My apologies if I am incorrect but it sounds like you are making the presumption that the OP is working in a large company/ organisation. If I need a new design engineer I will not advertise the job internally because I know that there are no suitable internal candidates. In an organisation which employs up to 100 people the management should know all about all of their employees. If they don’t then they aren’t much good at their job since, despite the cliché, the fact is that a business’s biggest asset is their employees. If you don’t know them then you cannot utilise them properly.



I'm not necessarily referring to large companies. I can see that for specialist roles such as the example you outline above, it may well be very unlikely that there are suitable internal candidates that you don't know about. However, there may well be suitable candidates who are brothers/cousins/flatmates of internal staff - Why would you want to rule out 'word of mouth' as a recruitment channel? 


extopia said:


> If an employee has any special qualifications or interests that would be of interest to their  employer, by all means the employee should let the employer know of their newly gained qualifications.


This is patronising nonsense, suggesting that every employee should be updating the HR person every quarter on their personal developments in order to be considered for internal jobs. It smacks of a patriarchal view of employment that I thought went out in the 60's. No HR person would want to be weighed down in this paperwork. Just sticking the notice on the notice board is a far more common sense approach.


----------



## extopia (20 Apr 2008)

Complainer said:


> This is patronising nonsense, suggesting that every employee should be updating the HR person every quarter on their personal developments in order to be considered for internal jobs.



Well, I'm sorry if you were offended. I didn't suggest you file paperwork with the HR department at all. I think a more informal approach would be better, e.g. keeping your immediate boss or supervisor abreast of your educational attainments or other relevant experiences. If it makes a difference to the job at hand, such knowledge may well pass up the communication channels without any further intervention on your behalf.

No employee has an automatic right to promotion, IMO. There's nothing wrong with seeking to fill a role from outside the company. And anyway, if the job is advertised publicly, internal people still have an opportunity to apply.

As to hiring brothers, cousins, flatmates of existing staff, well and good, as long as there's no nepotism involved.


----------



## rmelly (21 Apr 2008)

GA001 said:


> employing outsiders...


 
Is it just me or is there a lot to be read into this phrase?


----------



## Complainer (21 Apr 2008)

extopia said:


> Well, I'm sorry if you were offended. I didn't suggest you file paperwork with the HR department at all. I think a more informal approach would be better, e.g. keeping your immediate boss or supervisor abreast of your educational attainments or other relevant experiences. If it makes a difference to the job at hand, such knowledge may well pass up the communication channels without any further intervention on your behalf.


While it does indeed make sense for an individual to keep their manager informed of attainments and interests (something that I've done myself), it makes no sense for an organisation to rely on this 'word of mouth' process for something as important as recruitment of new staff.

What happens when the supervisor changes role or leaves? What happens with the recruiting manager doesn't manage to check in with EVERY line manager about potential recruits? There is no way that organisations would rely on any process with this degree of informality for a quality management function or a financial reporting function, so why would you rely on it for recruitment?



extopia said:


> No employee has an automatic right to promotion, IMO. There's nothing wrong with seeking to fill a role from outside the company. And anyway, if the job is advertised publicly, internal people still have an opportunity to apply.


Yet again, no-one is suggesting automatic right to promotion. No-one is suggesting automatic right to interview. The only suggestion is that employers show enough respect for existing staff to let them know that the position is open, and allow them to apply for the position. No more, no less.

I still haven't heard any clear arguement as to why an employer would NOT want to advertise internally. There is an undercurrent of 'mushroom management' on this thread (i.e. keep them in the dark and throw some smelly stuff at them from time to time).


----------



## Purple (22 Apr 2008)

I think the bottom line is that in this particular case we do not have all the facts and so should not rush to judgement but in general it does make sense to advertise the job internally first.

I do think that the OP’s question about the legality of not advertising internally is quite frankly ridiculous.


----------



## LFC Murphy (22 Apr 2008)

Purple said:


> I do think that the OP’s question about the legality of not advertising internally is quite frankly ridiculous.


 
A Poster with 1800 posts to his/her name making such a comment


----------



## bigchicken (22 Apr 2008)

There is nothing to stop the internal candidate from applying for the job if its advertised externally I assume?

Some companies do this to avoid the recruitment process being dragged out. For example, if its advertised internally and there turns out to be no suitable candidate then it has to be advertised externally and the whole process takes longer. If its advertised externally from the start then both internal & external candidates can both apply & be interviewed at the same time.


----------



## Pique318 (22 Apr 2008)

bigchicken said:


> There is nothing to stop the internal candidate from applying for the job if its advertised externally I assume?
> 
> Some companies do this to avoid the recruitment process being dragged out. For example, if its advertised internally and there turns out to be no suitable candidate then it has to be advertised externally and the whole process takes longer. If its advertised externally from the start then both internal & external candidates can both apply & be interviewed at the same time.



Finally, a common-sense post to this topic.

Seriously people, if nit-picking was an Olympic sport, we'd have a team ready ! 

Answer to question...No, it's not illegal.

All companies that one would stay with for any reasonable length of time, will have some way of monitoring their employees skills. A database based on their CV, courses taken/completed in their field or other fields/yearly reviews (if you pass an accountancy course and don't tell anyone, then why be surprised if no-one mentions to you that an accountancy position came available?? The onus is on the employee to make themselves appealing to their employer to promote them.)


----------



## Purple (22 Apr 2008)

LFC Murphy said:


> A Poster with 1800 posts to his/her name making such a comment


Eh?


----------



## shipibo (22 Apr 2008)

rmelly said:


> Is it just me or is there a lot to be read into this phrase?


 


Its just you


----------



## shipibo (22 Apr 2008)

LFC Murphy said:


> A Poster with 1800 posts to his/her name making such a comment


 

Purple made a legitimate comment, to only advertise internally would be limiting employers options.

maybe the easiest thing to do would be approach the boss and ask why preference was not given to internal employees


----------



## Complainer (22 Apr 2008)

Pique318 said:


> All companies that one would stay with for any reasonable length of time, will have some way of monitoring their employees skills. A database based on their CV, courses taken/completed in their field or other fields/yearly reviews (if you pass an accountancy course and don't tell anyone, then why be surprised if no-one mentions to you that an accountancy position came available?? The onus is on the employee to make themselves appealing to their employer to promote them.)


I've never come across any HR department that actually held this level of detail (courses completed, interested areas) in any structured format (to allow searching), other than basic qualifications for regulatory requirements (e.g. qualified doctor, qualified accountant). Are you aware of any HR dept that records data of courses completed externally (i.e. not funded by company) and interest of employees, and searches this data when new positions open up?



bigchicken said:


> There is nothing to stop the internal candidate from applying for the job if its advertised externally I assume?
> 
> Some companies do this to avoid the recruitment process being dragged out. For example, if its advertised internally and there turns out to be no suitable candidate then it has to be advertised externally and the whole process takes longer. If its advertised externally from the start then both internal & external candidates can both apply & be interviewed at the same time.



I'm amazed and amused about how many nonsensical argument against internal notification of recruitment have been thrown about on this thread, i.e.

- it will delay the process
- no-one is guaranteed an interview
- no-one is guaranteed a promotion

SImply displaying the advert on an internal notice board does not delay the process, as internal candidates will be processed in the same cycle as external candidates. 

The problem with advertising externally only is that there is a good chance that internal candidates won't see it. Now, are there any good reasons for NOT advertising internally?


----------



## extopia (22 Apr 2008)

Complainer said:


> Now, are there any good reasons for NOT advertising internally?



There's one really obvious one - the sure knowledge that there are no internal employees suited to the job.


----------



## Pique318 (23 Apr 2008)

Complainer said:


> I've never come across any HR department that actually held this level of detail (courses completed, interested areas) in any structured format (to allow searching), other than basic qualifications for regulatory requirements (e.g. qualified doctor, qualified accountant). Are you aware of any HR dept that records data of courses completed externally (i.e. not funded by company) and interest of employees, and searches this data when new positions open up?



Yes, and I worked for them for 7 years.

It's in the companies interests to do so as advertising every job externally takes time and will inevitably result in a percentage of useless chancers taking up the HR/recruitment dept time. Whilst using a recruitment company costs a lot of money.

In my previous employment, they would also advertise everything internally for 1 week before it went to the external process.
All their bases were covered, but still positions went to individuals without being advertised at all, or only 'for show', as the individuals concerned were the 'pets'.

Bottom line, if you want promotion, keep your eye on the jobsites !
You snooze, you lose.


----------



## Complainer (24 Apr 2008)

Pique318 said:


> Yes, and I worked for them for 7 years.
> 
> It's in the companies interests to do so as advertising every job externally takes time and will inevitably result in a percentage of useless chancers taking up the HR/recruitment dept time. Whilst using a recruitment company costs a lot of money.


Forgive my cynicism, but I just don't believe that any HR department actively maintains this level of detail (courses completed, interested areas) in any structured format (to allow searching), other than basic qualifications for regulatory requirements (e.g. qualified doctor, qualified accountant) and searches the data at recruitment time. I would really need to see some kind of independent verification (e.g. press article, case study from software provider etc) to believe this.

The cost/benefit ratio is too low. Maintaining this kind of data for an organisation of a couple of hundred employees is probably going to take about one man-day a week just on the admin side. Soft data like this inevitably gets out of date very quickly, and concerted ongoing efforts will be required to keep the data current.

And what's the benefit? Given that they are already advertising all positions internally, why would they bother with this? Let's say they find a production line operator who has done some bookkeeping courses, and there is an admin position coming up on the Finance dept, what action is taken? Do they just tip him off?


extopia said:


> There's one really obvious one - the sure knowledge that there are no internal employees suited to the job.


Sorry, but I pointed out the flaw in this one earlier in the thread, i.e. "However, there may well be suitable candidates who are brothers/cousins/flatmates of internal staff - Why would you want to rule out 'word of mouth' as a recruitment channel?" Given that progressive organisations are incentivising this kind of referral with bonus payments, why would an employer want to avoid this kind of referral, simply to avoid the effort of sticking a bit of paper on a noticeboard?


----------



## Pique318 (24 Apr 2008)

Complainer said:


> Forgive my cynicism, but I just don't believe that any HR department actively maintains this level of detail (courses completed, interested areas) in any structured format (to allow searching), other than basic qualifications for regulatory requirements (e.g. qualified doctor, qualified accountant) and searches the data at recruitment time. I would really need to see some kind of independent verification (e.g. press article, case study from software provider etc) to believe this.


 I don't have any independently published information of the HR practises of a private company, and for me to give the name of the company would open me up to litigation. Besides, I don't really care whether you believe it or not. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact.


Complainer said:


> The cost/benefit ratio is too low. Maintaining this kind of data for an organisation of a couple of hundred employees is probably going to take about one man-day a week just on the admin side. Soft data like this inevitably gets out of date very quickly, and concerted ongoing efforts will be required to keep the data current.


 I'm very glad that you are not the HR manager in any company I've ever worked for if you would take 20% of a resources time to maintain something like that. 6-monthly reviews are the time when every employee is rerquired to review and ensure their data is correct. They can update it themselves on an ad-hoc basis if necessary.


Complainer said:


> And what's the benefit? Given that they are already advertising all positions internally, why would they bother with this? Let's say they find a production line operator who has done some bookkeeping courses, and there is an admin position coming up on the Finance dept, what action is taken? Do they just tip him off?


 Roles in certain teams require certain skills that may not be utilised in an employees existing position but they may not be actively looking for a change. If management can move them to a team where their skills are better put to use, then it's a more efficient use of your resources. Also, if you have no real wish to change teams for no reason, but managment put it to you that this will make you a more important member of the team, then your visibility goes up, as does your chance for a payrise and/or a promotion when they come around.


----------



## greenfield (24 Apr 2008)

The OP asked about the legality of a company not advertising vacancies.  As far as I know, there can potentially be an issue under employment equality for an employer who does not advertise internally for example if the job could potentially be a promotion for a group of workers who are mainly female or married or older and a male or single person or a younger person was appointed to the job.   This is a complex area and it is not just as simple as "I'm older the new person is younger, it must be discrimination", but there can potentially be a legal issue for the employer.


----------



## Complainer (24 Apr 2008)

Pique318 said:


> Roles in certain teams require certain skills that may not be utilised in an employees existing position but they may not be actively looking for a change. If management can move them to a team where their skills are better put to use, then it's a more efficient use of your resources. Also, if you have no real wish to change teams for no reason, but managment put it to you that this will make you a more important member of the team, then your visibility goes up, as does your chance for a payrise and/or a promotion when they come around.


 
 I can see some value in this data, particularly for assignment to team-based roles, rather than internal promotions.



Pique318 said:


> I don't have any independently published information of the HR practises of a private company, and for me to give the name of the company would open me up to litigation. Besides, I don't really care whether you believe it or not. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact.
> I'm very glad that you are not the HR manager in any company I've ever worked for if you would take 20% of a resources time to maintain something like that. 6-monthly reviews are the time when every employee is rerquired to review and ensure their data is correct. They can update it themselves on an ad-hoc basis if necessary.


I'm genuinely not being argumentative, but I'd really need to see this myself. I've seen so many attempts at this kind of data collection, all of which collapse into failure after 6 months. I'd need to see this myself to get my head around what they are up to.


----------

