Internal Hire

<!–div.glotext {padding: 5px 10px 0px 10px;font:12px Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;}span.glotitle {font:bold 14px Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;}div.glohead {font:bold 14px Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;border-top:1px solid #999;background-color:#eee;padding:5px;}p.glosmall {font:italic 11px Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;}span.globutton {float:right;font:bold 10px Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;border-top:1px solid #999;background-color:#eee;}span.globutton a {text-decoration: none; padding: 2px; height: 15px; color: #ffffff; background-color: #00599b;}p.glosmall span {color:#a00;}–>

Internal Hire For large corporations, recruiting expenses are enormous, and yet in most cases, the process of hiring internally is secondary to going outside to recruit talent. Research suggests that promoting from within can deliver more benefits for companies than hiring outside talent. I came upon a recent study from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School that found that external hires were paid approximately 18% more than internal employees in equivalent roles, but fared worse in performance reviews during their first two years on the job. Even more interesting was a recent Wall Street Journal article that reported on a study by Booze & Co., which found that chief executives hired from outside a company are twice as likely to be forced out as those promoted from within: “Between 2009 and 2011, companies dismissed 35% of ‘outsider’ CEOs, compared with just 19% of ‘insider’ CEOs during that same period.” These statistics support the fact that companies should invest more in succession planning, a process which, if managed well, will save significant recruiting dollars and produce considerably better performance and organizational stability.