Hiring Managers from the Outside: Good or Bad?

[Phoenix84]

Do you think hiring management (or anyone really) from outside the company or agency is a good idea? 

Or do you think it's better to always promote from within, or perhaps some combination of the two?

I've not experienced it directly, but I've seen at times where managers are hired in from outside the organization, then arrive and want to make a bunch of changes that don't really fit into the organizational structure.  But others claim it's good to have a "fresh look" at the way things are handled.

I suppose the question could apply to other senior positions.  What say you?  Is it better policy to promote from within, or hire from the outside?

[Deleted]

 if no-one in the company is qualified or has the potential to develop the skills necessary for the job, then you hire from outside.
 The bonus that comes with an outside hire... it discourages factionalism. The new hire won't have any loyalties or obligations to whatever cliques exist within the company.

[8 Bit WWBG]

I think a combination of the two is best.  I think that good things can happen when someone who "knows how things work" pairs up with someone who isn't marred by sticking to "how things have always worked here".  New ideas customized to fit within organizational workings can really invigorate an organization.

I think it is terrible for morale when people who've worked to get to the top end up being pushed aside by someone who gets cutsies.  When a new top manager comes in, and then brings over his/her own people from wherever he/she used to be.  Maybe it'll be an improvement, maybe not.  If that new manager only has square pegs, and his solution is to cut the round hole into a square, that could be bad as well.

I don't hate change.  I just like change for the better.

[8 Bit WWBG]

...:::"The new hire won't have any loyalties or obligations to whatever cliques exist within the company.":::...

We were posting at the same time; and amazingly, looking at the same issue from two sides.  You make a very good point that a new hire won't likely look to elevate his "faction" (great word choice!).  Like I said though; it doesn't stop him/her from bringing over the faction from the previous workplace.  Its a great way to alienate a BUNCH of qualified internal folks.

[Phoenix84]

I can see both sides.  Sometimes a fresh look is welcome, and it does (usually) discourage faction politics.  I saw that when I worked for the Air Force, those guys had all been there for 30+ years and were so set in their ways.  The attitude of "it's always been done this way" was very pervasive. 

But, there's value in knowing how things work.  And sometimes a new manager from the outside might try to bulldoze a square peg into a round hole.  Though this isn't necessarily the case.  Plus, there's something to be said for rewarding loyalty.  It can be a blow to moral to work for an organization for a long time, and some new guy comes in and gets that promotion you've been coveting.

[Deleted]

We have a lot of managers here that worked their way up and SUCK.  It may be our failure as a company that our management training programs are not sufficient.

[shanendoah]

As someone who has been both the internal hire and the outside hire for middle management positions, I do see value in both.

At the higher level, I think a lot has to do with what the hiring organization is expecting out of the position. At my last company, we had two VPs, both who had been brought up within the system and done great work for the organization over 15-20 years leave. The company very specifically brought in two outsiders to fill those VP positions because they needed people who were going to be major agents of change- overseeing layoffs and a restructuring of management. I expect both of those new VPs to last maybe 5 years, if that. And I then expect they will be replaced by internal hires.

You bring in outsiders to shake things up and oversee things like layoffs major restructuring. Once you're stable, you hire internally.

In my recent position as being the person brought in from the outside, in this case it is for a brand new unit. I do not know if they had any internal candidates for my position or not, since not only is my position new but the unit I'm heading up is new (though all of my staff are internal hires).
At the same time, I don't expect to be in this position more than 5-7 years, and to reach the 7 years, I would expect a promotion. My normal time in a role is 3-5 years.

[souldoubt]

There was a similar thread not that long ago on here and when I saw this thread as having the most recent post on this forum I thought someone had posted in it again.  We're starting the budget process and in one of our departments 2 of the top 3 individuals left in 2013.  After sitting and talking with the new head of the department it was interesting to find out that some things simply weren't being done or the processes were really lacking.  The employees in this department even told the new head where they thought the predecessors were not really doing their job or were doing a poor job. 

Anyways the other thread talked about this to a degree as sometimes it's good to have someone new come in with a different perspective.  Sometimes people get so used to do doing things one way that as time goes by they don't look to improve upon it or even make sure things are working as they should.  I think there's definitely pros/cons to hiring from within or from outside.  From within you have people who know how things work at the company while for outsiders there's a learning curve.  On the flip side outsiders bring new ideas and question the way things have been done which can make you re-evaluate how you complete projects. 

[cronewitch]

I love that we hired my boss from outside. It is really helping with cross training having her look at everything everyone is doing.

If on the other hand I didn't want to retire that job should have been mine and I might have quit with short notice instead of 4 months notice.

Promoting people comes with the issue of them not wanting to give up areas of expertise to other people or nobody stepping up to take it.

My replacement is busy doing her old job when I am trying to train her. It would have been easier to train someone new so they had time to pay attention.

[Phoenix84]

Nov 1, 2013 12:45:50 GMT -5 @mmc said:

We have a lot of managers here that worked their way up and SUCK.  It may be our failure as a company that our management training programs are not sufficient.

Were you an internal hire, or an external hire?

[Phoenix84]

On a separate but somewhat related topic, have you ever seen a internal person who's been promoted unable to effectively wield the necessary authority for their position because those who work for them can't see them as the boss?  Presumably because they still see them as one of the grunts?  Or perhaps there's some jealousy involved?

[Tiny]

Nov 1, 2013 12:42:59 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I can see both sides.  Sometimes a fresh look is welcome, and it does (usually) discourage faction politics.  I saw that when I worked for the Air Force, those guys had all been there for 30+ years and were so set in their ways.  The attitude of "it's always been done this way" was very pervasive. 

But, there's value in knowing how things work.  And sometimes a new manager from the outside might try to bulldoze a square peg into a round hole.  Though this isn't necessarily the case.  Plus, there's something to be said for rewarding loyalty.  It can be a blow to moral to work for an organization for a long time, and some new guy comes in and gets that promotion you've been coveting.

The problem with "it's always been done this way" is that often No One KNOWS why it's done that way... that's what someone new can shine a light on.  Maybe some of that stuff that's Always Been Done that Way is no longer of value to the company OR maybe because things have change it no longer needs to be done that way - thus saving time or money or whatever.   I have to deal with change - it's part of my job (I'm in IT - it's forever changing).  

When I hear about  someone from outside the company being hired, and then if they start trying to implement a lot of changes and get NO SUPPORT from higher management it leads me to believe that higher management hired the WRONG person... they wanted someone who would keep the status quo and instead hired someone who thought they were suppose to shake things up.     How a company handles "change" is dictated - not necessarily on a manager by manager level - but by at the  corporate level.

I'm all for hiring the 'right person' for the job - even if it means bypassing the person who assumes they are gonna get a promotion ONLY  because they've been there the longest.    I realize in lots of jobs it's not what you know or what skills you have - it's seniority that dictates who gets promoted.  I think that's a bunch of whooey.. but it doesn't really matter what I think       I think this is called the Peter Principle.  
 

[Abby Normal]

We will hire an outside manager, but it will be someone in the industry who is known and has experience.  We would not hire a manager outside the industry though. Some of our competitors do and it takes years to train people and most dont survive.  We prefer to poach them.

[movingforward]

I was hired from the outside so perhaps I am supposed to say outside managers .  As other have said I do see the value in both and really depends on the dynamics of the company.  I work for a small association and was told after I was hired that two people within the association had applied for my position but the board was specifically looking for someone with a "fresh perspective."  Apparently the association had slipped into the "this is how it has always been done" comfort zone.  One of the in-house people who applied specifically HATES change.  This is evident every day.  There are times when I think she doesn't want to change something because it might create more work.  Well, that is not a good enough reason not to change something.  That is just pure laziness.  I had not idea she had applied for my position until about 6 months in but it explained a lot because I kept getting the feeling she wanted me to crash and burn.  At any rate, she got over it especially when she saw it wasn't going to happen. 

[Phoenix84]

"I think this is called the Peter Principle."

I thought the Peter Principle was that in any hierarchy, each person rises to their own level of incompetence and remains there.

Which makes sense in theory.  If you're good at your job, you get promoted.  If you aren't, you don't.  So each person gets to a level where they are incompetent, and remains there.

But I am not naieve enough to think that being good at your job means you'll get promoted.  There's often far more to it than that, politics being among other factors.