I don't have any real problem with advancing staff within an organization as long as it is balanced by opportunities for outside applicants. I think that any organization that doesn't use a balanced approach (at all levels) runs the risk of the staff and organization becoming sort of jaded and faded. New blood here and there never hurt anybody. I think it is true that in order to move ahead, in many situations one must move to another company or organization. I have had this conversation with friends and colleagues in the museum field and this seems to be the case with many people, myself included. Arlyn Danielson ---------- From: David Haberstich[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 1998 5:31 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: hiring from within (was "questions on posted jobs") I agree with Susan Wageman that an organization must provide advancement opportunities for employees. One of the most frustrating things that could happen would be to have your boss think so highly of your work that he/she wants to create a new, higher-paying job that everyone agrees you can handle--only to find, after the new position gets advertised, that an even MORE qualified (let's say over-qualified, for the sake of argument), hungrier hero rides up on a white horse, sweeps everyone off their feet, gets "your" job, and you're suddenly out on your ear! How would you like that? Every job needs a measure of security and opportunity for advancement. At the opposite extreme from another writer, I believe in hiring from within FIRST, whenever possible. That opens up entry-level positions. I believe in paying your dues within an organization, and am annoyed by the prevalent assumption in museums, universities, and much of the corporate world that ONLY an outsider has the necessary vision and perspective for the upper echelons, and the corollary that the ONLY way to advance in managerial and executive positions is to be able to pick up and move geographically when opportunity knocks. Often a promotion is designed specifically for a particular employee who has demonstrated that he/she can assume added responsibilities--the actual duties may not have changed, but the level of expertise and responsibility have--perhaps the employee already works at that level without commensurate compensation. It might well be unfair to award that "position" (which is not new, just a redefinition of the old one) to someone else. On the other hand, it clearly is unfair to tantalize other applicants with false advertising for an "opening" which does not really exist. The only advantage in applying for a nonexistent job is to obtain a "ranking" which may be useful to apply for a "real" opening; otherwise it's a waste of everyone's time. Sometimes federal, state, or local laws should be changed to make job advertisements more fair and honest. I see things from both the "inside" and "outside": a worker has a right to expect certain levels of protection for the existing job AND future advancement, yet outside job applicants have a right to a fair shake. When you apply for an "outside" job, you should anticipate "inside" competitors whose knowledge of the organzation is a plus, while your unfamiliarity is a minus--but that all factors will be considered and weighed. Any job which is actually a promotion for a specific insider should be clearly identified; otherwise applications and interviews are a waste of time (and time is money) for everyone. That an organization would pay to advertise a job, then refuse to consider applicants who answer the ad, staggers the imagination. Such ads are a sham, probably a cynical compliance with a regulation. A rule which leads to misleading or fraudulent advertising is a terrible idea. This represents my synthesis of previous posts on this topic. I think everyone had good points, but it's useful to take a broader view. --David Haberstich