Employee resigning current position, just to apply for another one
mdhrhelp
1 Post
Have you ever run into an employee resigning from a position due to the fact they are not able to post for a position at another office (this is due to our 12 month policy in which an employee must be in the current position for 12 months) and then turning around and applying for the position in which the management would not let them post for? The reason for not allowing the posting is not due to adverse reasons, more becasue they are a great employee and very needed in the current position, therefore the management was lucky to have a say in this case. Are we required to entertain the application? The candidate is well qualified and would likely be a great fit. Any thoughts?
Comments
Have you ever run into an employee resigning from a position due to the fact they are not able to post for a position at another office (this is due to our 12 month policy in which an employee must be in the current position for 12 months) and then turning around and applying for the position in which the management would not let them post for? The reason for not allowing the posting is not due to adverse reasons, more becasue they are a great employee and very needed in the current position, therefore the management was lucky to have a say in this case. Are we required to entertain the application? The candidate is well qualified and would likely be a great fit. Any thoughts?[/quote]
It sounds to me like your Company has taken the risk of losing a great employee by failing to allow them to grow in the manner they not only desire but, apparently, require.
Can you think of many legal reasons for not considering an applicant? Apparently, this was a good employee. Did they turn in their notice? Will they be leaving on good terms? I think it would be hard for you to argue the applicant is un-qualified or barred due to performance or behavior on the job in their prior tenure with the Company. Failing to consider them sounds like a way to have your decision scrutinized if the applicant puts two and two together, believes the decision was unfair, and gets cranky about it.
Let's put this another way:
"Hi, we have a great employee and we really want him to stay in the job he's in, so we're not allowing him to apply for another role that he really wants to be in. So, he's quitting the old job so he can apply for the new job. Should we consider hiring this good employee into the new job?"
"No, I think you should lose the good employee altogether and therefore have to try to find two good people instead of only one in order to enforce your rule preventing employees from maximizing their career growth."
...Employers have shifted a lot of risk onto employees over the last 30 years. They demand mobility and are often able to get it. Unless your pay is just absolutely fabulous or you have a monopsony on the labor market, then you can count on your employees doing what is in their best interest without regard for any rules that serve the company's purpose but not theirs.
Have you ever run into an employee resigning from a position due to the fact they are not able to post for a position at another office (this is due to our 12 month policy in which an employee must be in the current position for 12 months) and then turning around and applying for the position in which the management would not let them post for? The reason for not allowing the posting is not due to adverse reasons, more becasue they are a great employee and very needed in the current position, therefore the management was lucky to have a say in this case. Are we required to entertain the application? The candidate is well qualified and would likely be a great fit. Any thoughts?[/quote]
It sounds to me like your Company has taken the risk of losing a great employee by failing to allow them to grow in the manner they not only desire but, apparently, require.
[/quote]
I agree entirelly with TXHRGuy's response, but am interested in more discussion of the principle behind a 12 month "no transfer policy" and how others handle this.
At my company the department that hires jr administrative staff is a revolving door for staff who come in where there is an opening, get fully trained in the ways of the department and the company, demonstrate high performance, and hop to a more senior administrative position as soon as one opens up (or is created because people recognize a rising star when they see him/her). The manager of this department is happy to perform this function for the organization, but gets understandably cranky at having to do this too many times in succession, having to contend with interruption of smooth service as the recently vacated position remains open and as new people are trained and are geting up to speed. We do *not* have a "no transfer policy" time frame but I wouldn't mind if we did. My ideal would be no transfer for six months, and then either a wait for transfer until the position has been filled or a 30 day wait to transfer the person, whichever is shorter.
Do other folks have this dilemma, and how do you handle?