[Globaltraffic24]

Sorry, am I missing something here? A vacancy is being advertised and that’s seen as a bad thing..? Literally every job should be advertised, otherwise you end up with a culture of people just hiring their mates.

Unfortunately you are missing something here. Typically, roles are advertised externally to avoid criticism of nepotism. In reality, this role will go to one of the two candidates already named in this thread. The result of advertising externally? The internal candidates end up waiting an unnecessary amount of time for the confirmation they expected, an interview and hiring process, often involved several people has been conducted for no reason whatsoever, and at cost to the public, and (arguably the worst bit of all this) external candidates were led to believe they had a chance when they never did.

It’s more common than ever these days and genuinely quite frustrating for all parties.

Don’t get me started on the written test. This whole process is an example of weak leadership allowing HR to run the show. NEVER allow your people team to run these processes. They are there to support, not dictate. YOU are the expert, not them. Their expertise is in the wider recruitment process, onboarding and firing.

[Brekkie]

I thought they had to advertise externally now, hence the ads in recent years for BBC Breakfast presenter when the line of succession was quite obvious.

Royal Editor is a strange roll really - largely doing fluff pieces but then critical at times of key events. I would have thought while an internal promotion or movement across departments for correspondent roles could be justified it is right the Editor roles are advertised more widely.

[all new phil]

Unfortunately you are missing something here. Typically, roles are advertised externally to avoid criticism of nepotism. In reality, this role will go to one of the two candidates already named in this thread. The result of advertising externally? The internal candidates end up waiting an unnecessary amount of time for the confirmation they expected, an interview and hiring process, often involved several people has been conducted for no reason whatsoever, and at cost to the public, and (arguably the worst bit of all this) external candidates were led to believe they had a chance when they never did.

It’s more common than ever these days and genuinely quite frustrating for all parties.

Don’t get me started on the written test. This whole process is an example of weak leadership allowing HR to run the show. NEVER allow your people team to run these processes. They are there to support, not dictate. YOU are the expert, not them. Their expertise is in the wider recruitment process, onboarding and firing.

Nope, pretty sure I’m not missing a thing.

[chris]

Isn’t the point that the hiring process is once again being bungled, in the same way the Pol Ed role was?

If you’re going to put it out externally, great. But do it from the off.