Sometimes the interviews actually matter. I’ve seen situations where there was a logical candidate on paper but they couldn’t make as good a case for how/why to make the jump to manager.

Anonymous wrote:It's favoritism, sure. But as someone who has lost in this type of game, generally "big" promotions are a contest between several very competent competitors. Applicants are often all well-credentialed, experienced, well-liked, etc. So at this point, of course personal relationships will play in.

This is really true. The higher you go, the closer the contest. It can be agonizing to choose between two qualified candidates. The fact that she already worked with the group may have been the tipping point--or something else that you don't see. I

It's also true that sometimes onlookers like one person better than another and assume everyone does, and they may not really be the best for the job.

And sometimes people hire their friends and those they prefer. I've heard it euphemistically "building your team bench" as a justification.

Maybe the team members of Team B got to interview and have a say in who would be over them? Good companies do that. Team B swayed the vote. They would probably resent you Manager A anyway.

Anonymous wrote:Men get jobs based on potential and women and minorities get jobs based on experience.

Not true at all. DEI is promting a lot of bad or very unqualified people in the latter camp.

Anonymous wrote:Men get jobs based on potential and women and minorities get jobs based on experience.

Psst: the 80s are calling and want their quip back.

Men get jobs based on potential and women and minorities get jobs based on experience.

I find when people complain about favoritism they usually just aren’t as good. If management likes someone better it’s usually that they are more reliable. In the old days it might be that the person was in their frat or played golf with them or whatever but I just don’t see that much anymore. If you’re not the favorite, it might just be that you’re not as reliable in your work product.

It's favoritism, sure. But as someone who has lost in this type of game, generally "big" promotions are a contest between several very competent competitors. Applicants are often all well-credentialed, experienced, well-liked, etc. So at this point, of course personal relationships will play in.

All else equal? Same age, race, sex, etc?

Favoritism, friends with one of the managers, interviewed better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly B is a known candidate in that group. Why not hire B over A if A doesn't have a clear advantage, and might also not be a great personality fit.

It's just favoritism while ignoring hard tangibles within the realm of control of both candidates like number of papers published, years experience, etc.

Well something tells me that the criteria (not posted) was more than the objectives ones you stated "# of papers published, etc" and if Candidate B has the comfort factor for Senior Management that is a huge deal in any hiring decision. Based on the information given hard to say if it was actual favoritism over sour grapes. Who knows??

Anonymous wrote:Clearly B is a known candidate in that group. Why not hire B over A if A doesn't have a clear advantage, and might also not be a great personality fit.

Except there is a clear advantage - more years experience doing the same exact job as B. Both are already liked. You're clearly sending the message that years of experience and accomplishments don't matter. Only X factors like working with people in the group matter. How can anyone possibly have a fair chance at the job then if that's the primary factor? It's just favoritism while ignoring hard tangibles within the realm of control of both candidates like number of papers published, years experience, etc.

Anonymous wrote:Clearly B is a known candidate in that group. Why not hire B over A if A doesn't have a clear advantage, and might also not be a great personality fit.

This. ^^

Clearly B is a known candidate in that group. Why not hire B over A if A doesn't have a clear advantage, and might also not be a great personality fit.

Today at work it was announced who'd essentially be promoted to manager. Two internal candidates (A and B) applied. Both are well liked by the people they work with. Candidate A has more years of experience on the job than candidate B. They both have the same exact job though. Candidate A also has published twice since being hired while candidate B has zero.

It was announced today that B got the job. Now everyone cannot understand why. Then only difference is that the posted job was for management over a group B works in. A does not work in that group. Obviously A cannot control who they work with.

What is the point then of interviewing for the job then if management above seemed to already have made up their minds that they'd hire based on experience within the group rather than accomplishments? People from the outside cannot control the latter.

I'm now convinced that when it comes to promotions accomplishments never matter. In the end it always comes down to favoritism outside the control of whomever is applying.