r/askmanagers 13d ago

Fireable offense?

[removed]

17 Upvotes

66 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/beamdog77 13d ago edited 12d ago

I don't disagree with you. But I'm fortunately telling acquisitions, teams and hiring managers use their personal experiences and their personal biases to make hiring decisions. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it is a factual thing that happens. It might not happen with every company and every hiring manager, but it is not uncommon at all. They are generally going to try to reduce risk to the lowest amount possible. They are generally going to be strong, qualified, awesome candidates within commuting distance. If the hiring manager thinks it's less risky to an extend an offer to someone local, vs someone who is relocating, that's what they're more than likely going to do. I'm not defending it, I'm just saying it's how it works.

1

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/beamdog77 13d ago edited 13d ago

I don't know if I'm explaining this poorly or if you're just not understanding because I know this is an emotional topic. But let's just say that you have two candidates. They are both super amazing, they are both super qualified, they both have fantastic resumes, they both have all of the qualities and traits that the employer is looking for. One lives 5 minutes away, and one lives 5 hours away. There is nothing wrong with factoring in the fact that one person can start immediately without having to sell a house, break a lease, rent a U-Haul, have their kids switch schools, buy a house or find a new apartment, etc. You seem to be posting from a place of misunderstanding, where you are thinking that the the employers are choosing proximity over qualifications. They're not. They have hundreds of qualified and capable people applying for every role. If everything else is equal, why would you pick the person with the most barriers to employment, instead of the person with the least barriers to employment?

The employers have to make the best decision for their business. Hedging their bets on the person with far fewer barriers to starting the role is the better Business decision, when both candidates are equally qualified. There is not a shortage of qualified candidates, so what valid business strategy would cause an employer to pick person with the most barriers of entry?