Didn’t get job

I think probably key to this is that those jobs don’t exist to the same level they did before. PAs usually do a really different role to the old “admin” and also support multiple people. I started in admin and it was easy and didn’t require much more than being organised polite and learning basic software systems. A lot more is expected now, for fewer roles.

also you can’t have it both ways - accept a persons excellent feedback then decide they’re clueless when they feedback and make interview decisions. The workplace is tough really, especially nowadays

I have always wondered that myself. The interviews where I work are very strictly structured, and yet there have been some terrible appointments.
Can the interviewer actually say 'Oh that's absolute bollox Fred- you've never been a team player!' ?

That may be the case I worked for a company which had two levels of temporary staff - some from an agency and some who were contracted directly to the company.
The process was work as an agency temp, work as a direct contract temp then get a permanent job if one became available.

Why is it back in the 80s and 90s if you were a temp and you were good at the job they just got you to sign a bit of paper to transfer to permanent? They can see with their own eyes and their own common sense that you can do the job. Fair enough, interview outside candidates if the temp isn’t up to scratch but if they are just give them the job!

If the external candidate was excellent at interview and had loads of relevant experience that they could demonstrate at interview, it is reasonable for them to appoint ahead of an internal candidate that didn't perform as well on the day.

However, in the interview feedback that OP requested, they basically told her that she wasn't appointed due to a small issue with a part of her job, that they hadn't raised with her previously and that she has now taken on board and immediately rectified. If they knew that OP was doing something wrong, they should have provided feedback at the point this issue came to light, not to let it continue and then use it as the reason why she didn't get the job.

It is also unfair of them to expect OP to train the new hire, i.e. you are not good enough for us to appoint you to the permanent role, but you are good enough and knowledgeable to train your replacement to do this job.

Not in the UK, no. It's perfectly legal to give someone a job without advertising it at all; however other laws might come into play if someone else is "passed over" for a role/promotion and could claim discrimination against a protected characteristic. Advertising a role and having an (in theory) fair competition with a documented hiring decision evidencing the successful person was the best candidate is a defence against any allegation of unfairness based on protected characteristics.

It's company policy that usually dictates whether jobs are advertised internally, externally, or both.

I really think this is rubbish, sorry. Everyone who does an interview has to know they may be unsuccessful, it's part of life. The idea that your employer should then have to make arrangements including you having nothing to do with the training of the new recruit is ridiculously infantile.

OP, you may just not have done a great interview, get feedback on your interview performance, you need to know exactly where you could have done better for next time. It's all about improving your chances in next interview you do.

Yes, it seems they do 🫤 I went online to see how other people felt about it (Reddit) and everyone pretty much hates it. (The ‘star’ method, that didn’t even exist when I did the bulk of my work years, how on earth did I and everyone else manage to get jobs before it).

So instead of going to uni to do a degree it’s probably better for everyone to just go to a drama or performing arts school and nail those interviews every time!

Sure, but in your own words and with no penalty for something like ‘not being passionate enough’. Everyone’s an adult in this situation - so no need for phoney games.

It’s not acting if it’s true though. Why can’t you identify what makes you good at your job (to the people who are saying they have to ‘learn a script’)? If you don’t understand what it is that makes you good, how would you know what makes you bad, or is it blind luck?

that’s what being able to demonstrate things at interview means. Being able to explain why you are good and why you are the right person for the role. Otherwise you are just a random person who fortuitously makes good decisions through chance.

But…this is what worries me! Do people really have to learn to spout set-speeches and insincere rubbish to impress the interviewer? If I was interviewing that would be a red flag. I’d want their own words and their own ideas and avoid anyone who had slick answers off pat. But the awful cliched questions we hear about seem to favour this kind of corny, inauthentic response.

@Shitstix

They sound ridiculous. “You didn't show you wanted it enough “!?

Why do recruiters make grown-up people play their silly games? As a pp said upthread, it’s as if they want a RADA audition, not a sensible, bs-free, adult interview.

Why wouldn’t they show bias to an excellent internal employee who was already doing a great job? Are they mad?

This is crazy talk. It’s turning recruitment from a common sense-led, pragmatic process into a silly, counterintuitive game.

It ignores the overwhelming fact that the internal candidate is in a totally different situation from externals and tries to treat them the same. Treating people in different situations exactly the same doesn’t result in fairness.

It clearly is a complete waste of time “ process”

When younger I quit a job when they asked me to apply for the full time role that I was already doing.

I was on a part time contract, I’d boosted their sales quotas, and worked full time, I had their business keys, could be called out if there was a break in, yet I had to formerly interview for a full time position.
I said no, and walked straight into a new job.
I was a lot younger and much in demand .

The process was a waste of my time and frankly insulting.

I have experience of being temporarily in a job and not being allowed to apply for a full time position, as I was covering maternity leave, on the contract I was on.
So I left for a permanent role elsewhere, then they asked me to stay and I didn’t.

This happened to me. Temp for 6 months, a couple of perm roles came up. I applied even though the role l was doing as a temp was more junior than I previously had.

I didn't get the role because they didn't think I wanted it enough.

The day I got the rejection I quit, left 2 days later. I just said if you can't see my enthusiasm and experience for this role, I'm going.

I was devastated because I really wanted to work for the company. I didn't have another role and I sat at home for 2 weeks feeling dejected but another temp role came up, and a couple of years on from that experience im bloody glad I told them to shove it.

So you're still there, still in a temporary role??!

Why on earth??! Go temp somewhere else, and then at least get something permanent!

This happened to me and I got a new job within weeks and it turned out to be for the best! It is really hard and feels personal!

It's not a charade though. They have to ask questions and give you the same time to describe situations that relate to your skills and knowledge as external applicants.
If you fail to highlight your enthusiasm, excellent time-keeping, meticulous record keeping [add in as relevant] etc. because you think they know this, the gaps don't count for anything at interview.
Otherwise, in filling in gaps you have left unsaid, they would be showing a favoritism (bias) to you.

That’s an interesting point. Would those interviewers on this thread who say they wouldn’t take into account anything that wasn’t said in the interview - how would they react if the interviewee made a claim that the interviewer knew to be false but couldn’t acknowledge as they’re ignoring having worked with that person?

What a total nonsense.

I had a temporary member of staff apply for a permanent role 3 times. The first time I think she just assumed she would get the role and did absolutely no interview prep at all. In fact she failed to answer some very basic questions. In our company an interview includes 2 managers, one from an unrelated team so to keep the hiring process fair and unbiased. The other manager was amazed that I’d kept her on as a temp for so long as from her answers it sounded like she didn’t have a clue what the job entailed. I gave some really clear and honest feedback. Told her how much she was valued and encouraged her to apply again when another role came up. The same thing happened twice more even though both times I really emphasised how important the interview was. She already had an advantage as she knew what questions we were going to ask. Eventually she left as she secured a permanent role at another company.

That could have been me!

Ooh I’m going to recite that at my next part time low paid job interview, thanks 👍 if I don’t stumble all over it trying to get it sounding ‘natural’ 😁

But the key is to take that problem, or complaint, and find a solution to it within the confines of the requirement to do the interview.
You can’t change the interview process, so you have to play the game.

i would think, rather than ruminating on it, there are 2 options for this question:
-be honest
-make something up.

if you’re honest, you need to position your response so it doesn’t sound rude or jarring.

So- not “I don’t want to do anything else. Isn’t it obvious I don’t have any ambition because I’m applying for such a crap job?”
but
”I’m really interested in this opportunity, and would really like to focus in the short and medium term on learning as much and I can about the role and company and take pride in becoming an expert on that.
When I’ve achieved that I would absolutely reassses my longer term plan and the opportunities available at this organisation”

or, make something up

”I am really interested in paper so looking forward to the exposure of working in a paper company. I’m really open to opportunities that might come my way and in the longer term would really like to get some team leader experience or work on a project”

these are impressive, non offensive responses that you can parrot out.
Before you jump in saying how fake they are and how they won’t get them the right person for the job also consider this isn’t a deal breaker question anyway.

Neither of these responses above will lose you the job. You’re not committing to anything, you’re not losing anything. They answer the question.
What might lose you the job is umming, ahhing, stuttering, giving fluffy unconfident responses

When it comes to working life you can’t just say whatever you fancy. Truth tell in your private life of you like, but you have to adapt to different environments to know what’s appropriate.

And let’s be honest, most people will. Most people want a good employer and a good job. When it comes to doing it formally in an unnatural environment like an interview people massively overthink it. It’s probably because it’s hard to be confident in that environment