Didn’t get job

I guess what is most irritating is that - does the law require that every post be available for open competition? Once, simple promotion was the norm and then the lower, recently-vacated post was advertised. It seems expensive, time-consuming and possibly unfair to both internal and external candidates, raising hopes and causing undue stress where it could be avoided.

Oh why couldn’t you have interviewed me, sigh. You get it!

Yes. There’s an idea around that everyone and every job should show ambition but in many roles this just isn’t relevant and in fact - you need just the opposite. Sometimes what’s required is a steady, efficient person who works to a high standard and gets on with other colleagues. Many receptionist jobs are like this - you almost want the candidate NOT to be ambitious, but to be happy in their role and do it well.

Theres a lot of pretentiousness in recruitment sometimes!

Nor me but it's just possible that it wasn't me doing that particular interview

I still have no idea why a two day a week receptionist would be asked where they see themselves in five year’s time.

Whatever questions I ask will link to the published criteria and be for a purpose. I tailor them for each position. I invest a lot of time in making it as positive experience as possible but I won't compromise my standards because I know a person. That would be deeply unfair. I imagine justifying my decision in court every time because that's where I might end up. It's not easy recruiting properly and I avoid it where possible these days as it eats my time but my track record is excellent

I get for some things they work well but not when the job doesn’t need certain questions. Why ask a candidate for a part time receptionist job in an old people’s home where they see themselves in five year’s time. As a full time receptionist? As one of the residents? As running the whole thing? It’s a two day a week receptionist job at pretty much minimum wage.

I’d expect if you work in a school you probably do see some weird interviewing, but that’s not normal in more functional organisations

Look you can call it a charade or a box ticking exercise but my organisation had around 600 applications for an apprentice level job and we regularly get 200 for roles in my team. There has to be a fair process and you either get on with it or not. All I can tell you is if you choose not to make the most of your interview slot that's up to you but your competition will.

I would agree with you there! It is indeed the job of the interviewer.

And I’ve seen on more than one occasion that this hasn’t been the case. I had the bad luck to work with a deputy head in a school who openly admitted she had bullshitted in the interview. She was a nightmare and caused real harm for the year she was in post.

And that’s not the only experience I’ve had where the rest of the team is left baffled by the choice of the interview panel.

Surely with an internal candidate who is acknowledged by their manager to be doing an excellent job should not be asked the same questions as external strangers. For a start it would be ridiculous and a waste of time as you ‘go through the motions’ in the pretence that they’re in the same situation as the externals. If by common consent, they’re clearly already doing the job very well then surely further, probing or ‘extending’ questions should be asked.

I can understand how it would be very awkward for the internal candidate to participate in the charade of being just a random applicant.

Obviously if they’re an internal candidate who isn’t up to scratch that’s different.

Exactly. Even if the role has nothing to do with the ability (or lack thereof) to act.

These box-ticking interviews (and they are exactly that, people need to stop kidding themselves that they’re anything else) that completely ignore the observable track record of an internal candidate must end of with some rubbish hires that just waste the organisation time and money (but presumably keep the recruiting grifters in a job).

Are they ok with you reading from notes about these things?

@BunnyLake

but ask me to relay a scenario where I overcame a challenge or where do I see myself in five years I go blank and start to babble even if I’ve rehearsed it, because I know these questions are coming and they put me on edge

Why not make notes and take them into the interview?
That’s what I’ve done for the competency part of the interview process.

Seems to me they are not interviews they’re auditions and everyone needs to be an actor to get the role. Only difference is those who aren’t good enough actors no longer even have the luxury of waiting on tables.

where a lot of internal candidates go wrong is assuming the job is theirs already and assuming I will take account of prior knowledge in their interview. They don't sell themselves and their experience so I can't score it.

This!

I understand your disappointment but diminishing the whole process to a box ticking exercise, does show a lack of appreciatIon/understanding of the process. A process of which you were better placed to understand than the external candidate. No one owed you this position and there’s a good chance that the manager who delivered your positive feedback meant what they said. The criteria for hiring temp vs permanent hires can be very different. It would have been unfair for the external candidate to have been scored on prior knowledge.

Again, your disappointed is totally understandable but don’t let your disappointment make you bitter. Get as much feedback as possible so that you are better prepared for future opportunities. Don’t be deflated, you did nothing wrong, lick your wounds and onwards and upwards.

It’s an interviewer’s skill and responsibility to identify bullshit and ask probing follow ups to verify and evidence what the candidate is saying. And it’s not that hard to be honest.

I've successfully recruited candidates at all sorts of levels. I've replaced good temps with even better externals. My job as a manager is to get the possible team in place to deliver for my organisation and it's never fun to reject an internal candidate but it's part of the job.

I hear so often from friends and colleagues about disastrous appointments though. There are people, especially in the contemporary world, who’ve learned to talk the talk brilliantly but cannot deliver. This wasn’t so easy in the past when more weight was given to common sense.

Also, @tiredsotired6 I noted this point from you in an earlier post: But surely if they’re very good candidates and you know that, why does a half-hour interview matter? (Assuming you don’t have a rigid hiring system like the civil service for example).

I honestly think you lack an understanding of how the interview process works, both generally and in your organisation, which is why I'd reiterate my earlier advice to meet your manager and have an honest conversation with them to understand more.

The interview process is part of what is expected of an employee - the ability to demonstrate and speak to their experience, to understand the role being offered and to pitch yourself for that role in a convincing way.

It would be really unfair to make appointments subject to an organisation's perception of an individual - it could work unfairly in both directions - an individual could receive unwarranted preferential treatment from a manager by being appointed directly; and equally, someone doing a good job with capacity for growth and development might be overlooked by a less-than-excellent manager. Effective interview panels should also have an external member (not necessarily external to the company but at least to the area the role is in, and not have a vested interest in the role, so that they can be objective).

Every good organisation should have a structured interview process, it's not about being 'rigid' and shouldn't just apply to the civil service.

Agree 💯with this

Having a fair process is hardly 'bonkers'. As I say, I get a much higher number of applicants to permanent roles. I also give a practical test to check ability.

If you have a good internal candidate ready to be promoted then just promote them. Stop wasting every else’s time.

This is bonkers.

Regardless of the sector, doing this is poor for the organisation, and also for the employee. Yes, it might seem better for the internal candidate - you're doing great, let's just promote you - but there is no sense of checking or probity: creating a job description, which the candidate must apply for, be shortlisted, and be tested at interview. If successful, they know that they have gone through a process designed to evaluate their capacity to do the role, and it inures them for comments that there might have been preferential treatment that others didn't get.

It also ensures that there is a clear procedure that is applied to all recruitment.

It's very poor for the organisation to promote internally, without checking if external candidates might also be excellent at the role and bring something new.

There are specific grades / contexts where I'm aware of roles being offered internally in the first instance, before going externally if not filled - this typically applies in my sector to certain admin roles where promotion is limited and specific, and this allows employees at a certain level to progress, but again they still have to demonstrate their experience, competency and ability to prove themselves via a recruitment process - they are not ever just given the job.

This is a completely bonkers take on it 😂

no one is entitled to a job. Being “good” at a job really is a basic expectation. You’d be performance managed out if you weren’t good.

I have no idea how you could know interview processes don’t lead to a suitable hire. Of course they can go wrong, but there is no reason to think it does more so now than 20 years ago.

The one positive from this grim situation, OP, is that they owe you a 5 star reference. I’d let them know you’re off as soon as possible and tell the stupid manager that you expect, after their fulsome praise for you, that any reference will be excellent.