Didn’t get job

I had this when I was a temp at royal mail. I thought I was great at the job, I applied to work for royal mail directly about 4 times and got turned down. I sent a really shitty reply last time basically telling them to get fucked (mature I know, but this was once I wasn't working there anymore anyway)

Was it one of thise interviews based on points? Tbe other person scored higher so they got it?

Did you ask for feedback?

She’s a temp. She’ll be gone in a week.

It makes so much sense. My boss literally came to my desk and said along the lines of ‘would you like to stay on as permanent staff?’ I said yes please. Signed contract. Done. Stayed around ten years as perm, (but only six weeks as temp). Why is this not a thing anymore?

This ‘star’ crap is unfuriating. My best interviews have been organic not this stupid box ticking that feels more like a script that you have to learn and recite.

I’m sorry Op this is naturally upsetting .

This could be a number of situations including any of the following or others and they will probably never tell you the real reasons. Obviously I don’t know you so I can suggest scenarios from general experience - please don’t take any of this as a slight.

• your manager had no intention of appointing you but is a weak manager and conflict avoidant so didn’t want to be honest with you about feedback/ your chances/what he actually thinks. Or he wanted to make sure you hung around whilst they recruited someone else so breadcrummed you. He may have (legitimate or illegitimate) concerns about whether you are a good fit longer term. Including discriminatory concerns like might you go off on mat leave/request flexible working etc and he is never going to say that out loud.
• someone in the chain of command has blocked you because they don’t rate you or don’t like you and it is above your manager
• they have strict Hr procedures and you didn’t do best at interview - eg you interviewed assuming the role was yours and that has frustrated them
• the appointed candidate has skills and experience you don’t eg they can see them growing into more senior roles, they have helpful language skills, whatever.

I don’t know what the excellent feedback is you’ve received but I would be cautious in translating that into that meaning everyone thinking you are a perfect perm hire. For example this week I sent a note to a junior in another department thanking them for their efforts in getting something done and how one piece was done very well. I’m pretty senior so that goes a long way. But that junior is temp and their manager has previously spoke to me on what I think about keeping them on as perm and honestly I think whilst they do some things well that isn’t consistent across their job and so I don’t think they would get a good fit long term. But I’m still going to say well done, good job when that is warranted.

In your shoes I would work on the assumption that there is no permanent role available and that sooner or later you will have your contract terminated. I wouldn’t make a scene but I would lick my wounds and start looking immediately for alternative roles quietly.

Christ alive, some of the answers here are awful. Absolutely zero loyalty shown to hardworking staff who do the job well and should be rewarded for that.

Some vile workplaces out there.

@tiredsotired6 I would be strongly inclined to tell your manager that if you’re not good enough for the role you’re not good enough to train someone to do the role. Work to rule and look for another company.

I LOVE this - and wish I had thought of it when absolutely the same thing happened to me.

This happened to me in the public sector and truthfully it broke my heart. I bided my time and didn’t leave straight away and remained professional but I did start looking and (literally a couple of years went by when I was was suddenly essential in the pandemic) and I found my dream job in a promotion and left. It was a big learning curve for me. Hang in there and leave on your terms.

I recruit in the public sector and have done for years

I used to recruit in public sector and they had a terrible interview system based on ticks/points. Whoever had the most got the job. Fortunately, their interview process was overhauled.

Maybe because it's not okay to give internal candidates preferential treatment? If a company sets out their recruitment process as a CV and an interview then that's what they should stick to. Otherwise why bother to look externally at all? If the employer prioritises knowing the candidate in role then they could miss out on some great external candidates.

I have seen so many job threads on here with posters complaining that a company has wasted their time because it was clear the company wanted to promote an internal candidate. It's odd how on this thread the company are getting slated for doing a fair recruitment process.

Because the external applicants could be equally great at the job but you don’t know about their performance.

what people are suggesting is unfair interviewing. The internal would have an advantage every time.

Why would past or current performance be irrelevant? That sounds crazy to me! What would be the point in anyone making the effort to do their job well and go beyond, if all of that is completely ignored at interview and a person who can sell themselves better gets the job, even if they'd actually be shit on the day to day (while the temp has proven themselves day in day out for months)?
The whole point of sending your CV is for recruiters to judge past and current performance, the temp has done that in front of their eyes, that should count.

I’m sorry this has happened to you. It’s particularly galling to be asked to support the new person.
Are you temping through an agency? I would definitely be looking for another job, permanent or temporary as I’d struggle with being built up and then feeling not good enough or, I guess, not good enough at the interview but good enough to show someone else how to do the job.

It’s not taking the piss to expect them to train and support the new person. They’re still being paid to work, it would be really out of order to refuse (well, you can’t refuse really)

That's awful and so deflating for you. Job rejections are awful as they take so much work.

If i were you id look for something else. It sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it.

Is there any mention of a second role that might come up? If not, then id vote me my feet and ask the temp agency to find you something else ASAP.

They are taking the piss if they expect you to help settle in the new person. Good enough to help, but not good enough to do the job permanently. Though through this, remember that the person who did get the role won't have any idea that any of this was going on

I can give you a really honest answer as someone who has been that manger.

there is often lots going on you might not know about. expectations of the role might’ve varied. The role might be changing. They may feel as good as you’ve been, they want something different from it.

Good feedback means a huge amount to the receiver but is often easily given out and may not reflect overall performance.

some managers are not great with constructive feedback either

if you're a temp, they won’t invest much in the long term outcomes of your role. Good for you might look slightly different to someone else

i had the same thing last year- the person had got the company out of a hole (short staffed) and was competent and pleasant. He was incredibly helpful and his customers loved him.

as a manager, I needed more of a self starter with longer term vision. It’s not even massively fair to expect that from a temp, but he wasn’t giving it. The customers loved him because he spent the time you’d spend improving and setting strategic direction helping them with their day to day work. He thought this was the role, and after 12 months it was too late to reset expectations.

i note you say the new person is no better at you than tasks. I think this is to be expected. When you get to an interview stage everyone you interview should be capable of doing the job. That’s a minimum. The selection is often on cultural fit and future plans, and the wider team needs.

what you should do (and what he did) was to bank the experience, leave and start a fresh

but do be aware temps don’t get the same investment from the company perms do.

I completely agree with you. Of course they should hire the temp who already knows the job, and is doing a great job. At my last place of employment we had permanent staff and a zero hour contract pool. Lots of external unknowns applied for a permanent job, and one from the pool. She was perfect because she'd already worked for us for 2 years and good at her job. The manager said she wasn't as good in the interview as another candidate. They gave it to an unknown who turned out to be a lazy character, who left 9 months later.

We all felt sorry for the right candidate as she'd been encouraged to go for it. She ended up doing less hours for us, as she picked up hours elsewhere. Which was a shame as she was reliable and knew her stuff. I actually think the manger thought it best to get someone external because we'd still have the the other working in the pool. Whereas if she employed the pool staff then we'd still be short staffed in the pool.

I'm sorry this happened to you. It's normal to feel rejected and horrible about it. I'd carry on working there while looking for another job, as you'd rather be permanent.

OP, was this role an additional role?
That is to say you still have your temporary contract position?

Asking you to train up would ring alarm bells with me that you’re going to be terminated as soon as the permy is considered ready.

Could you say that you don't feel comfortable training the new hire because they obviously have concerns about your performance so you don't feel that you are the right person to deliver the training?

If you are signed on with an agency, go back to them and ask if there are any other suitable jobs on their books.