What can an interview tell them?

I agree, but that’s how it works in our place. Apparently it’s unfair on others if “prior knowledge’ is taken into consideration.
I’m sure it is, but it can’t be seen to be. All must be fair, on paper at least.

I'm just irritated that they want this whole rigmarole when they know me.
OP says that management know her well. If they did then they would know that she's not really interested in the posittion (or, even, a career) and doesn't really want it. On that basis, why on earth have they asked her to apply?
Something doesn't seem to stack up.

You are being incredibly naive. Surely you know they cannot just give you the role and how do you know who else has applied!

Don’t bother applying, you won’t get it. Likely making up the numbers because if this is how you come across at work then they won’t want to make you a board member

They will have to judge you on the responses you give in the interview and how these compare to other interviewers responses. They aren’t allowed to use prior knowledge as a deciding factor as all interviews have to be fair and the same.

Wow. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! I’m not sure why you can’t see that it makes absolute sense to interview both internal and external applicants for the role.

You have an advantage because you know the company. An external candidate has the advantage of NOT knowing the company and bringing ideas and ways of working that the company currently doesn’t do (but needs to move the business forward)?

You’ve been there 14 years. You say yourself you have no ambition. So what would you be bringing to the role if it was given to you? Not a lot by the sound of it. So it’s probably good that you’re not going to apply for the role, but don’t complain about who gets the role or how they do the role.

One other thing. These processes that you’re poo-pooing are in place to give everyone a fair chance to get the job. The ‘jobs for the boys’ era is well and truly over, thank goodness! I can assure you, it wasn’t fun watching men with zero skills being given jobs that a woman left on the sidelines could have done with her eyes closed.

So it’s up to you. Either follow the due process for the role, or don’t bother. But whatever you do, don’t tell the Board what you think about the process otherwise you’ll never be taken seriously in the workplace again.

“The neatly packaged CVs and covering letters from randoms are just that, and no substitute for years of actually working with me.”

That may be so, but can you see why it puts the board in a difficult position if they have to explain (e.g. to an employment tribunal for a rejected candidate) why they felt the years of knowing you was an adequate substitute for a formal application and like-for-like comparison of candidates?

I appreciate you’re not too bothered about the role anyway, so it probably does make sense not to apply.

I wouldn’t read it as a rejection of you if they choose to recruit someone who applied, though, as you’d be making it much more difficult for them to choose you if you don’t apply. Plus, it would obviously indicate to them that you’re not too fussed either way about the role (which sounds accurate).

If you do go for it, you need to be aware that, particularly if you are up against an external candidate, you need to demonstrate your capabilities through the process - so in your letter of application and your interview. If they ask what you would do in a situation, you don't think "they know what I did when this happened before", you describe it as if they don't. It DOES sound silly, but it's the only way to be impartial. The external candidate will have to do that, so you have to do it too. If they give it to you, and the external candidate claims discrimination, they have to be able to point to how you demonstrated that you met the person spec better than they did.

Yes, they know you, and they obviously think you could do it. But there could be advantages to new blood, especially if they're more ambitious than you. So decide whether you want to, and take the process seriously.

Years ago, a number of us were told that if we applied for a promotion that was being advertised, we would definitely be interviewed. The guy who got it probably was the best for the job, but he very nearly didn't get it, because he had submitted a two line letter of application, and some of the panel were not impressed!

OP, I think you’re overestimating the attention anyone else is paying to what you’re doing at work - the application process is a chance to highlight your achievements and to present all the things they’ve probably forgotten (or might not know) you were even involved in over the years, in your own words.

Have you not done anything else at work aside from things the interviewers already know about? How much time do you think they are going to spend putting their heads together to make sure they’ve listed all your achievements from the past 14 years (essentially writing your application for you) for someone who didn’t even apply for the role?

Why would you want to rely on their sketchy memories of what they might have noticed you contributed and pit that against everyone else’s CV and application that neatly packages all their achievements in a way that’s easy to compare and doesn’t involve the interviewers having to do their own detective work to recall what you did over the years?

You can tell the board you’re “offer only” like some A-list Hollywood actor who refuses to audition if you like, but I can’t see that going well, and even if they agreed, your application will only be as strong as their memories and their own perception of whatever you contributed.

This.

To quote my favourite R4 comedy show, when you say "humbly" do you in fact know what that means?

It's not universal but it is a build on the previous way, and it was introduced for good reasons to protect everyone from discrimination. You are welcome to choose not to play the game. Being fundamentally opposed to recruiters trying to make it as fair as possible it isn't a good look. But you still have a massive advantage over outsiders, so capitalise on it.

On a side note, I personally believe that its part of the reason why women often are under represented in some roles. In my experience men are far more likely to throw their hat in the ring when the outcome is dubious, when theyve got less experience etc. Women often dont end up applying at all

Like it or not, it sounds like your company is accountable enough that they have to go through an interview. Refusing to engage is refusing to apply

Get the job, then change the process if you want

But dont stand on the sidelines and complain someone else gets picked that it should be you. Genuinely think about how youd feel if you didnt get it, and someone else did.

Are you genuinely annoyed about interviews ( I presume you've interviewed to get where you are?) Or are you just deflecting from worry about the process?

Mr annoying was my only viable option. Most big companies only go via interview with accompanying taks. Neither of the other two actually applied, I cant give jobs to random people based on who I like?

This scenario actually had a person d

A- Didnt apply, was in protest about it
B- didnt apply because was worried about the process
C- cocky enough to apply, put in decent effort
D- Applied, had a decent shot at it experience wise didnt give the interview any thought

C came with a clear idea of what they were going to offer, they were surprisingly well researched. D came in wkth a sense of entitlement but zero sense that she actually wanted the job, she fluffed the simplest of questions eg didnt mention her years of experience. We accounted for nerves but even with prompts was clearly under prepared

In that situation its very hard to account to why youd recruit someone who couldnt muster any enthusiasm, explain their priorities or why they'd be good at the job. If it was close it would have gone to her, but the whole team let C have that position

They've asked you to apply because they would be happy with you, but are holding interviews to see if there's someone even better out there. They won't learn anything about you from the process but will have a chance to scour the market.
Up to you whether to participate in that.

Yes you are correct that it is hard to judge someone in an hour long interview. Some of the assessment comes from CV /covering letter and I have found for senior roles it's rarely just one hour long interview. Usually there's multiple steps with different people, specifically for this reason.
So if your objection is that they shouldn't base a board level appointment in an hour then yes I agree.
If your assertion is that hiring managers should use their personal historical working experience of someone to make their hiring decisions then I'd disagree.

For what its worth I dont always think interviews are the most effective way but if its the only way your work place hires (which is most organisations) then it doesnt matter

You either apply and do your bit

Or you dont.

If you dont though you need to lose the chip on your shoulder about it. You've chosen not to go for it.

You need to understand that the job may go to someone who you dislike but id argue that you cant complain about that unless you actually engage in the process

Consider how you will feel if a more junior/ someone you consider rubbish got the job simply because they bothered jumping through the hoops when you didnt.

The person recruited can only be from the people that applied.

Recently I had an experience where A thought they should just be outright offered the job, B thought that they would be good at the job but was nervous about the process/ concerned that they'd muck up the interview. Much to their horror I recruited their annoying, far more inexperienced team mate C because he was the only one that actually bloody applied for it!

In my experience that often people who talk about that they should be given it without an interview, are deflecting because they are normally worried about interviews/applying and not getting it. Its a defensive thing to justify why they didnt get it or even put themselves out there.

If you want it, genuinely want it then you need to give it your best shot. You need to give the interview the same level of prep, thought and general effort as everyone else.

My most disappointing interviews I can think of have been of internal candidates who clearly thought they would walk it and didnt try. It subsequently gave the impression that they couldnt give a shit about the job, and wouldn't try very hard in general.

Its very hard to justify giving a job in that situation

Your advantage is that you know internal policy, company history but I agree with others if its a board position they will be looking at how you deal with stressful situations, managing difficult questions etc. A melt down prior to interview would tell them you do not have those skills

Interviews give the employer a way to show fairness in hiring so they are protected from claims on discrimination. If they promote you "cause they know you" then the rest of your workplace has a potential discrimination case which the company have to spend money defending and paying off claimants.

It seems very odd to be considering appointing someone who doesn't know the answer to this to the board.