WWYD - Is it OK for an employee to be closely involved in the recruitment process if they had applied for the role and didn’t get an interview?

[LondonBus38]

Colleague and I have just had long discussion on the way home tonight re the ethics of the following situation. We are not sure now, so please advise, WWYD?

Is it right/correct/ethical/whatever for an employee to be closely involved in the recruitment process if they had applied for the role and didn’t get an interview?

People:
A – boss
B – Deputy
C – Deputy – this person is leaving and its this role we are recruiting for
D – Junior
E – Junior
F – Junior

C is leaving, both E and F have applied for the role. Both told separately but informally that they would both be getting interviews.

It is standard for whole team to be involved in some part of the recruitment, this always happens.

This time, as they would both be getting interview, it was of course agreed that E and F would not be involved.

Then, E got and interview, F didn’t (whole other thread…) A and B now thinks F should be involved in recruitment process, so does D. F doesn’t think so, thinks that not really correct procedure. C thinks its dodgy too. E not sure either but feels as a candidate he can’t say anything.

F is concerned they will look like they are sulking. They are not, just want to do the right thing.

Should F be involved?

Thank you

How are they involved in the process?

I think they shouldnt. It runs risks. They may never happen but what if E doesnt get it. Might he then feel F shouldn't have been involved. Is it fair to the other candidates? Could they complain?

I just think, as F hasnt been involved up to now, its better left like that to minimise risk of issues later.

I dunno but I'd be well fucked off if I were F.

It does sound inappropriate. C needs to put their foot down, being the only one able to do so really.

They shouldn’t be- it is a conflict of interest

No, it's not appropriate. Who are you?!

I don’t know about unethical but it does sound like poor recruitment practice particularly telling someone they have an interview, even informally, when that’s not the case.

D and F would spend 30-45 minutes with each candidate, talking through the role and testing their skills set, it is not insignificant part of the process.

I can't work out exactly how all are involved .... but if C leaves and presumably that role is a "promotion" for D/E/F level staff, then it sounds inappropriate for D/E/F to be involved in the recruitment this time around, if some or all are applying / bring interviewed for C-role.

Great to have "peer" recruitment and all that .... but maybe not when it involves themselves. But I guess it depends "how" they're usually involved.

F is thoroughly fucked off, trust me

But doesn't want that to cloud the issue. F really wants to do the correct thing. F thinks its dodgy but want to be above the dogyness.

No that's not right. They are asking an unsuccessful candidate to interview the ones that are still in the running.

drquin sorry should have added, their are six other external candidates and now only one internal applicant.

It is promotion for D/E/F level staff but they have had a glut of people of applicants from C level, suprisingly, so are rubbing their hands with glee and going for them.

Thank you all, I really appreciate the input.

I am F for fucked-off

It doesn't sound like good policy to me.

I could understand having someone of a similar level (but different role) do a skills audit if relevant to the advertised job but certainly not if any internal candidates were there.

I would say no. I wouldn't involve F.
Not sure why, but doesn't sit right!

Mookatron I think that's a plan - C is very lovely and I hope they will do the right thing and speak up. They are not involved in the recruitment process, through their own choice.

C is not in this week, leaves in two weeks, but still has some voice on the team, just about.

Am sending colleague the link to this thread, thank you.

We talked round and round on the way home and I just think sometimes we are in such a bubble of some right dodgy stuff that you start to lose sight of reality.

Sorry LondonBus. This has happened to me, too. Sucks, doesn't it.

As befits your username, I hope three new jobs come at once for you!

No, that’s not right. I often interview for roles in my organisation even for higher grades but never within my team.

It's not wrong. Just a little distasteful.

Thank you Mookatron sorry it happened to you too. It wasn't just once either, mentioned 'interview' several times.

Its time to move on. Shame, I love the job but this unprofessional take on things runs through the department in all kinds of ways

Really interesting, not one of you think its OK.

Safson that's interesting, do you mean for me/F or the candidates?

I'm thinking its not right for the candidates, especially colleague E, but DH just pointed out its not very charming behavior towards me either.

It's not okay - they're saying, what?, you're not good enough for the job but you're good enough to decide who is?!
Should be C and D doing the skills audit

1. Not fair to rub your nose in it, especially if you find they are under-skilled
2. You were not taken for interview but you went for the job/were originally shortlisted. So, as a former internal candidate you won't be seen as objective...if E gets the job or if they don't, you could be accused of bias either way.