Is it right to interview to be kind?

[Athleticpotential]

A vacancy where I work.

It has been filled internally on an acting up basis for 3months. We had hoped that would work out and he'd be appointed permanently, but it really hasn't.

Job has been advertised externally and acting up person has applied.

He won't get the job, but some of the panel feel it would be kind/polite to interview him anyway.

I disagree because:

• it's a waste of everyone's time, but especially his. He may even buy a new suit! It's a full day selection thing which, if he's serious, he'd need to do a lot of prep for.
• there are sensible reasons not to shortlist him based on his application. It's unlikely, but possible he could perform very well at interview, which them places us in a very difficult position.
• if you want to be kind, sorry there were better qualified candidates is easier to hear than you gave a bad interview/we don't think you're right for the job.

Or would it be better to give him the "opportunity" and interview practice?

I'm with you, OP. Absolutely don't interview him. No excuses, no putting everyone in a difficult position, no wasting his time and possibly money.

I don't see why grown adults think this kind of bullshit is the better option than a simple conversation or email.

What would be kind would be to acknowledge his efforts.

Thank him for the application and his hard work over recent months but provide constructive feedback on why his application did not meet the criteria. Also say why, although he has been invaluable in filling the role on a temporary basis, and has hopefully gained some good experience from it, you are looking for someone with XYZ skills to fill it permanently for ABC reasons.

Make clear it's not a negotiation if he pushes back but this way you've tried to ensure he won't feel unvalued by the organisation.

Stepping up to cover a vacancy as best you can for a few months is great experience but not necessarily the same as doing it permanently and having the skills to perform it in full.

Look at his perspective in terms of how he will be viewed by colleagues and his own self esteem.

to not even be invited to interview would be a VERY clear marker that he has totally fucked up the position.

whereas to be invited to interview and then not for it simply means that another candidate was kick ass and he lost our fair and square

And yes to offering advice on progression, training etc (or getting his LM to do so).

The problem here (apart from wasting his time) is if he kills it on the day and outscores everyone else. Quite possible if he knows the company and role. It sounds like a formal, auditable process as it's a whole day of assessments, not just a chat with the boss. That leaves the company in a difficult position. If someone has got through to interview then they're appointable so they can't then claim his application wasn't strong enough.

Plus it's not necessarily the case that he has fucked up, he's kept things afloat for 3 months, great. He just isn't quite ready or doesn't have quite the right skillset to be recruited permanently. That was the case with my junior in my last job before I was recruited. The director just let her know this and gave her some pointers on how to build her experience. No dramas, nobody thought anything less of her for throwing her hat in.

It’s a pretty awkward situation all round, but absolutely humiliating to be in an interview where you have zero chance of getting the job.
The weirdest interview I ever had was by two people who asked me ZERO questions, and just kept reiterating ‘oh but you wouldn’t have seen x (confidential paperwork) because you’re only a volunteer’. Uhhhhmmm… yes? I’ve volunteered with you for a year, and been away on a (second!) residential as a ‘ratio’d’ member of staff, but you’re right.. I’m definitely not the person for the job.. :/

Ironically, they phoned 6 weeks later, asking if I did want a job as another vacancy had appeared.

But going back in to volunteer, after I’d attended a full day of interview tasks (and the person I’d been with for one task saying ‘but I left you SUCH good feedback!! You deserved it) and been rejected, was the biggest ‘swallow your pride n think of the bigger picture’ I’ve had to do.

You know this employee so maybe think about what would be best for them and their personality. Maybe be completely open and ASK if they want the interview experience? Perhaps help them work on the boxes they are not ticking so that when this opportunity arrises in yours, or another company, they’re in a stronger position and can ‘legitimately’ interview.

but yeah. Its shitty that someone can be given the role, and all the responsibilities, for x amount of time, but when it comes to actually being awarded the job it’s ‘no, you’re not good enough for us.’

From an image perspective amongst my colleagues I’d prefer to be interviewed and then not get it. Everyone would just assume that there had been a brilliant external option.
Rather than the humiliation of not even being invited to interview
Even if I knew that the interview itself was a farce as I stood no chance

I think he should be told he’s not suitable for the role and why.
Maybe he might reveal at that meeting he doesn’t want the role full time anyway?

But I think you should also offer him the chance to step down from the acting up immediately or when he wishes.

will you also be expecting him to show the ropes to the new hire?

If it's because he's no performing the job well, then the kinder thing would be for someone tell him that, and suggest he's not quite ready to take on the role yet.

I think I agree with you, OP. Interviews are stressful, why go through it for no good reason?

@UpcycledToenail sounds like you’re not prepared to give disabled candidates the time of day. It’s not ‘candidates who tick the disabled box’, as some group all lumped together who are seen as a waste of time.

The Guaranteed Interview scheme ended in 2016, it’s the Disability Confident scheme now. Upskill yourself with your HR and get up to date.

And that, folks, is why the ‘box’ exists - because of attitudes like yours.

@Frozenlikeablockofmarble Please go back and read my post properly. I am a disabled person who has been interviewed approximately a zillion times for jobs. I well know about the disdain that most employers have for the guaranteed interview schemes. I know what ableism is, trust me.

No, you don't have to interview him if there are more qualified candidates who applied. You do have to be able to justify your decisions, based on his application and NOT your prior knowledge of him, so it's best to keep any forms or scoring systems that you use to shortlist people.

So what feedback has he had during his time acting in this role? Is he/could he be under the impression that he's done a good job? Was he given the impression/understanding that he would get the job at the end? Is there anything that might make him think that the job is just 'his'. Has he been paid more to do this role? does the job come with a significant uplift? Will he just go back to his old role?

I actually think that you need to be very careful here. If you asked him to fill the role and he's done it with no negative feedback, coped with it etc then you are going to have to give really good reasons why you didn't interview him etc. Is it likely that he will be pissed off and then leave? could he then claim constructive dismissal?

It might just be better for the organisation to interview him properly, ask all the same questions and then say you had an outstanding external candidate. This allows the company and him to save face even if it is (in your words) 'a waste of everyones time'.

I think companies will do this because otherwise the person who has experience in the role could argue that it was unfair that they didn't get an interview. It's basically just to protect the company so they can say they gave consideration to the person who already had the experience but they found someone better. It also leaves their options open to using him if they don't find anyone better