to get so upset about training someone who got the job instead of me?

[JammyGem]

I got a temporary promotion at work for a maternity cover year long contract, which ended fairly recently. I've got back to my old zero hour contract, but still do exactly the same thing, with exactly the same managerial responsibilities and a tiny bit more money than I would otherwise be getting on my casual contract.

Two permanent positions came up for my old (maternity cover) job, I applied, but didn't get it as I didn't go into enough detail about my experience in the interview, seeing as I've worked with all the interviewers for the last two years, so stupidly messed it up- I was told that because they can only mark me on what I said, not on what they know about me, I didn't get the job - the interview is all point based. Which is fair enough, but did really upset me as I felt I'd done the job for a year and despite their explanation, I wonder if it was really just because I was shit at the job for that year.

The new guy has started (the other successful candidate was another casual contract colleague, and I couldn't be happier for her) and I've been paired up with him to train him all this week. I know it's petty and ridiculous, but I just feel so upset about the situation. I feel really taken advantage of, it's like I'm good enough to train the new guy for the job, but not good enough for the job myself. He was deliberately put with me because they didn't want him with another manager as they feel he'll pick up bad habits (this colleague is notoriously lazy and strong willed) and I've been told I'll be a better trainer than him.

My colleagues have all been quite sympathetic, and a few have offered to complain on my behalf. I'd not said how I felt about it as I didn't want to cause trouble or for any of my colleagues to know how upset I am, but it really does feel like rubbing salt in my wounds that they've got me training someone who got the job over me, and as soon as he's trained up on certain tasks, my hours will really go down as they won't need me anymore.

I know I sound ridiculous and pathetic, but I don't know if IBU or not. And I can't say anything because there's a chance they won't give me any shifts at all.

(A friend of mine also didn't get a job because she "hadn't demonstrated in the first question that she knew what the job entailed" although she had clearly shown that she had, (and had indeed done the job as a temp), in her answers to subsequent questions. She hadn't scored on Q1.

That's a poor marking scheme in my opinion. As long as somewhere during the interview you are demonstrating that you have what they are looking for, then that' should be acceptable. I look at all the answers to questions as a whole, because many questions can and often do overlap.

The best advice I can give to people is to pretend you don't know the interviewers and answer the questions as fully as you can. And don't be afraid to blow your own trumpet. I've done that, although it doesn't come naturally to me.

Orangevase there is no set marking scheme as such. It's only that a fair scheme for each set of job interviews has to be agreed in advance between all the interviewers and it may vary depending on the positions being interviewed for.

Why not ask the people who want you to apply if they'll explain the system they are using? You could say you want to make sure you're better prepared which, after all, is the truth.

BishopBrennan'sArse, that happened to me too, I was made redundant when on maternity leave and then asked in a panic to go back for two months to help train the new outsourced company.
I didn't really want to so I said I'd do it for two thirds my annual salary, for two months work, they said yes, which made it worthwhile!

OP, is there a chance other promotions will come up any time soon?

If you love it there, and IF you honestly believe it was a points thing at interview - that they do value you otherwise, maybe wait to see what else comes up, and ask for some interview training?

Thank you FryOne - That is helpful. I might do that. (I felt it might be "cheating" in some way - but they can always say no)

I do see that it is designed to prevent interviewers just giving jobs to people they like - and that race/sex/class could all skew the results but it seems that sometimes it ends up being a bit "baby and the bathwater".

Reminds me of a situation I was in a few years ago. I may out myself if I give too much detail but let's just say I was agency and I was left to run a department after the head of department went off long term sick and the other staff gradually left. 10 hours a week became more and more with responsibilities such as organising things, meetings, dealing with complaints etc that should never have fallen to agency staff. I was a lone parent and I knew if the place went under I would have no job left and I felt under pressure to keep going, I needed the money badly and other work was in short supply. Anyway, they decided to advertise to replace the people who'd left. I applied and was not offered a job. They said my personality was not "bubbly and sparkly" enough. But then when they didn't recruit anyone else, they asked me if I would continue running things for them until they found someone else! The bloody cheek was jaw dropping. I would have told them where to stick it if I hadn't needed the work so badly. A few months later I did get a new job thank goodness. I didn't get so much as a Thankyou from the previous one. So, I have massive sympathy OP. Your situation sucks. You don't have to look far those why employee morale is so low sometimes.

To those suggesting the OP just says "Nope not doing it" - she's on a zero hour contract. If she doesn't do it, the company can just choose not to give her any work, and therefore no pay. Completely legal

OP I'm guessing you work in the care sector. I'd have a look to see if you can get in somewhere that provides mainly private care rather than PCT contracts. Good luck.

They can only assess you on what you said? Not their actual experience of your work?

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard, when it comes to candidate assessment. It's almost comical.

Yes, you're right to feel upset.

I would be putting all my efforts in to finding a new job.

This happened to me a year ago. It made me want to leave but I couldn't at that time due to my training contract. I decided to make the best of it. My overall manager told me the other day how well I have done with training the new person and how my attitude was a real credit to me! I really would advise against doing anything that will make your life difficult or backfire on you. If you can't deal with it in a professional way (which is totally understandable!) start looking for another job and leave on good terms.

"What can we do?"

Well bear in mind it is a tick box culture, so make sure you tick all the boxes. Study the job spec and the person spec. Look at each skill they require. Think of concrete examples that show you have that skill. So for example don't just say "I pay attention to detail" say "I copyedited for an academic journal for 3 years and during this time, due to my attention to detail, I was given the responsibility of checking three other people's work". And make sure your application is spot on or any claims to pay attention to detail will fall by the wayside.

If the person spec is a list of bullet points of the skills required, my application form will use exactly the same bullet points to demonstrate how I have those skills. Then go into interview with very specific examples of the times that you have used the skills they require.

Once you're that well prepared you should find you're less nervous but you can always convince yourself that you're excited, not nervous, and that you're going there to see if you like them and want to work for them. Tell yourself if you don't like them you can turn them down. Sometimes that is just enough to trick yourself into feeling confident!

"They can only assess you on what you said? Not their actual experience of your work?"

Say there's an internal candidate and an external candidate. Internal, despite doing the job well on a temp basis, crashes and burns at interview. External does a so-so interview, better than internal's. If you then appoint internal, on the grounds that you know their work, external can quite legitimately claim they had an unfair advantage. After all you don't know external's work, it might be absolutely marvellous, and they did a better interview.

If you're going to hold interviews, you have to decide on the basis of the interview, otherwise you might just as well not bother with the whole process.

Thanks for all your replies. I'm sorry to hear it's happened to so many of you too, it really is a rubbish situation. And I feel for those of you that were the new guy, it's awful to be in that position, which is why I'm doing by best with not letting him know that I applied for the job or am upset about training him.

As PP said, I'm on a causal zero hours contract so if I call in sick I don't get paid. I'll continue looking for other jobs as it's very unlikely there'll be other positions opening in the near future.

I'm in the public sector, although not in a care role - without outing myself, it's a venue.

Regarding interviews, I do realise I messed up there and have since been in interview training (offered by my old manager who had moved departments, not by those who interviewed me). So I know for next time.

OP I work in public sector and it is exactly as gabilan says. What you can do is ask for in interview debrief with some pointers for next time.

I think it is much harder being an internal candidate as it can sometimes feel awkward 'blowing your trumpet' to people you know but it is important that you do that.

YANBU at all to feel upset and angry at being asked to train the new member of staff but it will serve you better in the long run to act professionally and add the training to your CV for when you do apply for another job.