To put the kybosh on colleague

[Myusernameismyusername]

Someone is applying for a job internally and it would mean I would be working closely with this person. I am above them in hierarchy.

I do not think this person is right for the job. I'm not sure yet if I will be on interview panel but it is likely.

There are various reasons for this feeling, inexperience being one but the other more difficult one to pin point is what I would call a bad vibe.

I just don't like or trust this person from what I have seen, I think they always seem to have some motive for doing things and have a big unnecessary gob. I think I have a good instinct for whether someone is a good influence or a bad one and this person seems to edge on bad. But nothing specific in examples, just more of a feeling. I think they want this job mostly for egotistical reasons although I think would not mess the job up necessarily, I think they would push all the boundaries and drive me bonkers. It already happens now, and I find myself being pushed by this person although I am perfectly able to deal with it, it just doesn't feel right.

I probably could influence the interview panel easily, but I don't know if this is morally a wrong thing to do.
I'm not just thinking about me I am thinking about the workplace as a whole.
I will have to give instructions/directions to this person, as I do on some level now, and think it would involve them going off piste or being bloody annoying about it.

AIBU? What's the etiquette

Don't ask if you should be on the panel or not!

If someone asked me that, I'd question their capability. A key part of being a manager is evaluating performance. I'd be concerned that you couldn't manage that if you came to me and said you weren't sure you could be objective in an interview. Never mind that you should be using your prior experience of a person to inform your decision.

This person will get hired and you'll be the one suffering when they undermine the team. From my limited knowledge of local government, people can stay in jobs for years (a lifetime) because poor performance isn't tackled effectively? So you'll be stuck until you move on.

See what is objective and backed up by facts. Also be honest and explain that your feedback is coloured by fact you find someone hard to work with. If you can give reasons why even better.
However I do think someone wanting to progress professionally etc is not a reason why they aren't suited tk a role. You might want to think about why you don't like someone ambitious.

It's my managers decision who is on the panel - quite likely me and 2 others.

I honestly don't have an issue with anyone wanting to further their career, but I am also wary of people who aren't happy whatever they have and keep wanting more. As I said, they are constantly over stepping boundaries where it is not appropriate whatsoever and this position could give them a platform to do that

It is hard to explain, I think when I said ego this person has made it clear they feel they are better than others with more experience, the position would put them into where they feel the 'action' is, which is fine in some respects, but I know I would ask for X and y and then this person would challenge me on it, go off piste with their own agenda etc. They already do. They would have more freedom than they do now but that's not a good thing. So I think feeling trapped and managed is what might be driving them but they don't have the insight to see that they end up being managed because of crap behaviour. I am not line manager, and I am relatively new so it's frustrating to see how this has got like this and it needs to be managed properly

If you're on the panel just tell the truth. If you can back it up with facts even better. Surely it would be your job to choose the right person not someone who is a PITA to work with. Even better if you can champion a better candidate rather than diss this one.

I'm going to let the ego thing go I shouldn't have said it.

I don't know why they want the job

Go with your gut instinct. There was a time when I and a colleague ignored our gut instinct , and it didn't end well.

And your attitude that internal candidates are easier to hire is a bit lazy - give the external candidates a fair chance, get some new faces in the organisation .

Just make sure your input is based on concrete, specific, rational reasons that concern their ability to perform the role, and not 'vibes' or baseless hunches about their motivations.

Sorry but what rot. 99% of human interaction is about vibes and hunches. That's what interviewing is all about, otherwise people would recruit based on a CV alone. The one thing I've learnt about managing people is to follow your gut because if you feel it, so will others and if you ignore it, it will bite you in the ass and usually sooner, rather than later.

In my area of the public sector, appointments have to be backed up fairly strictly by how the candidates score on each of the questions, and our comments go in as evidence of this - we are not meant to consider our experience of them if internal (which I don't agree with). You said you had training, so make sure you are sticking to the processes otherwise the failed candidate could have cause to challenge the interview process.

It's my managers decision who is on the panel - quite likely me and 2 others.

Then interview, ask the questions that you need to ask, make notes as you would any other candidate and when it comes to the discussion at the end - that's the time to discuss your feelings. If the interview behaviour reinforces your feelings, then be clear on what and why. If it is counter, then point out that the interview behaviour runs counter to what you have already experienced of this person in the workplace and you are concerned that the interview was not sincere.

If you are not on the panel, I'd voice your concerns to your manager in private, stating your experiences so far and your hesitancy in the applicant joining their team and for what reasons. They have already told you they are prepared to lie to get what they want! To not use this information would be foolish. You just have to do it in the right way.

Speaking with years of HR experience - particularly recruitment here (although a few years since done any).

1. One of the benefits of having internal candidates is you have their track record. Good. And bad. So this person's behaviour/performance is a known. You would be mad not to reflect on it, comment on it base your (the panel's) decision on it.
2. Try to write down (so clear in your head) concrete evidence/examples of what you don't like. This will also help you work out if maybe you have some odd prejudices which are unfair (they have a habit that reminds yo of an awful ex for eg which is colouring your opinion
3. Do a similar "plus" list. With evidence.
4. Put this in the context of what interview questions need to be included in the interview. "Please tell me how you have been discrete in the past" "This role understandable requires a high moral code and awareness of public perceptions re local government - what examples can you give of having maintained your own integrity?" "Why is it important to take as much care over informal conversations in the office as professional ones?'
5. Now you have a plus/minus list speak to your boss. And a solution. "Love to be on the panel - excited about getting the right person - great to get internal candidate too - and I know them. It has made me consider a couple of extra areas we need to explore in the interview." Depending on your relationship with your boss tell him the whole thing - but try to include the positives as well so you don't come across as already having made your mind up
6. Remember that you are comparing the candidates (internal and external) against the job description. Which is the best fit for the role? It may be that there is an outstanding external candidate so the external is clearly second choice anyway. It maybe the candidate totally fluffs their interview. It maybe they perform really well in the interview and you are won over.
7. Conflicting advice here Keep an open mind - but also don't forget your concerns.

FWIW I think the fact that you are worried means you will try to be open minded. And remember - internal candidates cannot whitewash their current performance like an external candidate come. Thems the breaks.

I have only stepped back from one internal recruitment campaign over the 15 odd years I was doing it - and that was when my best friend (later bridesmaid and godmother to DD) was up for a promotion. I told my director it would be unfair on my friend if she got the job and there was any hint she got it due to her friendship with me. (BTW she aced the recruitment process and her career flew - deservedly so).

Oh - and yes, yes it is totally fine to ask/wonder why someone wants a job! Used to be one of the first questions I asked.

You do not want someone going for a post-room job because they actually want to work in IT and see it as a "way-in". There is no natural progression there. Their motivation would be low for the job they are in. They would be disappointed if they felt they didn't progress as quickly as they want. Some stepping-stone jobs make sense. As do some sideways steps. Others are red-flags - escaping from poor performance or over-belief in their own value.

The "ego thing" is totally valid - don't overthink it.

Both my current and previous boss (executive board level in MNCs) employed the airport and drink test respectively. I.e. I'm stuck in an airport lounge for an hour with this person is it going to be a chore/could I go for a beer with this person and not want to kill myself.

It's a crude way of illustrating how important character is. To repeat myself it (should be!) a given that if you're being interviewed you have the necessary technical skills, so the questions become:

• Can they effective manage multiple stakeholders
• Will they be able to influence effectively
• How will they handle political wrangling
• Will this person integrate into the exiting team
• Do their values reflect corporate culture and vision

Needing supervision to be kept on task, wanting to neglect the less glamorous parts of the job (which still need to be done!) and overstepping boundaries are terrible traits for a role with responsibility! A person who isn't competent to be left on his/her own in an existing role isn't suitable for a job with, as it seems, more responsibility and more scope to use one's own discretion.

i think this 'vibe' and the ego thing is something you should be managing already. and wanting to progress is perfectly usual and not the sinister takeover plot you seem to be imagining. your comments about them wanting to be in the 'inner sanctum' of management only serve to highlight how protective you are of your own position.

so. the person who is awful in her current role gets the job. what is your reaction? how will you maintain professionalism working alongside them.

or. they don't get the job. based on the issues you describe, they need to be closely managed for a while. how does your feeling that they will behave in a difficult way influence your response?

I dunno food for thought perhaps.

I honestly have no concerns or worries over my own job or feel protective of it in that sense. I think it's seen by some (candidate) as falsely glamorous, swanning around in meetings all day and with technology items that make people feel left out of the loop where reality is: chained to your items of technology and running ragged trying to meet deadlines. Currently on my tea break though FYI

would this person make others feel uneasy by having access to their information? The closer in you get to management the more confidential information you have access to. Trust is a big thing. Yes I was speculating on their ego reasons for wanting to be in on the action because they are bloody nosy and gossipy

I hate to say it again, but you are sounding very anti growth and development. .seeing ambition as being impolite and against your 'rules' of how you think people ought to behave (wait arlund and be given progression by grace? , longevity?)
You are also confusing confidentiality with secretiveness. Within a trusting environment, openness and interest isnt necessarily 'gossip' or brashness.. . Having worked in the public sector, the 'each layer is a secret' 'wait to be asked, dont seek promotion' and nervousness of capability were very swiftly going out of faahion, no matter how embedded they were as 'the way things are done' I really think you are seeking excuses for how exposed this person makes you feel.

Whats telling is how miffed you were when they might get the same equipment as you.. which is what really happened. The 'tease' when you said 'oh no..its only people like me who get this level of free equipment' has given you a card to play..but a team-thinking (rather thab a status-thinking) person would have been supportive of colleagues having good equipment.

You could be right..but it sounds extremely like you are worried about your comfort zone more than whether or not this person is capable.

I don't know how you got any of that from my post when I have backed it up with other things. I don't feel exposed. They don't have anywhere near the level of experience I do - sorry if that seems that I have a big head, it's just a fact. They could get it, but they are going to need to change a lot of their behaviours first.

Colleague can't have expensive equipment because it is of no relevance to their job role, organisations cannot give them to people without a solid rationale for needing it - which I asked and the answer was 'well you have one'. Yes I do, because that's what my job requires. We have different jobs. I also would have to justify the cost to my line manager and I just can't. And I explained that.

As for no growth.. we are a modern organisation and employ apprentices, there is a lot of learning and development available and I am constantly working with all my colleagues to learn and share how to be better at our jobs. I'm happy to continue to support this person I in their current role when they are ready and have more experience, which they don't yet have to move up or across. I feel they are their own barrier to success. It's not snobbish it's common sense.

As for confidentiality, when you are dealing with personnel records for instance, I have zero trust that this person would be professional. There are also occasions when information is shared with management levels and not broadcast until things are confirmed - financial decisions etc. I'm not sure they would be able to be trusted with that kind of information either.

The trouble is th at you are guessing a person's capability oy what you feel about whether ambition is suitable or attractive, and there are plenty of people who have abilities higher than people with yeats of experience. In fact years of experience actually damages ability more often than it enhances it. I know, as i've had to coach experienced people out of poor communication skills, complacemcy, staid amd formulaic thinking and decision-surfing behaviours, as well as taken depayerments off people with 30years + of experience and tripled their output..often to nearly £100million organisational benefit.

You need to look at facts and not guess and extrapolate from nervousness, and of there are spme problematic(for ypu) behaviours think about jow you can manage these ..or yourself..to get these to be positive for the organisation, or to cjamge them. You cant expect any efficiency in an organisation that camt refine and develop people into more senior roles. hoping someone already has the full range of characteristics for a role above the one they are in is a little crazu...wheres the incentive for them if they do, and why are people senior to them managing them if they are perfect?

I don't really understand a lot of what you say, sorry... but turns out all this worry and someone else beat me to it with manager anyway. I will give my feedback if asked.

Scareyclown - what? None of what you are saying makes any sense.

Luckily, the OP isn't the only one with concerns evidently. Imagine what workplaces would be like if nobody did anything without concrete evidence? The whole of business and enterprise rests on instinct, gut reaction and reading between the lines.

Maybe I am in the wrong game where is my £100billion

Yes, you are acting completely unreasonably.

It is up to the interview panel to decide whether they are suitable or not, your personal feeling towards them is irrelevant as to whether they can do their job. How would you like it if you were highly qualified for a role, but didn't get it because someone "had a feeling" about you?

A good interview panel (which it sounds like it won't be if you are on it) will measure the candidates objectively against set criteria that are appropriate for that role.

Put your personal prejudices aside, and grow up.

I have not 'acted' in any whatsoever seen as I have haven't said or done anything to, for or against said person except get opinions from internet strangers.

In answer to your questions:

1. They aren't highly qualified for the role so this is irrelevant. They are inexperienced in this area
2. I would accept I probably didn't have the right fit for the place and ask for feedback and work on the areas they advised me on