So who do you think got the job?

[MelaniasBlueDress]

It is a very niche, complex area of work, and one in which women are very much the minority (around 5% women).

Candidate A:

Female. Over 20 years relevant experience. Currently working on all of the issues and could hit the ground running. Has worked in the organisation before (in a different but related role) and has huge and relevant contact list from this time. Has a good reputation in this field. Seen by former colleagues in the organisation as a shoo in and very good news. Is bilingual in language that would be useful to have for this job, but not essential. Undergraduate degree, but not in subject relevant to the job.

Candidate B:

Male. No relevant experience at all in this field and no knowledge of the issues. Good track record in what he does, but there is no read across from that to this job at all. Has never worked in the organisation, but his wife works there. Agreement from colleagues that if he got the job it would be a really steep learning curve. PhD from Cambridge in irrelevant subject.

Awful.

I didn't get a job based on several questions I answered in a competency based interview and the HR guy rang me and apologised and asked me to apply again. These things are ridiculous. Sometimes a total idiot could get the job if they knew the questions beforehand.

It's B because it's a bullshit

Their loss OP

I don't know why B got the job, apart from answering one of the questions better than me. It makes a mockery of my entire career and building up experience. B would almost certainly have known the interviewers, due to his wife's position. They have no women employed there apart from admin staff. (His wife is someone's PA - not someone on the interview panel.)

I am so sorry OP - that is absolutely sickening for you.

The thing is, you're pretty much saying the interview should be irrelevant.

Maybe candidate A royally fucked up one or more of the questions, or completely misunderstood what they were getting at. There's not really any way to know and even if it is unfair, no way you could prove it.

Candidate A gets legal advice.

From a proper employment lawyer. (I have employment law experience as a paralegal).

Recruitment is in a bad place at the moment.

OP- it is really worth going to see someone for advice- even if you decide not to proceed after that. Go find out what your options are.

In my feedback they didn't mention my previous experience at all, but that I just missed out to "an even stronger candidate".

Candidate A should contact ACAS.
Even if there is nothing ACAS can do, they would like to know about this and what the company is called.

I hate interviews that are competency based as they seem to heavily disregard experience and skills in the job in favour of ability to answer interview questions.

That's disgraceful. Sorry that's happened. Get applying for other jobs now. And they will be the losers eventually as he will simply not be as good.

I didn't fuck up one of the questions, but the other candidate answered it better, apparently. I scored highly on every other competence (and was above the line on this one, but the other candidate obviously scored better).

You are clearly cross about this but I think you might be being unfair to B. You don't know enough about him to be so dismissive of him and, to be frank, are you always this dismissive of people and think you are better than them because that would be a concern to me if I were the one looking to promote you.

You could be describing my husband's new job offer. The woman who works as his second in command applied for his job and though he has been there a few months now he is still needing her to brief him and teach him about what they do. On the face of it she is the perfect candidate for the role. She knows the job inside and out, is an effective leader and very efficient. My DH's background is in similar type of companies with a different product. You could say he knows nothing about the business and dismiss him because she has a degree and he doesn't but he is fucking fantastic at what he does and his boss is very happy with what he has done since he started and the new ideas he has for the future that DH has started implementing.

Sometimes you need fresh blood in a role.

I was told I needed to score 3 across 9 answers and I didn't ???? They said that they couldn't give me the job because it wouldn't be fair to others although they wanted me to work on my interview technique and reapply in 6 months. Waste of everyone's time

Is Candidate A expecting a higher salary than they can get away with paying Candidate B ?

Peridot - I'm not saying the interview should be irrelevant. I've done a lot of recruitment for this organisation in the past, and we took experience into account, as well as the interview. If the option is between someone who can talk the talk, and someone who can talk the talk, but not quite as well, but who has loads of experience to bring to the job, but might need a bit of development in one area, we used to go with the latter.

How do you know so much about candidate B if you are also a candidate? Do you work at this place already? Could you ask for feedback and suggestions for improving you chances at the next opportunity? There could be some other reason he got the job you don't needlessy beat yourself up.

You have my sympathies btw. These things are a fucker. I would start looking elsewhere and not be very subtle about it

Your experience should have secured the interview. What you do with the competency questions is up to you, and if you were both interviewed, and asked the same questions, then the playing field would have been level.

Having said that, it could also be discriminatory and I'd suggest you run this past an expert in employment law.

Where I work your experience and competancies are what get you to interview but jobs are awarded based on responses to interview questions alone ie everyone who makes it to interview is considered technically capable of doing the job. Obviously better experience in a relevant job should help you with the interview itself.

Wigbert - I am quite sure that B will do an excellent job, once he is up to speed, but it will take him around 6-12 months minimum to get up to speed in this area, in which he has no experience. I already know the subject matter well, so that would have been an advantage for the organisation.

We would both have been fresh blood - I've been out of this organisation for several years and he has never worked there.

Yeah, yeah Wigbert, you keep telling yourself your DH got the job because he is 'better', not because of inherent sexism in the work place. Obviously men are better than women, that is why they have all the high paid jobs & earn more money, innit?

OP, I am gutted for you. It sucks, but I don't think there is much you can do. Perhaps time to start looking for roles outside your current place of work, but sadly your experience is not unique. Woman have to be a million times better than men to get on, and as you get older it just gets harder. Unconscious bias & everyday sexism exist in every workplace in the land.

At senior level they shouldn't be interviewing anyone who doesn't have the required competencies, at least on paper. The interview, although it will include competency elements, is likely to be to see which of the candidates fits better within the team.
You sound a very confident candidate OP, perhaps they wanted someone more malleable who would do thing their way, rather than an experienced eye?

And I doubt they asked us the same questions - I was asked to answer questions and to give examples of what I had done when I had worked for the organisation before. He couldn't have done that.

I know of candidate B, because bizarrely, he used to work with a friend of mine. His LinkedIn profile is quite comprehensive too.