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.

Firstly no one here, including OP will have seen his CV, nor does anyone know what questions he did of didn't answer.

As we are told that the CV cannot have included any experience in the relevant field or knowledge of the issues, and his skills don't translate across, it doesn't take Einstein to work out that it will have been less impressive than A's.

Thank you all for your comments. Lots to think about here, but I don't have the energy for going the legal route, although I might speak to ACAS. I'll just have to work on my responses to competence based questions so that they are better next time. I don't think it is hurt pride. Anger, maybe.

I think 'are you a good fit for the current team' tends to be given weight in these circumstances.

Getting an interview to me signals they know you can do the job.

I honestly think they decided a man was a better fit. Or they knew him already and gave him clues to the interview questions (not that he should need them, the job description tends to give you what you need).

It's horrible OP and you're right to feel disappointed but I'm sure this next job will be the right one for you.

I don't know how these things work but can you ask them to put in to writing how he was the better candidate for the role

I've never had the nerve to ask for feedback though. such a coward

As we are told that the CV cannot have included any experience in the relevant field or knowledge of the issues, and his skills don't translate across, it doesn't take Einstein to work out that it will have been less impressive than A's.

This is all supposition by the OP though.

Truth is, unless you are on that interview panel no one knows.

One of the many things that disillusioned me, when a primary teacher was seeing how few men there were in the profession and yet how quickly they'd get promoted simply for being male. (We were told about the inequality at college when we were applying for jobs so it is - or was - a known phenomenon).

On a course of 80 or so of us, I think there were only half a dozen men and interestingly, the only two to (nearly) fail the course - both male. I was the only person on my entire PGCE to get higher than a Pass on Teachng Practice. One of those males was, within 2 years... a Deputy Head. (He was averagely competent).

Although male or female, usually the cheapest candidate got any job I ever went for, regardless of ability. In that LEA, almost no-one ever got a promotion within their own school - you'd have to move elsewhere for a better job. That was the ethic. So a brilliant internal candidate would always - in my experience - lose a job to an inferior external candidate. It was almost willful.

All things being equal (or even the female being demonstrably stronger), they'd always take the male candidate. If no males applied - they'd take the cheapest. Every time.

I'm sure his CV is pretty impressive. And some of the skills probably translate across. But he will have no knowledge of the subject matter, and it is this that will take time to get up to speed with.

I don't think they will tell me how he was the better fit for the job, as that will be personal information. I've had feedback, which was overwhelmingly positive, apart from "he answered this question better than you." And as I've said, they didn't mention taking relevant experience into account, never mind the added extra that I'd have brought, like the language and having a network of contacts already set up.

Anyway, what's done is done, and no matter how much I complain and to whom, they're not going to give me the job, so time to move on.

there could also be an element of not wanting the best possible candidate if they think they'll not stay. I have heard someone interviewing for a role where I used to work say they wouldn't hire one candidate - who on paper was the better candidate - because the interviewer didn't think they'd stay for more than a year, said this was a 'stepping stone role' for them, and would rather have someone not as good who'll want to build a career in the company.

If you had worked there before then left, they might well think you would only be there for a short while before leaving again, there also might be bad feeling from when you left previously - however just off what you've said, I do think candidate B already had the job before the interview stage given his wife works there and he's friendly with many of the key people there.

It's annoying they wasted your time if you had no hope of getting the job.

I wouldn't waste your time working on 'competency-based' questions in the belief that you didn't answer as well as you could have. The whole thing about those types of Qs is they're entirely subjective, thus giving the interview panel carte blanche to hire whomever it is they've already decided to hire, whatever they come out with on the day.

It's hideous.

No, it isn't supposition that B has no experience in the relevant field, Piglet.

Hmmm - well it could be due to discrimination but then it might just be they thought B would fit in better for whatever reason. They wanted a completely different approach.
Or- because you thought you were ideal to the role and the job was yours - you didn't come across as being very keen, you weren't really trying..
I think if you go for a job and you don't get it it really wasn't the right job for you -and the right one will come along .
(But then I did once have an interview for something I could do, would be good experience and was well paid - but I knew I didn't really want to do long term ... during the interview I decided I really couldn't face it at all -so when the interviewer (a bit puzzled by something I'd said) asked me (again) why I wanted the job - I said 'for the money really'...the rest of the interview was spent with him giving me tips on how to go about doing what I really wanted to do (related), discussing some shared research and at the end he wished me good luck.)

If it was discrimination - it really is their loss. You will find somewhere that really is perfect for you and better. Would you really want to work somewhere that was so blinkered? Put up with stupid prejudice every day? If they won't employ women they are losing out on 50% of the available talent - even if they don't realise that - their competitors will...

It depends on what the hiring manager was looking for. If it was an annotated competency based interview & candidate B interviewed better then they would have to appoint them

If it was discrimination - it really is their loss

Sadly, it is women who lose out every day by being lower paid and lower status in organisations across ever sector. It is a nice thing to say 'it is there loss', but on a macro economic level, it really isn't.

I spent a year shadowing a role at my company. I seconded there for a month, took over the role for no additional pay when staff were sick, took the necessary exam, studied for the second exam in my own time (beyond the requirement) and spent my free time revising my knowledge and reading up on industry trends.

When a vacancy came up I applied, had a thoroughly enjoyable interview, and scored 92% on the competency exam. Three other candidates interviewed, but they didn't have the relevant qualifications and openly admitted they'd messed up the test. They had, too, with low scores. Pension law and Mortgage guidelines aren't everyone's cup of tea.

They gave the job to Fred.

Fred? Who's Fred?

Fred didn't even apply. Fred was just sitting at his goddam desk. He'd applied for the LAST vacancy and hadn't gotten it, a year ago. Fred hadn't applied for THIS vacancy.

They said all the current candidates 'did well' and thanked us for our time.

Now the ones who'd failed the comp. test accepted it. They admittedly hadn't displayed the product knowledge but still felt aggrieved that the job had gone to some random bloke who hadn't even applied.

I was frankly fucking enraged. Call it what you like, but they offered me no decent feedback whatsoever as to why I'd 'failed', no tips, no nothing, and they - THEY! - had been the ones who'd been priming me for a year for the next vacancy! With the secondment opportunities and experience they'd been feeding me they were practically training me up for it. Why? Why go to all that hassle just to put on a big recruitment performance and hire a man who. didn't. even. apply.

I complained. They petted me on the head and ultimately made it clear they thought I was acting like a spoilt brat.

Fred quit within 6 months. Bit of a stressful role. They looked to me but I gave them the office equivalent of the finger and handed my notice in.

I'm not sure what you can do OP. Launching a legal challenge is expensive and uncertain, burning bridges along the way. Personally, I'd be flipping them the bird and making it clear that you went for that job because you're ambitious and you want more, and if they can't provide that they can swivel. Start looking for something else. They've lost you. Hopefully they'll be sorry they shoved you out, and are stuck with Dr Randomdude who's going to have to be shown the ropes.