To wonder what the point in interviewing is when you already have someone for the job

[Florasnotin]

I work for a big organisation, one of the main employers in the UK

We've recently had quite a few staff members leave and then their jobs go up for interview. The last three jobs all went to internal staff from our unit. We all knew who was going to get the job before it even went to the application stage.

I had to bring all the candidates to the right room and give them their pre interview tests etc the other day. I felt awful making polite conversation with people who had gone out of the way to prepare for a job interview when I knew damn well they weren't going to get the job. I know its for 'fairness' it has to be advertised but it's such a waste of everyones time.

I overheard my manager coaching our internal candidate in the kitchen ten minutes before she interviewed her.

AIBU to think this is a waste of time and to wonder why they have to go to interview in the first place?

Yes it’s a waste of people’s time- happened to me on many an occasion, I understand legally they have to externally advertise a role.

I found that employers do this to meet regulations.
It's already in the bag but they have to follow procedures.
It's wrong

It's a waste of time and money. Many jobs are internal applications only, why didn't they do that?

I've been to interviews in this situation and when you find out it's aweful, especially when you really need a new job

Its awful isn't it. I used to work for the local authority and it was rife.

It's wrong, although I do know of cases when the external applicant has actually been given the job. So it's not always entirely pointless.

Ok just googled not a legal obligation but “good practice”, helps ensure the company is protected against any claims of bias or favouritism- either way it’s sucks for the poor schmuchs that make an effort to attend an interview

I hate going to interviews so just felt so sorry for these people. Especially in this case as two of the external candidates had more relevant experience than the internal candidate.

Waste of everyones time! And bloody disheartening when you are looking for a job

What is your AIBU? Yes it seems pointless but companies have to do it or people will say they are discriminating. What is the solution? Allowing companies to offer roles without advertising maybe, their choice who they want to hire.

It happened to dh so many times. He’d been made redundant and I was pregnant. It was horrible when he thought the interview went well and then he got the call ‘it went internally’.

Happens all the time where I work too. Last year I had three internal interviews. For two of them they already had someone else poised to get the job, then for the third one that person was me. Even when you are the favourite candidate it sucks because they still make you jump through all these hoops applying and interviewing and making you doubt yourself. And then when I eventually got the job I felt so bad for the other candidates who had been put through all that crap when the job was really always mine.

The irony is that HR insist we go through this rigmarole to be ‘ethical’ and fair with each post, with no thought for the stress it puts everyone through.

What is the solution? Allowing companies to offer roles without advertising maybe, their choice who they want to hire.

One of my colleagues recently managed to persuade HR to let her interview just one candidate after all the applications came in. She was able to demonstrate from the applications that this candidate was clearly going to get the job and that it would be pointless to put other people through an interview.

So people still wasted their time applying but at least didn’t have to go through the stress of an interview, which seemed like a step in the right direction.

I agree, it is infuriating. It would be much more appropriate to interview internal candidates, decide whether or not they are up to scratch and then advertise externally.

There is always the chance that an external applicant will be better than the internal - I've known this happen before, even when everyone thought the internal applicant was pretty much guaranteed the role. I think more organisations (I work for a big UK one) are going towards internal roles and expressions of interest if the organisation is confident there are the staff available who can do that role - it's usually a much quicker process than advertising externally.

My AIBU is that they should just give the job to the person they have in mind, especially when they are going to ignore more experienced external candidates anyway!

Totally agree with you. I went for a teaching interview the other day. I know I did well but they rang and told me they gave the job to the teacher already working with that class. I mean, come on! Good for that teacher but such a waste of time of me having to rearrange work. Waiting back to hear the results from another interview I had it yesterday but I’ve been rejected so many times I always expect the worst.

I've had this happen to me a few times. First time I was told the job had gone internally but the manager had 'wanted to see what was out there'. Waste of my time and money I'm travel etc.

Used to happen in my old company. Everyone knew who'd get the job but they went through the farce anyway. Was highly demotivating. I did challenge once and was told they did it to avoid a 'tap on the shoulder' culture. That was utter crap as it was a tap on the shoulder in some cases but going through the motions made them feel better about it I guess.

Its frustrating when you’ve travelled far for an interview (Wales to London, Birmingham, Devon etc), and then you find it’s gone to an internal candidate. Because it’s either a waste of petrol, or sometimes Petrol and a hotel room if needed. It’s nothing when you are working. When you are not and going for a lot of interviews, the cost of attending means I’ve actually withdrew as I have not been able to afford to attend.

But going back to what you said, when I have paid out, then heard through the grape vine that X was already known to be getting the position, and I’ve turned other interview down as I did not have the money to go, it makes me feel sick.🤷🏻‍♀️

I agree it's shit. I was the external candidate who never stood a chance so many times.

When I am supreme dictator, I shall be making a law that any organisation which publicly advertises a position and then gives the job to an internal candidate must give the unsuccessful external interviewed candidates one day's of pay at the job's salary (whatever salary is agreed for the successful candidate).

This is because the external candidates are effectively providing a consultancy service - the organisation wants to promote the internal candidate, but needs objective proof that they merit the role. This is done by critically comparing whether another job seekers is a better fit.

It is reasonable for companies to do this, but they should pay for the service.

@JaesseJexaMaipru excellent idea!

To me it is unethical to build people's hopes up if there is no chance of them landing the job. As a pp said, having a hard and fast rule about advertising externally doesn't prevent the tap on the shoulder scenario. The best firms balance external diversity with internal promotion opportunities.

I see it both ways, nepotism is a bad thing, too. We have to document everything at work (large employer, FOI requests) to show a fair process including to external candidates.

Is this the NHS by chance ?Often the internal applicant has already been "acting up" in that role IME anyway , even worse is when the Interviewer and Interviewee are friends

Yes NHS, no they haven't been acting up but yes they are 'friend's

I had this happen once with the NHS in the most obvious way. The interview was awful, they were literally going through the motions with me, and it was so clear. They could not have acted any more disinterested. What made it worse was that I had come home early from a holiday for it.

I was pretty young at the time and sat through it, but now I would just walk out of the interview.

"or people will say they are discriminating."
That makes no sense, discriminating on what grounds?