Is this spiteful? Interview situation.

[ThrowAwayQP]

So...

Situation at work where we are interviewing for a post tomorrow. Person A is already doing the post on a temp basis; and was one of the people being interviewed tomorrow for the full time post.

A discussion had taken place where it was agreed that even if unsuccessful they have proven themselves and so will be involved in the future development of the department in some capacity.

They have now withdrawn at the last minute.

Would it be spiteful, if another appointment is made tomorrow for them to be completely removed from the department, despite all the work they have done?

Thanks

If they are in a temp position and knows there is interviews for a full time job and have withdrawn, surely that means they expect/want to leave the company anyway?

There has to be more to this story-otherwise it seems both groundless and fairly unprofessional

And what is your interest if you are not A or boss?
grrrrr to cryptic posting

She may have cut off her nose despite her face

I just want to point out, incase you make this mistake again. The expression is "cut off your nose to spite your face"

Yes, I'd be asking her why she withdrew. If it's because she would have preferred smaller role then why would you not after that to her anyway. It may be because she doesn't want to go through the ordeal of an interview for a job she's already doing.
Also, why did you have to open the post to other applicants?

Seems fine to me, that is how business works. Don’t want negative people in the business.

Posts here always have to be opened to outside applicants, even if the company know they want the temp. It's supposed to make it more fair (although it's kind of annoying as an outside applicant I can tell you that!), it is also smart for the company who may stumble upon an absolute diamond during the process.

I can only imagine the temp found a better job offer. Can't see why they'd drop out the day before interviews if not. It wasn't a done thing that she wouldn't get the job, and she could always have turned down the smaller role after if necessary. I sure wouldn't want a smaller role if I was gunning for full time.

It really needs an open discussion; if she withdrew from nerves, that can be dealt with.

If she withdrew because she felt she was being groomed for second position, that's very understandable, and also needs a discussion.

If she doesn't want either of the jobs at all, then that's her choice but she shouldn't be booted out of her department for wanting to go back to her old role!

She didn't interview, the suggestion of 'a smaller role' was if she came second to a successful candidate for the job she's doing now. She didn't interview, so the offer doesn't apply. She probably doesn't want 'a smaller role'.

It all sounds quite logical to me, from both employer's and temp employee's point of view.

So theres a job available.

She applied for it. She was told of she didnt get, they would create a smaller role for her.

But she has decided thay she wants the smaller role instead of the role she went for.

She did this without explaining to anyone that she has withdrawn because she wants the smaller role and assumed they would still create the smaller role for her?

But that wasnt the agreement.

Surely it depends on why they withdrew

Did they have a role with you previously? If so they go back to their substantive post. If you employed then on a temporary contract and then fill the post surely you no longer need them?

@Drogosnextwife just to point out in case you make this mistake again: the phrase “in case” is two separate words.

I don’t think I’m explaining it well.

I’m a friend of person A. She was told that if she came second in interviews then the department head would make a case to the senior team for her to continue part time as extra capacity. She loves the job but has pulled out of the interview due to nerves.

The department head spoke to her and said that she should reconsider as she is a strong candidate; but also he added that if she does not interview then the part time post would not materialise; and if we were to appoint she would be surplus to requirement.

Surely the best thing to do is that which has (or could be expected to have) the best effect on the business?

I think that’s fair enough really. I wouldn’t think much of someone who pulled out of an opportunity due to nerves

That's not just spiteful, it's absolutely batshit.

It's up to Person A what they want to do with their career. If they are good at the job and competent at it, they deserve promotion.

Some people get so freaked out by interviews that they are literally ill. Maybe she's one of those.

I think that's quite mean spirited. Either someone is needed in this 'second' role or they're not. Surely it can be seen as developmental for her to step up part time, with a view to increasing her confidence and be seen as a long-term better investment?

It sounds to me like she's thinking she's been taken for a bit of a ride, they've already sidelined her into secondary status, so if she's nervous she'll be thinking 'I'm never going to get it anyway so why put myself through it'.

Something similar happened to an d colleague of mine. She applied for a permanent role but later changed her mind,
withdrawing as a candidate. They paid her a week's notice and dismissed her from her temporary contract, saying that she evidently wasn't interested in working for the company any more.

Your first post sounds like they want to end her contract completely, for not attending the interview, but your updates make a bit more sense.

They're basically saying they can't give her another/ or the same but permanent role, unless she interviews for a position. Which is fair enough I think.

It makes sense. if she did well in the interview but someone did better, they would be a case to put together to keep her.

They made it clear her performance in interview was part of building the case to the senior team.

She didnt go through with the interview and knew that meant there would be less of a case to put to the senior team.

I don't think it's spiteful to no longer stick to an agreement that she has invalidated by not interviewing.

So long as she didn't pull out because she assumed she'd be a shoe-in for the permanent role and is piqued because she isn't - and from what you've said that's not the case - then she's mad to not just do the interview.

So she's nervous - so what? She knows the job, she knows what she's talking about, she's been told she'd still have a job afterwards (albeit a smaller role) if she didn't get the permanent position - wtf does she have to be nervous about?!

So either it's more than that or she's decided she no longer wants to work with this company - but if she doesn't interview, then I don't see how the bosses can make a case for keeping her on, as she's not showing that she has any interest in continuing to work for them.

How do you know that there were not more than 2 people invited for interview?

She loves the job but has pulled out of the interview due to nerves.

Has she mental health issues? That seems an absurd overreaction.

It's a fair decision. They can't make a business case for promotion for someone that isn't even willing to interview.

Rather than withdrawing due to nerves, she'd have been better to ask for advice for managing them.

With your update it sounds quite different.

I was going to say spiteful, but with the extra info it sounds like the dept head was putting themselves out there specially on her behalf so that she would not feel rejected or disenchanted. But by not interviewing then it makes it hard for them to make a special case for her getting the extra work/hours.

She should definitely interview.