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They have now withdrawn at the last minute.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

I think the boss made the correct call. You can't rely on flaky staff so having been given a heads up, they're sensibly choosing to withdraw their previous offer and not employ her.

However, I also feel sympathy for A's predicament.
Pulling out of a job interview where she knows the staff, the job and is a strong contender solely due to anxiety is a complete over reaction. I think she needs professional help to deal with her 'nerves', otherwise, she's needlessly limiting her employment options.

And that would be unfair dismissal. She needs to talk to ACAS, and quickly.

And that would be unfair dismissal. She needs to talk to ACAS, and quickly.

How so?

It’s a temporary position, Jax I don’t think unfair dismissal would apply.

I think your friend Person A has been very silly. Pulling out of an interview for a role you are already doing, because of nerves is completely daft.

If she was willing to go to the interview before the other role was tentatively offered, then the impression she gives is that she's just taking the easy option and avoiding the interview because she can and has nothing to lose, rather than feeling genuinely unable to face it.

Does your friend tend to stick to temp roles to avoid having to face a 'proper' interview?

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

Sounds a bit odd, considering she already works there and presumably knows the interviewers. Is there perhaps more to this than meets the eye?

Im confused. Why interview in the fist place, just give her the job! I know some employers HAVE to advertise/interview but if that was the case then they wouldnt be able to invent a job for her if she comes second

Sorry I missed the last update from the OP, about her reasons for pulling out. I still think the same though - if they have another smaller role they would be silly to replace her for the smaller role. If there isn't another real role they should never have suggested there would be.

@C8H10N4O2 - As I understood the update, the department head said he would create another role that was "surplus to requirements" if Person A did not succeed in the interview. The position which she has been doing until now has been temporary. It sounds like they are trying to be supportive and retain a good employee, but there's only so much they can do if that employee refuses to help themselves.

If she was willing to go to the interview before the other role was tentatively offered, then the impression she gives is that she's just taking the easy option and avoiding the interview because she can and has nothing to lose, rather than feeling genuinely unable to face it.

This. Totally. She just looks like she CBA now.

It's not exactly spiteful. But if in a circumstance of her doing the interview, and coming second, another plan would be made to keep her on, then it is weird that such a plan wouldn't be pursued if she just didn't do the interview. It's not spiteful but it shows that it was a silly thing to promise. Either you can make a business case for keeping her on, or you can't. Whether or not she goes through with the rigmarole of the interview is immaterial to that business case.

Is it a temporary position in that your friend is working for the company through an agency? Or had she already worked there in another capacity before taking on this role until they filled it permanently?

I think if she’s an agency worker I can understand where they’re coming from as they may simply see that as an indication she doesn’t wish to work for the company directly. They’re effectively creating a position purely to keep her on if she isn’t successful at interview, I can see why they would see no reason to do so and just hand her a role that no one else has been considered for, if she doesn’t wish to interview.

yes the main problem is friend has pulled out of a job she wants due to nerves, when she's been given a strong hint that if she's first or second they'll sort something out. The firm's reaction is fine - they need to be able to interview her.

But she’s withdrawn due to nerves. Considering that, whether she was offered the job she would be interviewed for or not, she would be offered a role within the company because she has proven herself, she was in a win win situation.

Now she’ll be out of a job if she doesn’t attend.

Pulling out of an interview due to nerves looks terrible. Is your friend very young? She sounds a bit entitled to expect a job just to be handed to her. Everyone gets nervous about interviews but you just have to get on with it. Can you give her a pep talk OP?

Hi all,

Thanks for your replies, I’m still trying to convince A to attend tomorrow.

To clarify, as A has explained to me: (sorry, I’m rubbish with explanations)

A is employed by the company in an admin role, attached to the department. She isn’t formally qualified in the core business of the department. In the spring the department ran into capacity issues and A helped out now and again with the core business. An advert went out and two people were appointed.

One of the new appointees failed probation and was let go; so another advert was put out. While the recruitment process was ongoing A was temporarily appointed to fill in this post. This was based on the fact that she helped fill in earlier in the year.

The advert stated that unqualified candidates would br considered and training towards the qualification would be provided for right candidate.

A was encouraged to apply; and later the department head told her that he had negotiated that based on her current performance, if she interviewed and came a close second the senior team would allow him in appoint her in a junior part time role (this would still be a pay rise for her)

The interview is tomorrow and she withdrew today. The department head asked her to reconsider but also told her that if she did not interview she would be back doing the admin role and that would be that.

Why are they already talking about her coming second? How do they know she won't come first, and if she doesn't come first how can they be sure she'll come second? Are only 2 people interviewing for the post?

Seems very unprofessional of the managers to discuss any of this prior to interview.

Surely the proper thing to do is

• interview for the post
• find the successful candidate (whoever that may be - it may be person A

If it's not person A then offer another role to person A who didn't succeed at this particular interview but who the company know are a good worker.

The company prematurely outcomed the interview. Sounds like they have someone else in mind for the job even before interviews.

I think that's fair enough.

As you said before they would put a case together for senior management, based on her coming close second in the interview process.

If she isnt doing the interview she cant come a close second.

Why are they already talking about her coming second? How do they know she won't come first, and if she doesn't come first how can they be sure she'll come second? Are only 2 people interviewing for the post?

Because they are telling that even if she doesnt come first, the will ensure getting some sort of promotion.

But the interview is part of the case.

She's only been offered the possibility of the smaller role if she comes a close second in interviews. If she doesn't turn up, she can't possibly meet that requirement. If she wants the job she really needs to go to the interview and show them that she's what they need for the role, and she should bear in mind that she's got a major advantage over other candidates in terms of having already proved herself.

I think she’s fucked it. What a wasted opportunity. Is she very young?

She’s in her 30s. She’s worked for the company in this admin role for a few years

She’s got to woman up with the interviews. I get the impression she thinks her nerves are some kind of medical issue they might make allowances for. They won’t

*Because they are telling that even if she doesnt come first, the will ensure getting some sort of promotion.
*

But only is she comes "a close second".

Is it guaranteed she will come "a close second".

It just seems to have been clumsily handled by management.

The advert stated that unqualified candidates would br considered and training towards the qualification would be provided for right candidate.

They're practically falling over themselves to make it easy for her!

A was encouraged to apply;

See above.

and later the department head told her that he had negotiated that based on her current performance, if she interviewed and came a close second the senior team would allow him in appoint her in a junior part time role (this would still be a pay rise for her)

Argh! Get her to the interview. WHY is she nervous? They're only going to ask her about the things she does day in day out - she has the perfect opportunity to use examples. And if she goes there is no risk of failure as there's a smaller role they would use her for.

If she shows initiative.

She is choosing to fail! Why would you do that?