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They have now withdrawn at the last minute.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

Apologies if I've misunderstood

if we were to appoint she would be surplus to requirement.

If she can go back to her previous admin job then fine, but the above quote lead me to believe she would then lose her job altogether. Which obviously isn't fine.

She’s wavering.

She asked the department head how many people (including her ) are interviewing and the answer was 3.

She asked what would happen if she came third. He said they would only appoint one person and she would go back to temping.

If she came first, they would maybe appoint who ever was second in the part time role. Something to do with not being able to afford two new salaries?

She doesn’t like all this confusion.

It’s starting to confuse me!

Does she have form for being a drama llama, OP? This last minute withdrawal with the accompanying pleading from the company, she's lucky they have asked her to reconsider tbh. They have not been spiteful at all.

She's doing the vacant role now. If they appoint someone then yes, she'll move out of it because the role will be filled. If she interviews and does well, she may get the vacant role herself or if she impresses the panel then the manager might be able to make a case for an additional appointment to a different role. No interview, no impressing the panel.

I hope it's not A that is claiming the company is being spiteful, they seem to have been very willing to accommodate her, they have been helpful and it is entirely down to her. If she's playing the blame game with the company then it needs to be pointed out to her that it is not them, it's her.

Why she is self-sabotaging in this way is hard to say, but she looks flaky by withdrawing so late in the process for a job that she's already doing and there is no way a manager can make a case to keep her on that basis.

She’s a temp though

Autocarrot problem

Sorry that was to Jaxhog

She shouldn’t be asking all these questions. She is making herself look stupid. She just needs to go to the bloody interview

She is coming over as wanting to have the interview process all her own way. She should stop worrying about hypothetical outcomes, and just go ahead to prepare to do the best she can.

It's not that confusing. She sounds flaky AF.

Tell her to interview.

Cross-post there but it's not confusing. They have made it clear that they can't employ her without her applying for a post. It is absolutely none of her business how many or who that the company is interviewing.

She's not going to be able to control this process which seems to be her aim here.

YobaOljazUwaque where I am you can't be offered a permanent job inles you've been through a competitive interview

It sounds to me like she thinks she should just get the job.

She doesnt want to interview for it despite them trying all thet can show her there will be a favourable outcome.

Ita nor enough for her

She was told that even if she doesn't get the job, she'll likely be given a similar role in the near future anyway. That sounds like the least nerve-wracking interview ever! Just turning up basically guarantees her the job in some form!

So yeah, not doing that does make it look like she's not particularly interested!

They probably end her to go through the interview process to build a business case to appoint her.
Their preference is probably a candidate with the required qualification, hence the mention of ‘if she came a close second’.
It sounds like she is good at the job and they are looking for a way to retain her in the role, despite her not having the necessary qualification.
It’s understandable they need her to show her commitment by interviewing. Try to convince her to interview.
They also probably had plans for her to continue her job split going forward and don’t appreciate her pulling out the day before the interview.

*need her
Not end her

She doesn’t like all this confusion.

Stop asking endless questions trying to cover ever possible scenario then. They have bent over backwards to get her in the role - the only thing they haven't done is the one thing they can't and that's just give her the job without interview.

Make it simple for her - go to the interview, potential permanent role. Don't go, back to temping. She may be anxious, but she's coming across as though she ungrateful and stroppy. 'Guarantee me what I want or I'm not playing anymore!'

This kind of situation bugs me, she is good enough to do the job on a temporary contract, therefore should be offered the job. End off, no interviews needed imo.

I’m a secondary school teacher and as part of the English GCSE students have to do a presentation to an audience. The number of students who don’t want to do it because of nerves and anxiety has increased massively over the past few years. We bend over backwards, making it low stakes and low pressure, allowing them to choose a couple of friends as their audience and making endless concessions to get them to do it. I know there will always be some people with mental health issues that will prevent them from being able to do this kind of thing but I can’t help but feel that schools are not preparing kids for the world of work - I can see a lot of our capable and bright students ending up in this kind of situation because schools are so invested in their success that we do everything possible to get them through - then they get into the world which is not so accommodating! Sorry if that is a bit of a tangent but it just struck me.

Nothing confusing though. She either gets the job, gets a promotion but not that job, or remains a temp. She sounds flaky.

She doesn’t like all this confusion.

She’s MADE it confusing!

There is an interview process to get a permanent job. She applied and needs to go to the interview.

Like any other potential job opportunity, if she does well at interview she has a chance of getting the job.

If she doesn’t turn up, she has no chance.

She sounds hard work rather than a hard worker, frankly.

If I were her manager I would be eye-rolling so hard right now!

Dear God, she just needs to attend the bloody interview and see what happens.

There is no confusion. She needs to interview for the job or leave. If she is scored higher than one or two of the other candidates then she will either get the role or a part time role. If she doesn't attend she will get neither.

I agree, she needs to stop with all the questions and telling them she's not interviewing, she's coming across as unprofessional.

It sounds as though it was her job to lose.

Which she’s managed all by herself.

After your update, quite frankly, she’d be mad to not show up to the interview!

It sounds like she’s going for a role which needs a specific qualification (eg accountancy). If one of the two other applicants has the qualification and does well at interview they’ll probably get the job; however the manager has basically said they’d create a development role for her - which will probably enable her to get the qualification as well?

She will literally never have it so easy, OP - all she has to do is show up to the interview and answer the “give me an example of...” questions with specific examples from her work in that department!

She’ll knock it out of the park - as long as she hasn’t already fucked it up by being so flaky!

I can’t believe she’s even considering not going to an interview where the pool is 3 people and 2 of them will get a job out of it - good luck finding better odds than that! I can’t see why she’s confused.