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They have now withdrawn at the last minute.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

Your original post wasn't clear .after your update I understand.
First of all they probably shouldn't have said she will likely get a job even if she's not first place .
2nd of all if she's good enough to do the job what's the point of the interview especially she's been doing the job for some time although I understand this is what happens in some companies my Dh has had to do this .
I think it's silly of her to not do the interview because she's basically got a job but now she's shot herself in the foot now and she should go for the interview.

I think it's fair enough. They were going to stick their neck out and make a case based on her interviewing. She isnt interviewing and only due to nerves. There was never any guarantee she would get a part time post only that they'd try, and they cant really be expected to go to that effort if she isnt going to go to the effort of interviewing

It sounds like her employer has given her every possible chance, they practically walked her into a job. She probably just had to turn up.

Is the main job full-time and the "manufactured alternate second choice job" part-time? Perhaps she feels that she won't get the main job due to lack of qualifications, and cannot afford the a part-time alternative.

(I, too, am anxiously facing an interview where I don't have the qualifications but have what I think is relevant experience. I cannot talk the jargon of the qualification but I can apply it to our very bespoke organisational setup.)

Your company is NBU. If she's comes second she would get a smaller role. If she doesn't interview then she couldn't possibly come second. If she doesn't come second then she will not get the role.

Why do you want find this so hard to understand?

I hope she goes to the interview. Most people get nervous at interviews, to not go just for that reason makes her a much less credible candidate.

It sounds as if they want her in the role. She absolutely must interview. She should go in and be honest that she’s nervous if needs be and explain its because she doesn’t have the qualifications. They’re probably only putting they’ll accept unqualified people so that she meets the criteria. She’s really really shooting herself in the foot.

YABU.

Your friend hasn't been offered the smaller role unconditionally, it was dependent on her doing well at interview - on coming a close second. If she doesn't interview she can't come a close second so the head of department isn't withdrawing anything, just reminding your friend that she won't be able to offer her the role. How can you characterize that as spiteful? If anything it sounds like the head of department was trying to encourage your friend to go for it by reminding her of what she has to lose.

She needs to attend that interview. It’s that simple.

Interviews are a necessary part of the process. They may not be pleasant but everyone has to do them.

Plus they’re falling over themselves to help her and she’s rejecting them. Understandably your boss is bit miffed.

She’s not just cutting off her own nose to spite her face, she cutting off both their noses and waving them around yelling “a plague on both your faces!”

They want hee in the role.

They have come up with a contingency plan if the interview isn't as good as someone elses. Probably because they can tell she is nervous and worried she wont perform as they know she can.

People dont try and create jobs for people they dont want.

She is in a privilege position. She interviews and if she doednt get it, they will create a role for her.

Its nor confusing. Either her nerves are getting to her. Or she is annoyed theres been a suggestion she wont get the job.

I work for a company that wanted me. A role came up that didnt quite fit. They changed the profile. This has happened to me once. I am 37. I am extremely lucky. It doesnt happen often.

Why did she withdraw?

To be honest whatever she does now she has a black mark against her. Does hse have anxiety - if so and she admits this and allows them to interview her it might be okay. I have known people do really badly in an interview still get the job because of "other reasons" or performance in "other interviews".
The company probably wants to see A has some drive and resilience if they are going to spend time and money training her up. Withdrawing from the interview process seems to demonstrate neither. And I would assume she had another job to go to.

If I were interviewing her, even if she did decide to interview today, I’d have serious concerns about her indecision and dithering now.

I am afraid I agree with the PP; she has buggered this up.

I think the company are being reasonable and upfront with her. If she doesn't want to be interviewed that's her decision

I read it as if she thought getting the position was a done deal, and when she was told that may not be the case she's cancelled her interview.

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.

It’s not always that simple. I once had a contract role for nine months that was then opened up as a permanent position. I wanted the job; my boss wanted me to have the job. However, there were redundancies planned elsewhere in the company and, under the terms of employment, anyone at risk of redundancy was guaranteed an interview if applying for an internal role. My boss had to interview me, despite my having done the role for nine months, as well as other candidates, because she not only had to demonstrate that I was right for the role, but that I was better than people who could be facing redundancy if they weren’t moved into the vacancy.

It seems even less clear-cut in this situation. OP’s friend has been covering the role short-term and, while a promising performer, she is both inexperienced and unqualified. She would need extra support and long-term training if she was to get the role. Can you really not see why the company would at least look at applicants who already had the relevant experience and qualifications before they took a risk on the OP’s friend?

I am afraid I am the same as other PP's refusing to attend an interview for that reason would definitely have me concerned that she would not be able to handle change well, so yes it would put her out of the running for the smaller role.

It sounds like some effort was given to ensure she was shown she was valued , business cases for extra roles to directors can be quite tricky. Frankly I wouldn't do it for someone who was unable to self regulate their emotional response for the period of an interview.

There are very few jobs where you only have to be better than one other person to get it.

Jeez, she should still go for it!
She might come first, she might come second, she might come third - but if she doesn't even fucking try then she doesn't stand any chance at all!

Honestly, I get the nerves - I fucking hate interviews and get nervous too - but if she's got a 2/3 chance of improving her situation and pay, why the fuck isn't she jumping at it?!

You are blind and spiteful in your work ethic
I wouldn't want to work with you

Does she know she was going to get a job anyway, maybe that's why she withdrew. Or maybe she's already got a job somewhere else. The obvious professional thing to do is to ask her why she withdrew.

I think she doesn't want the job. She likes her comfort zone.

She was probably annoyed that they were even contemplating that she would not get the job. I know it is not an assumption, but they were saying that you may not be good enough for the job, but hey, have a little part time job while someone else does your job.
Sorry, realised I’ve written ‘job’ quite a few times.

I was wondering if she had the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the company meant to employ a man to do the job, keep her on in a 'lesser' role so that she could actually, you know, do the work and make the man look good while earning less than him. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

Sorry, but Person A is obviously confused or a bit daft. They are basically guaranteeing her a role of some sort, but she has to interview to get it as she is only a temp.

That is totally reasonable and sensible and probably has to be done as they can't just give her a job without an interview.

She needs to sort out her anxiety and ask if she can interview and then see what happens

Sounds like person A believed from that conversation that they weren't going to get the permanent job which is exactly what I would take from it. I wouldn't take from the conversation that I would no longer be in line for the smaller role though.

That's a pretty nasty and shoddy way to treat someone imo