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They have now withdrawn at the last minute.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

Surely the reason person A withdrew from the interview process is irrelevant? Does she do a good job and is she worthy of keeping? If yes then the offer shouldn’t be withdrawn, that is petty.

If she can’t / won’t interview for the job, why should she get it?

If she can’t / won’t interview for the job, why should she get it?

Well, she isn't getting the advertised job is she? She thought she was getting a smaller role and actually maybe she has already had a more than comprehensive opportunity to show her competence to do what that role would be asking for and showed herself to be reliable and trustworthy so why would you bother advertising and recruiting for that when you have someone already there?

Maybe they’ve backed out as they are worried they won’t do well in the interview?

Can’t you just give her the job on a permanent basis anyway if she’s already doing it?? She has proven herself, maybe she feels embarrassed gong for an interview and being demoted?

Feck me, she sounds hard work tbh.

” 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)”

Based on this, she is utterly bonkers to withdraw, and I think she is self-sabotaging. They have bent over backwards finding a way to keep her, and she is one of only three, and then when she withdrew she was actually asked to reconsider, rather than them saying “fine off you pop then”, which they could have done.

She doesn’t want the job for some reason.

I can see the bosses point. It looks like the person is not interested any more.

If they have already advertised the job and one person interviews and A doesn’t, they can’t now give it to A anyway

I totally understand why she has withdrawn from interview: management have offered her a smaller role if she comes 2nd.

Why is this relevant? Because they've basically already admitted that they've no intention of making her their FIRST choice. The 2nd choice offer is nothing more than a sweetener for kicking her (metaphorically) in the teeth.

She may well be temporary but she has already shown commitment to the job role by being there in the 1st place and by contributing heavily to the improvement of your department, hence why she originally applied.

The only thing she's done "wrong" is she has recognised the management does not appreciate/value her or her hard work by deciding prematurely she probably won't be their 1st choice.

That being the case, why should they be HER 1st choice?

Your company/management is a disgrace and I applaud her for seeing through their crap and making herself her priority.

She's done wrong. Nothing at all. Your company on the other hand is a HR disaster waiting to happen.

They are bending over backwards to try to get her a promotion/pay rise. She needs to woman up and go to the bloody interview.

I totally understand that it's not easy, but perhaps ask her to consider what's the worst that can happen.

If she doesn't go tomorrow, they'll be disappointed in her and she loses her current post and the opportunity.

If she does go, she will either do well or she won't.
If she does, she gets the job.
If she does slightly less well, she still gets a leg up.
If she doesn't do well, she's got extra interview experience and may still end up with an offer down the line (eg of one of the others don't work out)

So don't go equals only negative outcomes, do go means potentially brilliant outcomes, but certainly none that are worse than not going!!

Sorry, that would read

If she doesn't go tomorrow, they'll be disappointed, and she'll be disappointed in herself and she loses her current post and the opportunity

Sounds like she was expecting to get the job and thought the interview was just a formality, the option of a smaller role if she came second has annoyed her as she thought the job was hers.

She doesn’t want the job for some reason.
They have treated her appallingly. Either she do the job or she cant. She has obviously proved herself, yet they are playing games with her.

She's being ridiculous. If she doesn't actually interview then she can't come second to even be offered a part time role. The company isn't going to just give it to her! She needs to go to the interview. She's just made herself look flakey now.

"and a verbal agreement was reached that if they came second they might be offered a smaller role going forward."

Well. That would really hack me off.
I apply for a job as an accountant. I get told if I don't get it, I might be offered a junior accountant, school hours, for 1/2 the salary?

Yeah. That would go down well!

Like a lead ballooon!

So basically A has the hump that she might be pipped to the post by someone already qualified in that field/role. Even though they clearly stated she would have the opportunity of the smaller job and getting the qualifications to do a bigger job in the future. Bet she'll be kicking herself back in her admin role.

She doesn’t like all this confusion.

It’s starting to confuse me!

There was nothing remotely confusing about that last update. Or any of the rest of this.

The only confusing thing is why a working adult in her 30s does not comprehend that you cannot refuse to be interviewed but still expect to be given a job only available to candidates who've been interviewed.

But whatever. I assume she didn't bother to attend.

They have treated her appallingly. Either she do the job or she cant. She has obviously proved herself, yet they are playing games with her.

So someone is offered an interview for a job for which she’s not currently qualified, but, because she’s done well filling in, they’ll consider her anyway AND will help her get qualified. AND, even if she doesn’t get the role, they’re prepared to offer her another role in which she can develop her skills. That’s your definition of being treated appallingly?

”Well. That would really hack me off.
I apply for a job as an accountant. I get told if I don't get it, I might be offered a junior accountant, school hours, for 1/2 the salary?

Yeah. That would go down well!

Like a lead ballooon!”

If you were unqualified and were up against a qualified accountant for the position you’d be hacked off at not being just handed the role, and at the employer’s attempt to find you something else?

They have treated her appallingly. Either she do the job or she cant. She has obviously proved herself, yet they are playing games with her.

For jobs with career progression, when hiring you aren’t just looking for competency in the skills required for the current role, you’re also looking for potential to extend, bring more to the position and fill senior roles as they become available. For a temp current competency is generally all you need, but for a permanent hire you want more than that if you can get it.

They have treated her appallingly. Either she do the job or she cant. She has obviously proved herself, yet they are playing games with her.

In addition to the very valid points others have made about this, the employers really have no choice but to make her go through a formal recruitment process, otherwise they lay themselves open to potential discrimination claims.

She can do the job well, if she is not qualified enough and they are prepared to create a second job for her where she can be trained, she should not have to be put through a formal interview process for "that" role. Not playing games with her by saying you have to go for a fornsl interview for first rule, but if you come second we will create a role for you(hmm) If she comes third there is no new role for her despite the fact she has already proven herself within the company. That is treating her badly
Interviews in many ways are totally meaningless. Some people can talk the talk at an interview , but are not effective in the role.
I had a long conversation with the employment agency about it. I had to watch you tube videos on interview techniques. It was completely irrelevant to how good I actually am at my jon
Im 57 with 40 years experience. I am an unqualified assistant accountant. I know im not good at interviews For my current position i offered to come in for a day and work for them. They took me up on the offer, accountant was pleased with my methods and that we were compatable and was offered the job. Been there 9 months now.

Actually has it been mentioned whether everyone is being interviewed for the second role or not?

I agree interviews are often meaningless. However, you cant just scrap a company policy because you think this person is good enough. These policies are put in place because without them, people tend to promote their friends or favourite colleagues. People complain that they dont get a fair shot. So companies have brought this is.

She was nervous. Likely her manager knows this and has given her a back up to help her. Essentially saying 'whatever happens we will sort you out'.

They want her to have the job, they just cant change what happens on the day.

She hasnt been messed around. They are doing what they can to get her into a better position.

No recruitment process is perfect. You worked for a day. Doesnt mean when you start the job you will be a good employee.

I am in a role I turned down a year ago. Not enough money. The woman that did the job, was god awful. Though interviewed well on 3 occasions including meeting with CEO and working with the team for half a day. Turned out she was actually a bitch. She bullied at least 6 members of staff. She left on mutual agreement. When she knew she was being replaced, she woulsnt do the handover. She knew my email address had been set up and sent me a threatening email. From home 2 days after I started.

No one could have predicted some of the most batshit crazy behaviour that she displayed. Until she was actually there. Worked in my favour because they gave me what I wanted to go work for them.

In the place of work the OP is talking about. Interviews are part of the process. If she didnt go, then she cant progress. That's how it is.

I think it's shitty company policy to go through the recruitment process if you already have a temp in role who would like the permanent role and who they are happy with. I've wasted many an interview only to be told there was an internal candidate already doing the role and they got it.

I also think that discussing "if we don't think you're as good at the job you're already doing as somebody else, don't worry, we will find you something with less hours and less pay instead" was poor practice. As the temp I'd have suspected they were grooming me for position B, which I wouldn't want.

And finally your friend really shouldn't have pulled out. She needs to be able to handle interview nerves. The best thing you as her friends can do is convince her to go cap in hand first thing, explain that nerves got the better of her for a moment bevause the role is important to her, and would they be willing to put her name back on the interview list?

To answer your question, I think it's fair enough that the second offer would be rescinded when she withdrew from interview and just a logical business decision, not spite.