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They have now withdrawn at the last minute.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 friend is being silly! Of course she should interview for the role! How else does she expect to get better jobs? Acting up is all well and the but to ensure the company finds the best people roles need to go to open interview. She sounds like she's almost blackmailing them. Appoint me regardless of my interview or I'll refuse to engage.

She really really needs to do the interview. To pull out because of “nerves” might appear to suggest that she’s not cut out generally for a more demanding role.

Her manager is trying to help her in professional development. And has gone in to bat for her to higher management on the basis of her success in her performance at interview.

That seems very clear.

Personally, I think her manager has probably made an error of judgement in letting her know this. Your friend now seems quite wound up and I sense she feels she’s “owed” the step up, whether or not she proves herself at interview.

It’s a pity she’s seeing the positive things her manager is doing to help her get on as problematic or “spiteful.”

I once got a job which a temp had been doing; I was an external candidate. We both interviewed (amongst others) and I did better at interview and I got it. By all accounts she was good at the job. But the company had to treat all applicants fairly and that meant going through the interview process. It’s like that in most places. And I still have to interview for a promotion/ change of job title even though I would be doing exactly the same work but could just call myself something more senior.
If she wants to be more than a temp she needs to go to the interview; worst case scenario she doesn’t get either position and stays a temp, so she cannot lose. Best case scenario she gets a good promotion and more money. By not interviewing she will not progress in those roles.
Interviews are hard; no-one likes them. But they have to be done if you want to progress in your job.

If someone with the appropriate qualifications applies for the role, then they're more likely to be offered it than the temp who has been filling in. That makes sense, surely!!

There currently IS no second role. The company have been so obliging to tell Person A that they would create a role for her, because she's done so well so far, and that they would put her forward for training while in that position. It wouldn't be the current position being advertised because, for that, she would need the qualifications.

But if there were no other qualified candidates, but others with potential, then she'd stand a better chance of getting the currently available position because she's already been working in it.

However, it's my understanding that most companies have to offer jobs on the open market these days - they can't just get away with promoting someone from within just because they're there.

It seems to me that the company are doing their best to get Person A the step-up the ladder that she needs - but she may not want it, and if she doesn't interview, they'll not be able to offer it to her because they won't have a decent enough reason to create the currently non-existent second role.

To be frank the manager should not have said ANYTHING about a alternative role. Totally unprofessional to all candidates and only demonstrates poor HR practices and management a leadership IMO.

@alig99 - May I ask why? The candidates lose nothing- they may be able to get the position they applied for regardless of the other job. It's actually pretty fab they would still want to recruit an internat candidate even if they did not make the cut- shows appreciation for the work they have done so far and going out of the way to secure them some sort of position rather than just say 'bye' at the end of their contract.

Something similar happened to me where I was in a similar position to person A. I found out I was pregnant so withdrew.

Mona, good practice in recruiting for a job every candidate should have a be treated the same whether they are internal or external. To say to person A okay well if you don't get the job you are being interviewed for we will offer you an alternative. Surely all candidates should also be offered the same opportunity, no ifs or buts. A good manager/organisation can Easily offered person A the job if they had been unsuccessful at interview, that would have been the professional way of handling the situation. That way they are still keeping the good member of staff in a manner that is supportive and not undermining and demonstrates to the individual that they are valued and the organisation wants to keep them... And on that point surely if she is good enough for the manager to make said offer surely they want to keep person A on despite them not wanting to go through the interview for the job she is doing on a temporary basis. I also found it curious how mumnetters couldn't understand why person A changed their mind about going. There are a myriad number of reasons but it is an individual prerogative to change their mind without saying why. Not everyone needs to where their position on their sleeve.