Didn’t get job

[tiredsotired6]

I’ve been working as a temp for one company for over a year. They’ve been very happy with my work, giving me a lot of good feedback. A few people (including the manager) have said they would really like me to be on permanent staff as I do a great job.

Anyway, a few months ago a perm role came up, which was essentially my role to the letter. Having had the good feedback I decided to apply as felt I had a very good chance.

As I’m sure you’ve already guessed, I didn’t get the job. I’m now feeling like my confidence has been shot and my manager was just leading me on.

The new person has now started and seems fine but no better than me at the job. Worse still, I’ve been asked to help them out if they have any questions about how to do the job that I’ve been doing for over a year.

The result is that a job I used to look forward to every day has now left me feeling deflated and upset. I now dread work and generally just feel my confidence has been shattered.

AIBU and WWYD?

If you were good at your job then you were offered permanent regardless of anything else. My temp job was secretary assigned to a particular team. So each team had their own requirements and needs. The secretaries were a mix of colours and ages, they only got rid of you if you were not good at the job, they couldn’t care less what colour, religion, age, sexual leaning you were. I was very happy there for ten years and only left because they relocated.

Sorry to hear this has happened to you. If you are working there temporarily, are you with an agency? You do not have to give any notice, so ask your agency to find you a new role to start on Monday. It is possible that the agency wanted a finder's fee for them to take you on permanently and that is why you did not get the job so please don't take it personally. This happens to thousands of supply teachers all the time. They work their socks off for a school and then don't get taken on permanently, often because of the finder's fee. Get out now. You owe the company nothing.

Its a bit of a difficult truth that if you want a job that interviews, you have to be good (enough) at interviews.
When people say I’m great at the job but not interviews they are identifying something about the job they’re not good at- talking about their value, being able to articulate why they’re good. Taking time to research and prepare the interview context. Stakeholder management. All really important things and part of these roles.

I’ve been good at my jobs but I’m not generally good at interviews, hence why I liked getting jobs through temping. 🤷‍♀️ I can research the company and reel off facts about them but ask me to relay a scenario where I overcame a challenge or where do I see myself in five years I go blank and start to babble even if I’ve rehearsed it, because I know these questions are coming and they put me on edge (I have to really wrack my brain to think of a challenge professionally and if I start on a personal one I’ll be there all day). I’m not going for CEO jobs, I’m going for low level admin and receptionist type roles. I have a good CV, I’ve been working for many years (excluding having children). It seems you’re allowed to have anxiety about everything except job interviews.

I would do this if they can get you another assignment.

you can have anxiety in job interviews- in fact everyone does, it’s expected.

what you describe is what everyone feels. It’s a skill you have to learn.

all roles have loads of potential applicants who are good at them. That’s why selection criteria has become more complex (and fair recruitment, of course.

Why would you give a role to someone good at the job but bad at interviews vs someone good at the job and good at interviews?

Perhaps not, there is a skill in recognising what you do well on a daily basis in your current role and matching it to the competencies in the role you want, and being able to express it well in an interview.
I will demonstrate that you understand your current and future roles, as you're able to assess your own skills, identify and talk about them in detail, and match them to future roles and where they fit in.

I had coaching on being able to do this, which made a huge difference. I did have a good coach, though. Once you're guided through it, you can then prepare well for most matrix-type scoring.

The problem is not many people get this kind of development to help them progress, so they can find it very difficult to verbalise their skills and capabilities in the way which is needed.

Absolutely this. My daughter is temping currently and I have been really pleasantly surprised to see how healthy the temping market is at the moment. Not dissimilar to when I did it many, many moons ago.

Get another temp job starting ASAP and have the current CFs find someone else to train up the new person taking over 'your' job.
I wouldn't stay a minute longer in the current place than I absolutely had to.
And then you can take your time to look for the permanent role you are wanting for your financial security and wellbeing. At a place that deserves you.
All the best to you, OP.

Completely agree. I’ve had a lot of investment and I recruit myself which gives you a lot of experience.

a mentor is great for this sort of thing but if you have to self teach chat GPT and you tube are good. It can take years to get comfortable with it, unfortunately, not just some quick work before the interview itself. It’s a real investment

If you’re already in the job and are good at it, it seems crazy to have to interview successfully in order to become permanent in that job or else someone new gets it.

Hang on a minute. Surely the employer isn't adhering to the "pure meritocracy, interview day is all that counts" philosophy anyway? They provided feedback to the OP regarding a minor negative issue based on her known (by them) work performance. They can't have it both ways - positive aspects from interview only, negative aspects from interview AND prior knowledge. They have acted poorly.

Depends.

if the interview question was ‘how would you stamp x widget’
candidate 1 may have had experience or described how they would find out.

The OP may have answered using how she currently (incorrectly) stamps it, thus feedback would be your answer was wrong, and OP then realises she’s been stamping the widget incorrectly.

Maybe you are perfectly good in your role, but we’re missing some other qualities that the other candidate had? Perhaps they’re more at ease when communicating, perhaps they have more potential to grow into a more senior role in the future?
Who knows.
The way it’s made you feel though, I’d be looking for another job.

I think this is a huge thing with internal interviews, and very commonly leads to external candidates being selected. I am guilty of doing this myself in interviews. Many of us - not just women - are held back by almost a “Britishness” a lack of desire to boast when talking to people we know.

In a way it’s quite lazy though, to expect people to “fill in the blanks”.

I do think it’s unfair when employers ask an unsuccessful candidate to show the person who beat them at interview the ropes. The manager should be stepping in here.

Hi Not sure if you are temp from an agency therefore if they want to employ you permanently there will be a huge invoice for the Company to pay from the Agency.

This may be the only factor it may have nothing to do with you and how well you did but basically down to money.

I know that doesn't really help you but should make you feel better that it wasn't anything you did or didn't do at the interview.

Good luck with your jobsearch

And worse than that they want you to help the new one!

I've seen advice on here before in similar things to say "That's not in my job to teach" but as you're temp I'd just look at leaving.

I'd ask for feedback whilst looking for a new job!

Oh God - this is the crazy scenario I’ve always suspected.

How utterly bonkers to disregard someone’s practical performance in the actual role and instead give weight to theoretical (possible bullshitting) fantasy answers from unknowns?

The world has gone mad. Once a really excellent temp who fitted well into th3 team would just have been offered the job, But now the law seems to demand an Alice in Wonderland counter-intuitive system which I hear so often does NOT result in the best person being appointed.

No wonder were in the mess were in.

The one positive from this grim situation, OP, is that they owe you a 5 star reference. I’d let them know you’re off as soon as possible and tell the stupid manager that you expect, after their fulsome praise for you, that any reference will be excellent.

This is a completely bonkers take on it 😂

no one is entitled to a job. Being “good” at a job really is a basic expectation. You’d be performance managed out if you weren’t good.

I have no idea how you could know interview processes don’t lead to a suitable hire. Of course they can go wrong, but there is no reason to think it does more so now than 20 years ago.

If you have a good internal candidate ready to be promoted then just promote them. Stop wasting every else’s time.

This is bonkers.

Regardless of the sector, doing this is poor for the organisation, and also for the employee. Yes, it might seem better for the internal candidate - you're doing great, let's just promote you - but there is no sense of checking or probity: creating a job description, which the candidate must apply for, be shortlisted, and be tested at interview. If successful, they know that they have gone through a process designed to evaluate their capacity to do the role, and it inures them for comments that there might have been preferential treatment that others didn't get.

It also ensures that there is a clear procedure that is applied to all recruitment.

It's very poor for the organisation to promote internally, without checking if external candidates might also be excellent at the role and bring something new.

There are specific grades / contexts where I'm aware of roles being offered internally in the first instance, before going externally if not filled - this typically applies in my sector to certain admin roles where promotion is limited and specific, and this allows employees at a certain level to progress, but again they still have to demonstrate their experience, competency and ability to prove themselves via a recruitment process - they are not ever just given the job.

Having a fair process is hardly 'bonkers'. As I say, I get a much higher number of applicants to permanent roles. I also give a practical test to check ability.

Agree 💯with this

Also, @tiredsotired6 I noted this point from you in an earlier post: But surely if they’re very good candidates and you know that, why does a half-hour interview matter? (Assuming you don’t have a rigid hiring system like the civil service for example).

I honestly think you lack an understanding of how the interview process works, both generally and in your organisation, which is why I'd reiterate my earlier advice to meet your manager and have an honest conversation with them to understand more.

The interview process is part of what is expected of an employee - the ability to demonstrate and speak to their experience, to understand the role being offered and to pitch yourself for that role in a convincing way.

It would be really unfair to make appointments subject to an organisation's perception of an individual - it could work unfairly in both directions - an individual could receive unwarranted preferential treatment from a manager by being appointed directly; and equally, someone doing a good job with capacity for growth and development might be overlooked by a less-than-excellent manager. Effective interview panels should also have an external member (not necessarily external to the company but at least to the area the role is in, and not have a vested interest in the role, so that they can be objective).

Every good organisation should have a structured interview process, it's not about being 'rigid' and shouldn't just apply to the civil service.

I hear so often from friends and colleagues about disastrous appointments though. There are people, especially in the contemporary world, who’ve learned to talk the talk brilliantly but cannot deliver. This wasn’t so easy in the past when more weight was given to common sense.

I've successfully recruited candidates at all sorts of levels. I've replaced good temps with even better externals. My job as a manager is to get the possible team in place to deliver for my organisation and it's never fun to reject an internal candidate but it's part of the job.