interview for job

[gurugremlin]

So last week i had a job interview for an internal promotion, only 2 candidates and I felt sure my colleague would get job which she did but I like her and fine because I think she will be good. My upset is that she told me she was asked what she would do if she was given the job and Teresa(me) didn't speak to her! Surely other candidates should not be used as examples personally, although I was the only other candidate it seems a bit unprofessional to name me in someone else's interview in negative light. I am seriously thinking of going to HR about this question but don't want them to think I am just bitter about not getting job (am actually relieved as hours would have been worse)! My dh and sister in law were both shocked at question too.

It's very common where two internal candidates are going for a position to find that relationships become strained between the two, and for both parties, particularly if it involves the successful candidate managing the unsuccessful candidate, it can be a difficult situation to deal with.

It's perfectly reasonable and sensible to explore with candidates how they would handle that eventuality. They could have said "the unsuccessful candidate" instead of using your name, but as you were the only other candidate that would seem a bit pointless.

I would have phrased it differently, I would have said something like what challenges do you think being appointed over another internal candidate might present and how would you propose to deal with them, or something along those lines.

But I think being shocked and thinking of complaining to HR is way over the top, sorry.

The only question mark for me is why they didn't ask you the same question in reverse during your interview. Do you think they have any particular reason to think you might have reacted badly? Or is it more likely they had already decided to appoint your colleague?

Should candidate 1 really have been aware of the identity of candidate 2, the OP? Unless the interviewers knew for a fact both candidates knew the other had applied, the use of the name seems wrong. Also the implication that OP would behave unprofessionally by 'not speaking' to the other candidate.

I quite agree, though, asking the question about how you would handle disappointment in other candidates, and indeed potentially how you'd find managing a team you used to be part of, are reasonable questions to ask.

Also agree that they should have asked you the same question. I think it's worth querying this with HR, making clear it's not out of sour grapes but because you don't think the interviewers have behaved entirely professionally and should be given some guidance on appropriate interview questions for the future.

Should candidate 1 really have been aware of the identity of candidate 2, the OP?

Why not? If candidate 1 is unsuccessful they will become aware when candidate 2 is appointed. If candidate 1 is successful it would be unfair to drop them into a potentially difficult situation without knowing the identity of the unsuccessful candidate.

Also the implication that OP would behave unprofessionally

This is what the successful candidate said she was asked. That isn't necessarily an accurate report. If you ask me after an interview what questions I've been asked I would struggle to remember all of them and wouldn't guarantee the wording was correct on those I could remember.

flowery, After arriving at work today I decided not to go to HR but I think the fact that other candidate was asked such a direct question whilst I was asked a vague one about how to handle two colleagues not getting on was odd. I really like the person who has got the job and felt the direct question was a little strange. To be honest I think what annoyed me was after the job was decided the manager went to great pains to say she hoped I would support this person and not be 'funny' with her, it's almost as if they thought I would throw some hissy fit and not do my job properly, it's insulting.

Sounds like they had decided before the interview was finished that the other candidate was getting the job. And as they wouldn't have had time to discuss this, they have decided before the interview who was getting the job. Which is rather a waste of your time.

it's almost as if they thought I would throw some hissy fit and not do my job properly

From their point of view there is no way of knowing how you would react. Sometimes someone who you would expect to react professionally takes missing out on a promotion very badly and sets out to undermine the person who has been appointed.

Well it's all done now and like I said my hours would be worse(part time spread over 5 days instead of 4). I have honestly never worked with anyone who set out to undermine a successful candidate, perhaps that is in the high powered job world! Thanks everyone, helps to get a perspective on it.

Funky bold ribena, I agree, I was the perfect fall guy to make it look above board! I think they know I know if you get what I mean which may explain their behaviour!