Is this normal practice?

[mullover]

About a month ago I had a job interview for a promotion. Lots of applicants, 2 day interview process, v intense and I was told that I came a very close second and lost out to an external candidate who had more experience. Fair enough. I asked for some feedback from the interview and got it yesterday. Two of the panel had informally told me I had done really well and was "appointable" so I had felt good about it, inspite of the fact that I hadn't got the job.....it was the first time I've ever applied for a job at that level and I was pleased to have made it to the final two. But the feedback yesterday was with the most senior member of the panel and whilst he was very positive there were some quite significant areas of development - I thought they were fair, but came out of the feedback feeling a bit bruised, more so than when I didn't get the job.

THEN.....he told me at the end of the feedback that the successful candidate had accepted the job but than subsequently turned it down (a big no-no in my field) and so the post will be readvertised later this year and he would encourage me to apply again......

So now I feel totally miffed......?? I was told I was "appointable" but clearly this isn't the case as they could have asked me after their first choice candidate pulled out?? Or is that not the norm? Do they want me to go through it all again so that I can get it on my own merit??

First of all congratulations on making it through such a gruelling promotion process.

I'm not sure how it works in your sector, but if I were you I wouldn't be going through yet another process for the same job.
If you've met the required standard then why would they require you to then apply and be boarded again unless the job role profile has significantly changed.

I work in public sector HR and this is how we do it at my organisation. I suggest you ask them why they feel you need to repeat the process? Maybe suggest working with them on a development plan to work on the areas they felt you needed improvement on whilst in your probation period... I certainly would not be reapplying and boarding for the same job if I had been told I was 'appointable'.

It sounds like the most senior member of the panel didn’t think you were appointable, but thinks you could probably successfully address the areas of development he highlighted and therefore become appointable.

”If you've met the required standard”

The official feedback session seems to have confirmed that she didn’t meet the required standard.

I used to work in public sector hr and I agree with campurp. Sounds like very bad practice. Once you decide someone is appointable they should be in the running for the role. Perhaps they are hoping you'll complete this additional training and then apply.

I agree that they would be better off appointing you and then putting a development plan in place. However we don't know what it is that you do and they could have their reasons, or perhaps the person you spoke to before was spspeaking out of turn.

I don't know that I'd want to work for them after all of that though. Recruitment miscommunication imo is never a good sign.

It sounds like the most senior member of the panel didn’t think you were appointable, but thinks you could probably successfully address the areas of development he highlighted and therefore become appointable

@flowery I hope this is the case- he did give me useful points.....at times he was saying "what you should have said was....." so I feel like if I interview again for it I'll just have to recite this back at him which seems a bit fake.....but I suppose it means he wants to help me

But if I went for it again there would be other candidates, internal and external, and it smacks of them waiting for someone better to come along.....