Why would they do this?

Hootie19

Last year the organisation I work for decided to stop using agency staff and take on permanent staff instead. There were three temps working in our department, and two permanent jobs on offer. One of the temps blew hot and cold for a good few weeks - one minute she was going to apply, then she wasn't, then she was etc. She eventually applied, and the interview dates were arranged.

The day before the interview, she finally decided that she was going to go and work in the family business in Australia, and emailed the department's managers to inform them that she did not want to attend the interview and gave her reasons why.

Our line manager and her manager went on a full-on offensive, and spent the best part of the day to get this temp to change her mind and attend the interview. She agreed, then said no, then agreed, but finally stuck to her guns and said no.

The day of the interview, the line manager's manager again perusaded her to attend the interview, and even allowed her to go home to change clothes, as the temp didn't feel appropriately dressed for an interview.

All the staff were of the opinion that given the amount of time the management had spent persuading her to attend, that it was a done deal and she was definitely one of the people they wanted in the roles.

She didn't get one of the jobs.


Yesterday, interviews were held for the Senior Administrator position in our department. This is only a six month secondment. None of the department's administrators were interested in doing it. However, there was again a full-on offensive to get one of the administrators to change her mind and go for it. Even the manager's manager's manager got involved this time and took the adminsitrator out to lunch to persuade her; had several meetings in her office to persuade her etc. She applied.

Again, it seemed as though she was "the chosen one", but again - she didn't get the position.

So why would managers do this - persuade (some might even say mildly bully) someone into applying for a position that they maintain they have no interest in, if that person isn't going to be given the position?

(I wondered if it was because they need a certain number of applicants to choose from, so these people were persuaded just to make up the numbers. But I have been told that positions have been filled previously where there has been only one applicant for the position, so it would seem this isn't the case.)

Emmzi

it is possible during the interview process the managers perception of the individual changed. They may both have interviewed terribley. Especially as they weren't really motivated to do the prep in the first place.

DVardysShadow

What Emmzi says. It is quite incompetent.The Managers choose someone, who says 'No' a few times over. Now put yourself in the position. The first case, on the day "I'm not dressed for interview". They tell you to go home and get changed, so line of least resistance, you do. And then you tell them that OK, you'll take the job, but you are still going to Australia, come hell or high water. Suddenly, Managers see that it would not be a good idea to appoint. But obviously, they have not learned the lesson.

Tigsteroonie

In the case of the Senior Admin job, perhaps it's because the managers want to be seen to be encouraging career development within their part of the organisation? Maybe their being measured on staff retention and development.

surreysaver

The employee has said no several times. Management have not listened. During the interview they still say 'no'. In order to stop themselves looking stupid, management say the employee had a bad interview, when in reality it was management who had a bad interview. Management will always lie like this in order to keep themselves looking good in front of the staff. This is managements' weakness - they cannot tell the truth if the truth makes them look stupid.

Emmzi

surreysaver wrote: »

The employee has said no several times. Management have not listened. During the interview they still say 'no'. In order to stop themselves looking stupid, management say the employee had a bad interview, when in reality it was management who had a bad interview. Management will always lie like this in order to keep themselves looking good in front of the staff. This is managements' weakness - they cannot tell the truth if the truth makes them look stupid.

Management won't in fact generally discuss interview content with staff other than the interviewee. "Management" are a number of individuals, some good, some bad, who are not "out to get the masses."

Now, any other conspiracy thepories you would like put to bed?

DVardysShadow

Emmzi wrote: »

... Now, any other conspiracy thepories you would like put to bed?

Slapping down of posters who say management are wrong?

vax2002

At the council, they would know that the job advertised was to be given to someone from an agency as a dead cert, yet they would drag in dozens of applicants, stick them through weeks of misery and give the job to the agency worker anyway.
I think it made them feel important or something.

WhiteHorse

Emmzi wrote: »

Now, any other conspiracy thepories you would like put to bed?

People who use 'conspiracy theorist' as a put-down have usually bought into something that they don't feel comfortable about but feel the need to defend.

surreysaver

Emmzi wrote: »

Management won't in fact generally discuss interview content with staff other than the interviewee. "Management" are a number of individuals, some good, some bad, who are not "out to get the masses."

Now, any other conspiracy thepories you would like put to bed?

Take who to bed? More management speak to confuddle people with... And it wasn't the content of the interview the OP was commenting on, it was the result of the interview the OP was quoting from management...

Emmzi

ok, oppressed masses, back to it... holidays over...