managers cherry picking their favourites....

an9i77

I work in human resources and am often involved in redundancy type exercises. Recently, I was part of a team whose job it was to allocate people undergoing redundancy into new roles dependent on their scores. The company had spent a lot of money on getting everyone tested to decide who to retain etc etc. There was one post left and the person who got the highest score was not to the manager's liking - the person next on the list was preferred. So what do they do? They rescore the person who was second to come out on top so that the job goes to them!

I did comment on this saying it was unfair, and was told 'life's unfair'. As my manager was there too and perfectly happy with it all, not a lot I could do about it.

This happens a lot, and it makes my blood boil. Why bother to go to all the trouble to score everyone when they just rig them anyway?
Now the poor person who scored higher is out of a job, all because the manager liked someone else better.

So don't be fooled if you're undergoing some sort of skills based selection for redundancy, there most likely is cherry picking going on, but they'll make it look asthough it's all fair and above board.

themull1

i thought all companies did that!

mynameistallulah

How can you work in HR and not be aware that this happens?

VfM4meplse

This happens beecause attitude and enthusiasm are difficult to measure. These test are also not designed to weed out trouble makers. On that basis I think a bit of managerial discretion is justified.

ETA: It goes w/o saying that the least expensive staff are the first to be made redundant.

Wellery82

Companies score in order they can evidence their decisions and put some kind of weight behind them if challenged. Ultimately though the decision is often pre determined.

As referenced below managers will look at factors such as enthusiasm and attitude when deciding those they want to keep. Some may see this as favouritism, others may see it as a fair system that rewards those who have worked hard in employment. Most managers will want to keep staff who make their job easier, that won't be favouritism as such, but their honest assessment of the best candidates to keep.

That said there will be many examples when it is a "face fits" that enables someone to keep a job, or the fact a redundancy cost is significantly higher for one person. The scoring should at least limit this, or highlight any examples which are clearly very much at odds with a fair system

an9i77

mynameistallulah wrote: »

How can you work in HR and not be aware that this happens?

I'm more than aware, believe me, but it still makes me angry. I just feel sorry for the poor sod I have to tell is out of a job, knowing that according to her real score she should be staying.

Also it's not just what they did, but the way they did it. If they'd said, well the scores are only an indication but we are gonna use managerial discretion (not publicly, but to the HR team) that wouldnt' have been so bad - but the way they rescored this one person, and only this person, to ensure that she just beat the other person just seemed really sly.

Maybe if I have this sense of injustice I am in the wrong job??

Wellery82

an9i77 wrote: »

I'm more than aware, believe me, but it still makes me angry. I just feel sorry for the poor sod I have to tell is out of a job, knowing that according to her real score she should be staying.

Maybe if I have this sense of injustice I am in the wrong job?

To throw a counter argument back at you though..... is it justice if the person who goes puts in more effort at work than the one who got a higher score, but as the scoring system was not well designed it did not take into account their attitude and general efforts?

Most scoring systems are determined with the desired result in mind, and this stops the problem you have mentioned.

I don't think it means you are in the wrong job at all, it is a good thing to question things and to have the courage of your conviction to challenge them. You will see many instances where you disagree however, and as people are such an emotive subject you need to be prepared for that. Maybe have a relaxed chat with your boss and get his or her take on it as that may be useful

andymn87

Hi
I'm being made redundant end of June, and they have apparently made 4 new jobs that we have to fight over.
I don't know what's worse taking these tests or fighting it out at interviews!

p00hsticks

an9i77 wrote: »

Maybe if I have this sense of injustice I am in the wrong job??

More to the point, as you work in the HR area, do you have any influence on the scoring system used ?

From what you say, it appears that, for what ever reason, the scoring system currently in use is not accurately giving the results that the managers want. Now, that can either mean that (as you appear to be claiming) the managers are showing unjustified favouritism towards specific candidates. Or, alternatively , it could mean that the scoring system currently in use is failing to adequately reflect all of the attributes that the managers see as important.

So I'd expect in these circumstances that, as the HR person involved in the process, you should now be asking the managers to explain their reasons for favouring one candidate over the other regardless of the inital scoring, and then, assuming that the reasons are legitimate, looking to amend the scoring system so that in future this picked up by it without any need for 'fiddling' . For example, it may be that the scoring system needs to place more emphasis on items like enthusiam, 'can do' attitude or working as a member of a team.

Jaketake

Hi,

Sorry to hear about your situation. How do you prove these things if you do go to tribunal?

gibson123

an9i77 wrote: »

I work in human resources and am often involved in redundancy type exercises. Recently, I was part of a team whose job it was to allocate people undergoing redundancy into new roles dependent on their scores. The company had spent a lot of money on getting everyone tested to decide who to retain etc etc. There was one post left and the person who got the highest score was not to the manager's liking - the person next on the list was preferred. So what do they do? They rescore the person who was second to come out on top so that the job goes to them!

I did comment on this saying it was unfair, and was told 'life's unfair'. As my manager was there too and perfectly happy with it all, not a lot I could do about it.

This happens a lot, and it makes my blood boil. Why bother to go to all the trouble to score everyone when they just rig them anyway?
Now the poor person who scored higher is out of a job, all because the manager liked someone else better.

So don't be fooled if you're undergoing some sort of skills based selection for redundancy, there most likely is cherry picking going on, but they'll make it look asthough it's all fair and above board.

Of course this happens and it is not always unfair... when I do a lot of interviews, I often re-score the first one or two people I interview, this is because I know it takes a few interviews to adjust to the questions and relax into the day, therefore I know that I often score the first few interviewees more harshly than those that come after, so I always modify my scores at the end of each day with my interview partner.