Interview stitch-up

vivera01

My colleague and I are in a redundancy situation where we have been invited to apply for another role in the company. This role was created for another one of our colleagues (who is not at risk) but he insisted that the company gave us the opportunity to apply so they were seen to act correctly in the reduncancy process (this information was provided directly from this colleague).

The interview was intense and lasted for 2 1/2 hours for me and 2 hours for the other person at risk. It was based on a pre-defined set of questions which we were told would be given to each of the 3 candidates. However, the preferred candidate was only in the interview room for an hour (I sat in the car park to see what time he came out). It would have been a physical impossibility for him to answer all the questions in that time.

The boss' wife took verbatim notes of each interview and each candidate will apparently be scored against a set the of pre-defined criteria. Our solicitor has suggested we should request the transcript and scoring documents from the Company through the Freedom of Information Act.

Has anyone been in a similar situation? What was the outcome?

mildred1978

vivera01 wrote: »

My colleague and I are in a redundancy situation where we have been invited to apply for another role in the company. This role was created for another one of our colleagues (who is not at risk) but he insisted that the company gave us the opportunity to apply so they were seen to act correctly in the reduncancy process (this information was provided directly from this colleague).

The interview was intense and lasted for 2 1/2 hours for me and 2 hours for the other person at risk. It was based on a pre-defined set of questions which we were told would be given to each of the 3 candidates. However, the preferred candidate was only in the interview room for an hour (I sat in the car park to see what time he came out). It would have been a physical impossibility for him to answer all the questions in that time.

The boss' wife took verbatim notes of each interview and each candidate will apparently be scored against a set the of pre-defined criteria. Our solicitor has suggested we should request the transcript and scoring documents from the Company through the Freedom of Information Act.

Has anyone been in a similar situation? What was the outcome?

Your solicitor is an idiot. You might get some of the data via the Data Protection Act but you are unlikely to get your colleague's answers or scores.

Poppy9

My public sector employer has these "standard interviews" where they do not engage the candidate in conversation, merely asks the set questions. The answers or rather the key words are then scored against the model answer. In theory you could score enough points by just saying a list of key words without explaining them!

After the interview and once they have informed successful/unsuccessful applicants then you can request to see your score - in effect the interviewers notes and score sheet. If you don't get an interview even you can ask to see the score for your application form.

You will only be told your score and where it was in relation to other applicants -no names.

If you don't like how they have scored you then you can complain but as it's just an internal process then your complaint doesn't go anywhere.

princessdon

End of the day (rightly or wrongly) IF and I say IF because I don't know your circumstances, the job was "created" for the other person - then the scoring system would be as well.

It takes little effort from a company to have their desired outcome (ie the person they want) in re-deployment.

All you can do (you won't get scores of others) is to challenge the scores you were given as an individual.

Personally I think it stinks - but legally it's allowed and if they were clever the selection criteria would be weighted in their favour and as long as applied to all 3 it's legal and fair.

smala01

Poppy9 wrote: »

My public sector employer has these "standard interviews" where they do not engage the candidate in conversation, merely asks the set questions. The answers or rather the key words are then scored against the model answer. In theory you could score enough points by just saying a list of key words without explaining them!

After the interview and once they have informed successful/unsuccessful applicants then you can request to see your score - in effect the interviewers notes and score sheet. If you don't get an interview even you can ask to see the score for your application form.

You will only be told your score and where it was in relation to other applicants -no names.

If you don't like how they have scored you then you can complain but as it's just an internal process then your complaint doesn't go anywhere.

Being on the other side of the table and doing the interviewing, the skills type interview ensures consistency through candidates and level basis for comparisons.

I would expect the interviewee to do a lot more than rattle off key words - they would need to explain the application of whatever they were talking about and show deep knowledge of the topic.

Before shouting conspiracy - for the job that is on offer, is the other candidate simply better?

Smala01

MoneySaverLog

Well if it is competency based, and they are doing the job, the favoured candidate may well have the necessary specific examples of situations they have been in, what they were required to do, how they went about doing it and what the end result was. - The STAR method of answering these types of questions :-)

Someone not familiar, or being in a similar role might have to be coaxed more for the answers the interview want's to hear. Did the interviewer re-phrase the same question in another way for you? If so that suggests that what you answered was not what (s)he wanted to hear. So giving you another opportunity, but ultimately resulting in the interview lasting longer.

marybelle01

mildred1978 wrote: »

Your solicitor is an idiot. You might get some of the data via the Data Protection Act but you are unlikely to get your colleague's answers or scores.

Agreed and the OP's solicitor is doubly an idiot since you are right - it's the DPA and not FOI, and there is absolutely no way on earth that the law entitles you to access to someone elses data. Quite the contrary - it says you can't have someone elses data.

I can only assume that you are asking this because you want to claim unfair dismissal. So far the evidence you have of unfairness is the fact that your colleague argued for you to be considered for the post (and you probably don't even have that because I bet he won't be testifying for you); and that you spent an hour in a car park watching him go in and out of his interview. And you will probably never get any more than that.

But some advice - get a better solicitor because the one you have got doesn't appear to be very good.

anamenottaken

If Person A (for whom the post was created) is appointed is there then going to be a vacancy for which you and the other "at risk" colleague could apply?

Did Person A tell you that they had insisted the other two of you be considered at just about the time the interviews were offered or well before?

vivera01

anamenottaken wrote: »

If Person A (for whom the post was created) is appointed is there then going to be a vacancy for which you and the other "at risk" colleague could apply?

Did Person A tell you that they had insisted the other two of you be considered at just about the time the interviews were offered or well before?

He told us on the same day we were invited to apply for the role.

When he's successful, his role will be vacant. There has been no mention of that role being redundant at that point and it is a role either my colleague or I could fill. In fact, 6 months ago, I was offered the role but due to childcare constraints at the time, I turned it down (it wasn't advertised, just the subject of conversation between myself and the Chairman). I did say if we were having the conversation in September, when childcare was no longer an issue, then I would have accepted.

It is all definitely a set-up. The other candidate has said as much. Also, other members of the management team agree. Luckily, some of them are willing to put up their hands and say as much, should it come to it.

The Company has a history of using underhand tactics to get rid of individuals who stand up to certain favourites of the chairman. Without exception, they have all resulted in the thread of industrial tribunal and subsequent favourable compensation payments to those affected.

Could do without the aggro though!

Poppy9

smala01 wrote: »

Being on the other side of the table and doing the interviewing, the skills type interview ensures consistency through candidates and level basis for comparisons.

I would expect the interviewee to do a lot more than rattle off key words - they would need to explain the application of whatever they were talking about and show deep knowledge of the topic.

Before shouting conspiracy - for the job that is on offer, is the other candidate simply better?

Smala01

I've sat both sides of the table and if I strictly followed the scoring system that we are told to use then in theory if someone had the cheek to rattle off the key words with no embellishment they should get a mark. Never had someone do it but a structured interview doesn't always get the best out of candidates especially if it's the first time they encountered this type of interview.

I prefer where you give candidates pre sight of 2 or 3 questions a short time before interview so they have time to gather their thoughts as they relax quicker in the actual interview and handle subsequent questions better.

anamenottaken

vivera01 wrote: »

He told us on the same day we were invited to apply for the role.

When he's successful, his role will be vacant. There has been no mention of that role being redundant at that point and it is a role either my colleague or I could fill. In fact, 6 months ago, I was offered the role but due to childcare constraints at the time, I turned it down (it wasn't advertised, just the subject of conversation between myself and the Chairman). I did say if we were having the conversation in September, when childcare was no longer an issue, then I would have accepted.

It is all definitely a set-up. The other candidate has said as much. Also, other members of the management team agree. Luckily, some of them are willing to put up their hands and say as much, should it come to it.

The Company has a history of using underhand tactics to get rid of individuals who stand up to certain favourites of the chairman. Without exception, they have all resulted in the thread of industrial tribunal and subsequent favourable compensation payments to those affected.

Could do without the aggro though!

So it might actually be the case that they told him they had to include all three of you in the pool to apply for the new job - even though he was the preferred candidate.

If he is appointed to the new role you will have to be considered for the then new vacancy.

More interesting is the pool from which redundancies were to be made. If fundamentally all three of you (and perhaps more) could do the work, what criteria were used to decide who should form the pool? (Redundancy is about a reduced requirement for work of a particular kind to be done.)