Fitting Essential Criteria.. but not successful ?!?

lemonade-money_2

Hi All,

Will try to keep this as brief as possible.

Vacancy comes available within our department... 3 people apply. I fit all the essential criteria (and prove it at interview) BUT the successful candidate who has been given the job, doesnt meet all the criteria, meets 2 essentials out of 6.

How can that be fair?

According to the policies I have read since my interview on our HR pages...that too shortlist for interviews, candidates must fit ALL criteria whther it is essential or desirable.

Hmmmn... any thoughts.

KiKi

How do you know they don't meet all the essential criteria?

Depending on what the criteria are, it's possible that you think you meet them but the interviewers don't. Obviously if they're black and white - ie, have x qualification for the job - then there's no interpretation involved. But you may feel you have a great aptitude for analysis where the interviewers don't, for example.

It's also possible that if the essential / desirable are factual requirements (rather than behavioural) that they were criteria for shortlisting only. That means that they were looking at different things in the interview, which you perhaps didn't meet as well as this other person.

(It is ludicrous to ask all candidates to meet all desirable criteria - there's a reason they're desirable and not essential, after all.)

At the end of the day, the interviewers obviously feel that this other person is better for the job than you. If you're right about you meeting all criteria and the other person hasn't, then either:
a) during the interview process they've realised that the criteria they specified aren't the right ones, and made a decision on that basis, or
b) they used those criteria to shortlist, then assessed different criteria in the interview.


Either way, you weren't successful, and they wanted someone else. I can't imagine that arguing this or trying to push the issue is going to end up in you getting the job. So I'd leave it, personally, but perhaps ask for clarification on the shortlisting if you really want to make a point. Might not make you very popular, though!

lemonade-money_2

Hi, thanks for your reply.

Yes the Essential criteria was very much black and white, and I am certain that this person hadn't met essential criteria, because I asked her after the vacancy came out if she was considering applying and had qualification x, y and z. To which she replied yes she was applying, but No didnt possess x, y and z?

(She has only worked in my dept 9 months... so I know for a fact she hasn't aquired some of the skills quoted, I work with her daily and some of the skills are job based)

On the person spec, all qualities are listed as ESSENTIAL and the desirable column was blank, everything listed under Essential.
Sorry cant use the quote box... But in answer to your quote here;-
It's also possible that if the essential / desirable are factual requirements (rather than behavioural) that they were criteria for shortlisting only

I think that is probably my gripe, how was she shortlisted in the first place?I and the rest of our dept were surprised she even got an interview.

I am afraid that I think that this is probably a case of not what you know but who you know.If you know what I mean.

dizzyrascal

Perhaps she is "working towards" these qualifications which is all that you usually need to put to be considered an essential requirement? Or perhaps they stated a willingness to take any extra qualifications if they felt they were needed to take on the job role?
I have had this happen to me and it is very frustrating but you have to live with it. Eventually you may find out that there is some strategic/business reason why they gave your colleague the job.
It might not be personal, it could be to do with availability or funding.

It is very difficult going for an internal role because you usually know the interview panel and they will have set ideas about you already, even when they apply the correct criteria at the interview.
They may have been unconsciously dismissing you in favour of this other person because they have different perceptions about the new person and they know less about them.
I once didn't get a role because another internal candidate could begin immediately (her fixed term contract was just ending) and I would have been difficult to replace as my section was already short staffed so it would have been a while before I could have started.
Incidentally, the person they chose was hopeless (although management thought she was amazing at the time) and she moved on to another department within 4 months. Only then did one member of the management team admit to me that their chosen candidate had not lived up to expectations.

Sambucus_Nigra

Because her face fits that role.

Sorry but that's how it goes.

lemonade-money_2

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Because her face fits that role.

Sorry but that's how it goes.

Think it's probably more of a case that, although her face may fit the role, she babysits, socialises and spends mostof her life at the assisant managers house. (The AM who was on the interviewing panel)

Ah well without most of the skills need to perform her job well.... it's time for the rest of us to sit back and watch the show begin !

Thanks for all your replies.

zzzLazyDaisy

lemonade-money wrote: »

Hi All,

Vacancy comes available within our department... 3 people apply. I fit all the essential criteria (and prove it at interview) BUT the successful candidate who has been given the job, doesnt meet all the criteria, meets 2 essentials out of 6.

How can that be fair?

It is fair because there is no law that says it is unfair (unless you can show that the reason you did not get the job amounts to unlawful discrimination, which doesn't appear to be the case).

lemonade-money_2

lemonade-money wrote: »

Hi All,



According to the policies I have read since my interview on our HR pages...that too shortlist for interviews, candidates must fit ALL criteria whther it is essential or desirable.

Well it's not fair according to HR ? see above

Sambucus_Nigra

lemonade-money wrote: »

Well it's not fair according to HR ? see above

Then appeal!

But you can bet it will get you nowhere.

dizzyrascal

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Then appeal!

But you can bet it will get you nowhere.

I was told something similar.
A friend in HR said that if I really kicked up a fuss they could hold the interviews again but they will just find more reasons to employ the original successful candidate.
To pick another candidate will make them look silly and they don't want to be seen to have made the wrong decision.
The original candidate will almost certainly be in post by the time they reschedule the interviews too which just makes it awkward all round.
Maybe you will have to think laterally on this one

denla

Ah, so she spent time at the assistant manager's house...