Fitting Essential Criteria.. but not successful ?!?

zzzLazyDaisy

lemonade-money wrote: »

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

OP, we can all see why you feel aggrieved. If you just wanted to have an understandable rant, that's fair enough. You've done that.

But if you are looking for advice on how to get redress, it isn't going to happen. Unfortunately you just have to accept the unfairness of it and move on, as there is precious little you can do about it.

Sorry to sound harsh but those are the facts.

barnaby-bear

lemonade-money wrote: »

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.

So she has better people skills, maybe that's important? However you too could have networked but chose not too.... it's not like she did anything that wasn't an option...

barnaby-bear

lemonade-money wrote: »

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.

I think the best thing you can do is ask for honest feedback about why you were unsuccessful and why you were perceived as unsuitable - maybe it's not skill based but you are not perceived as a people person if the others are more successful; or maybe they see you as a processes person, focused on criteria - asking how you need to improve to bbe eligible next time could be really constructive

Mara69

lemonade-money wrote: »

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 !

Alternatively, instead of being spiteful and hoping that she'll fall on her face you could put your bitterness to one side and concentrate on helping and supporting her. You know, for the good of the business and also to demonstrate you are the better person.

k12479

Mara69 wrote: »

Alternatively, instead of being spiteful and hoping that she'll fall on her face you could put your bitterness to one side and concentrate on helping and supporting her. You know, for the good of the business and also to demonstrate you are the better person.

Taking the OP's comments at face value, why should s/he bother doing this? What's in it for them? If the wrong person got the job, why should the OP help compensate for their, and the selectors, shortcomings?

denla

k12479 wrote: »

Taking the OP's comments at face value, why should s/he bother doing this? What's in it for them? If the wrong person got the job, why should the OP help compensate for their, and the selectors, shortcomings?

1. Because it's the right thing to do as a hard working employee.

2. Nothing's in for him. He's paid a salary and that's his reward.

3. Because someone else will do that if OP refuses to, and OP will either get sacked or driven to dismissal eventually.

Life isn't fair. Deal with it.

ILW

denla wrote: »

1. Because it's the right thing to do as a hard working employee.

2. Nothing's in for him. He's paid a salary and that's his reward.

3. Because someone else will do that if OP refuses to, and OP will either get sacked or driven to dismissal eventually.

Life isn't fair. Deal with it.

OP is coming over like a spoilt child with the "it's not fair".

k12479

denla wrote: »

1. Because it's the right thing to do as a hard working employee.

The right thing to do, as a hard working employee, is your job. If the person above you doesn't have the knowledge, skills or ability to do their job that's their, and their superior's, problem, not the underlings.

denla wrote: »

2. Nothing's in for him. He's paid a salary and that's his reward.

Yep, his reward for doing his job. Going above and beyond that to make up for a newly-promoted superior who is not the right person for the job, just helps them along in their career.

denla wrote: »

3. Because someone else will do that if OP refuses to, and OP will either get sacked or driven to dismissal eventually.

I'm not advocating that the OP does anything that would be likely to get them sacked, they should remain professional at all times. There's a big difference between that and carrying someone along.

While I don't accept the OPs views as facts, and initial thought was "there's more to a job than essential criteria", various things do stick out:
"..asked her..if she...had qualification x, y and z...she replied...No..."
"...she hasn't aquired some of the skills quoted..."
"I and the rest of our dept were surprised she even got an interview."
"...she babysits, socialises and spends mostof her life at the assisant managers house."

The last isn't 'networking' as someone said and this does look like cronyism, but only the OP knows whether that's vaguely the case or whether it is just a rant.

lemonade-money_2

barnaby-bear wrote: »

I think the best thing you can do is ask for honest feedback about why you were unsuccessful and why you were perceived as unsuitable - maybe it's not skill based but you are not perceived as a people person if the others are more successful; or maybe they see you as a processes person, focused on criteria - asking how you need to improve to bbe eligible next time could be really constructive

Yes I have asked for feedback and hopefully will get feedback this or next week, have asked for a quick meeting with the manager.

So she has better people skills, maybe that's important? However you too could have networked but chose not too.... it's not like she did anything that wasn't an option...

Well thats true, but I am wondering whther the babysitting etc may have stopped if the other candidate wasnt successful. I think perhaps it would?

Alternatively, instead of being spiteful and hoping that she'll fall on her face you could put your bitterness to one side and concentrate on helping and supporting her. You know, for the good of the business and also to demonstrate you are the better person.

Sorry I dont think my comment was spiteful.... if she hasn't got the tools..how will she do the job? I know that this is none of my concern, and yes whilst I may feel a tad bitter, there's not a chance in hell I will helping her.

Thanks for all your comments

lemonade-money_2

ILW wrote: »

OP is coming over like a spoilt child with the "it's not fair".

Apolgies if it read that way..... I was stating facts.

From the website:-

Job vacancies are usually filled through open competition, so you need to ensure that you read the job description and person specification fully, before making your application.
In order to be short listed (invited for interview) for a position, candidates must meet at least all the essential criteria outlined in the person specification

This wasn't the case. The candidate didn't meet ALL the essential criteria.

OP, we can all see why you feel aggrieved. If you just wanted to have an understandable rant, that's fair enough. You've done that.

But if you are looking for advice on how to get redress, it isn't going to happen. Unfortunately you just have to accept the unfairness of it and move on, as there is precious little you can do about it.

Sorry to sound harsh but those are the facts.

Thanks zzzLazyDaisy, I know your'e right and this is exactly what I have done.

Thanks everyone for their comments.