Suspected nepotism/malpractice in public sector recruitment

agrinnall

I think this is a case where posting the cached version of the deleted OP is acceptable, so here it is...

I have some concerns regarding a recent interview process at a university where I work. There has certainly been some unethical activity but I wonder if anything could actually be illegal. Circumstances are laid out below.

1) A person in the position of SCRUM master (agile project manager) on a high paying two year contract is departing and a replacement is immediately sought. The post is advertised only INTERNALLY and only for 6 DAYS (this isn't a realistic amount of time to garner interest, let alone write and submit an application).

2) The job spec specified that the successful applicant must possess the SCRUM master qualification which can be attained in a week. Only 3 people possess this qualification within the organisation at this time. All have been sent on the training course by the current SCRUM master (the individual who is leaving). Person 1 has recently been appointed to a senior role and so can be considered ineligible (this person is also on the interview panel). Person 2 is on maternity leave and has announced her departure from the organisation. Person 3 is a close friend of the departing SCRUM master and recently attained the qualification on his advice and under his supervision.

3) The departing SCRUM master was involved in shortlisting and was on the interview panel. It has been an open secret at the organisation that he favours Person 3 for the role and he has previously said off record that only 3 people are eligible for the role based on the information above.

4) After 6 days, the advert was removed and I have been informed that Person 3 has been awarded the job and that there was one other interviewee. I know this interviewee is neither Persons 1 or 2.

5) The job spec states that essential criteria amongst other things is the SCRUM qualification and project manager experience as well as experience of working as a SCRUM master. Person 3 does not possess project manager experience and has not worked as a SCRUM master so they certainly fail to meet that criteria. I suspect that the second interviewee would have possessed project manager experience but lacked the SCRUM qualification (which can be attained in a week). Since noone in the organisation could have met all of this criteria, I question the logic of advertising internally.

6) Person 3 was recently awarded a pay grade raise (from grade 5 to 6) by the departing SCRUM master on the grounds that they manage staff (Person 3 managed one person in former role and was received very badly).

7) Now that Person 3 has been awarded the role of SCRUM master, they have risen 4 pay grades in a period less than 2 years under the tutelage of the outgoing SCRUM master. To give perspective, this is around £29k to £60k in the period. This is unheard of at the organisation. It could not be argued that Person 3 has performed in a way that would warrant such a rapid progression.

I wonder if anyone has experienced something like this before in a public sector organisation? I'm certain that it's favouritism and know that to be commonplace in the private sector but I do wonder if there is anything that could be challenged here.

Thanks to anyone that takes the time to read this. I appreciate your help.

AndyPix

^^ Thanks Agrinnall - So annoying when posters remove the OP

sangie595

The OP has also had several responses they didn't like, which were neither offensive nor abusive, removed by the Forum Team. That is happening far too frequently and merely complaining gets valid views and opinions removed because someone had thrown their toys out of the pram- which clearly, in this case, is what happened at work too. The OP dislikes the fact that someone else had been successful in their job, so wants to rant about it behind other people's backs.

stator

sangie595 wrote: »

The OP has also had several responses they didn't like, which were neither offensive nor abusive, removed by the Forum Team. That is happening far too frequently and merely complaining gets valid views and opinions removed because someone had thrown their toys out of the pram- which clearly, in this case, is what happened at work too. The OP dislikes the fact that someone else had been successful in their job, so wants to rant about it behind other people's backs.

It's assumptions like that that make this such a hostile place that makes people want to leave

Les79

stator wrote: »

It's assumptions like that that make this such a hostile place that makes people want to leave

Listen, Sangie has stated that reasonable posts have been deleted unnecessarily at the request of OP.

Now, it would be prudent of you to determine whether or not Sangie was being truthful in saying that.

If truthful then the "hostility" is coming from the OP and the blame is being deflected at anyone who is calling the behaviour out (Sangie). Ie you are treating Sangie like a scapegoat.

If not truthful then I appreciate your argument about the hostility coming from Sangie, but it is more reactionary in that OP hasn't conducted themselves particularly well (removing posts, sour grapes on their part even though they had a knowledge gap which posters filled for them).

Instead of making assumptions of your own (as to where the hostility is coming from), you should seek out the truth so that you can have a more informed viewpoint.

sangie595

stator wrote: »

It's assumptions like that that make this such a hostile place that makes people want to leave

You are welcome to ask for all the removed posts to be reinstated. Because this is not an assumption on my part. It is a fact. As many posters here are aware. The OP made some very serious allegations about managers and colleagues, but doesn't wish to consider the alternative that this is just jealousy over the success of someone else. And doesn't wish to hear anything that doesn't fit into their neat assumptions of what should happen. Which is fair enough if they want to have a whine about life not being fair to their mates. Instead the came to a public site, asking if someone can help them challenge it (despite later saying they had no intention of doing so, that is in fact what they asked for advice on), and didn't get the answers they wanted.

JReacher1

Just to clarify by the way a scrum master is not an agile project manager.

They are different roles.

Lungboy

Short-term advertising of internal-only posts when there's a candidate lined up for the post is commonplace in Universities. Nothing at all dodgy going on here.

Wyndham

Why have you deleted your original post? It's so annoying when that happens.

But, to answer the question - from your post I'm not clear if you know or do not know that the person you suspect has definitely got the job? You said:

---

2) The job spec specified that the successful applicant must possess the SCRUM master qualification which can be attained in a week. Only 3 people possess this qualification within the organisation at this time. All have been sent on the training course by the current SCRUM master (the individual who is leaving). Person 1 has recently been appointed to a senior role and so can be considered ineligible (this person is also on the interview panel). Person 2 is on maternity leave and has announced her departure from the organisation. Person 3 is a close friend of the departing SCRUM master and recently attained the qualification on his advice and under his supervision.

---

Are you sure person 2 hasn't got the job? Being on maternity leave does NOT bar you from applying for posts. OK, she says she's leaving, but again, you don't know that for a fact (and a promotion may make her reconsider anyway)?

Also worth saying that I've got University jobs without meeting all of the criteria, it's quite common actually!

FBaby

So the qualification is Prince 2. Frankly, why wait for a job advert to go ahead and get it if someone is interested in progression when any such role would most likely expect this qualification?

Project experience can be very wide and who says that person didn't gain any previously? Maybe they are just excellent at their job and showing all the prospects of someone who can deliver at that level.

It sounds like the contractor wasn't the only person on the interview panel so they alone couldn't have decided that they were good enough and above the other, the others must have agreed.

Of course it does sound like the whole things was orchestrated, but that person still had to deliver and still had to convince the other people on the panel so no, I don't think it was totally unethical.