Getting rejected for a promotion at work - how to respond?

Elliott.T123

Andy_L said:

Elliott.T123 said:

Ath_Wat said:

They don't take a job in such an inane organisation in the first place.

Unfortunately from my experience virtually all public sector jobs are like this. They cover themselves so heavily from any form of complaint by unsuccessful applicants that they do not allow interviewers to use common sense. I know instances in the NHS of staff applying for a promotion in a team they have worked in for 5+ years, are exceptional and everyone knows they would be perfect for the role, however on the day they were slightly off their game and didn't interview well and an external applicant did. Despite having had an informal off the record reference on the external applicant because on the scoring system they were better they got the job... and to no ones surprise they were awful.

Fully agree it is a terrible system, much better to use a bit of common sense and give the hiring manager some freedom, if they know someone is right then give them the job don't follow some tick box exercise. But unfortunately the world isn't full of common sense! 

A sensible interviewer could avoid that problem by only advertising the job internally first. 

If that were allowed yes, but again public sector often doesn't allow that. There are a million hoops to jump through and one of those is the job being advertised for a certain length of time externally.

esj13

Elliott.T123 said:

Andy_L said:

Elliott.T123 said:

Ath_Wat said:

They don't take a job in such an inane organisation in the first place.

Unfortunately from my experience virtually all public sector jobs are like this. They cover themselves so heavily from any form of complaint by unsuccessful applicants that they do not allow interviewers to use common sense. I know instances in the NHS of staff applying for a promotion in a team they have worked in for 5+ years, are exceptional and everyone knows they would be perfect for the role, however on the day they were slightly off their game and didn't interview well and an external applicant did. Despite having had an informal off the record reference on the external applicant because on the scoring system they were better they got the job... and to no ones surprise they were awful.

Fully agree it is a terrible system, much better to use a bit of common sense and give the hiring manager some freedom, if they know someone is right then give them the job don't follow some tick box exercise. But unfortunately the world isn't full of common sense! 

A sensible interviewer could avoid that problem by only advertising the job internally first. 

If that were allowed yes, but again public sector often doesn't allow that. There are a million hoops to jump through and one of those is the job being advertised for a certain length of time externally.

It is allowed, as previous jobs here have been advertised internally only first, and filled that way as a way of ensuring redeployment to disadvantaged staff where there has been a restructure or redundancies. 
That being said, jobs usually go internally first and then externally where there has been insufficient interest/suitability from internal candidates.
This time, however, for whatever reason, it went externally only and I had to apply that way.
I have made my feelings known and my manager has scheduled in a meeting tomorrow, as they have been interviewing fro other roles, however I have noticed today they are absent from the panel, yet still working but said they were unable to make time for me today because of interviews.
It was also announced yesterday who got the job before I was even spoken to about feedback/support, which I am a bit miffed about and happen to know that the person who got the job knows the manager personally, so wonder if I should raise questions there.

Ath_Wat

esj13 said:

Elliott.T123 said:

Andy_L said:

Elliott.T123 said:

Ath_Wat said:

They don't take a job in such an inane organisation in the first place.

Unfortunately from my experience virtually all public sector jobs are like this. They cover themselves so heavily from any form of complaint by unsuccessful applicants that they do not allow interviewers to use common sense. I know instances in the NHS of staff applying for a promotion in a team they have worked in for 5+ years, are exceptional and everyone knows they would be perfect for the role, however on the day they were slightly off their game and didn't interview well and an external applicant did. Despite having had an informal off the record reference on the external applicant because on the scoring system they were better they got the job... and to no ones surprise they were awful.

Fully agree it is a terrible system, much better to use a bit of common sense and give the hiring manager some freedom, if they know someone is right then give them the job don't follow some tick box exercise. But unfortunately the world isn't full of common sense! 

A sensible interviewer could avoid that problem by only advertising the job internally first. 

If that were allowed yes, but again public sector often doesn't allow that. There are a million hoops to jump through and one of those is the job being advertised for a certain length of time externally.

It was also announced yesterday who got the job before I was even spoken to about feedback/support, which I am a bit miffed about and happen to know that the person who got the job knows the manager personally, so wonder if I should raise questions there.

No, don't.  Unless they are so blatantly unqualified that the likely result of you bringing it up is the manager getting fired, no good will come of it for you.

elsien

We used to have a personality test as part of our recruitment process. I used to completely ignore it.

Elliott.T123

esj13 said:

Elliott.T123 said:

Andy_L said:

Elliott.T123 said:

Ath_Wat said:

They don't take a job in such an inane organisation in the first place.

Unfortunately from my experience virtually all public sector jobs are like this. They cover themselves so heavily from any form of complaint by unsuccessful applicants that they do not allow interviewers to use common sense. I know instances in the NHS of staff applying for a promotion in a team they have worked in for 5+ years, are exceptional and everyone knows they would be perfect for the role, however on the day they were slightly off their game and didn't interview well and an external applicant did. Despite having had an informal off the record reference on the external applicant because on the scoring system they were better they got the job... and to no ones surprise they were awful.

Fully agree it is a terrible system, much better to use a bit of common sense and give the hiring manager some freedom, if they know someone is right then give them the job don't follow some tick box exercise. But unfortunately the world isn't full of common sense! 

A sensible interviewer could avoid that problem by only advertising the job internally first. 

If that were allowed yes, but again public sector often doesn't allow that. There are a million hoops to jump through and one of those is the job being advertised for a certain length of time externally.

It is allowed, as previous jobs here have been advertised internally only first, and filled that way as a way of ensuring redeployment to disadvantaged staff where there has been a restructure or redundancies. 
That being said, jobs usually go internally first and then externally where there has been insufficient interest/suitability from internal candidates.
This time, however, for whatever reason, it went externally only and I had to apply that way.
I have made my feelings known and my manager has scheduled in a meeting tomorrow, as they have been interviewing fro other roles, however I have noticed today they are absent from the panel, yet still working but said they were unable to make time for me today because of interviews.
It was also announced yesterday who got the job before I was even spoken to about feedback/support, which I am a bit miffed about and happen to know that the person who got the job knows the manager personally, so wonder if I should raise questions there.

Depending on the rules of your organisation there may well not be any grounds for complaint over that. In the private sector networking is one of the most important things you can do for career growth. This is because it is well known people hire those they already know, there is nothing wrong with this, especially legally. In theory if a company had two options, an unknown who seemed an absolute perfect fit and a friend who had zero experience if the hiring manager went with his friend as long as the reason for rejecting the other person wasn't protected (Age/race/sexuality etc) then that is fine. The argument "They are my friend and I felt we would work together well" is a perfectly allowable argument for hiring someone (although unlikely to be a basis for building a profitable business).

I think you may need to chalk this one up as unfortunately coming up against someone you were never going to be able to beat to the job.

What I would suggest going forward is making it clear to your line manager that you want to progress your career and are looking at opportunities like the one you missed out on. Make it clear you want to improve any areas you can to help you with future chances at promotion and if you are confident that you are at no risk of being made redundant / fired then make vague hints that you are looking at opportunities both internally and externally. If you are as good as you are suggesting they wont want to lose you and will put more effort into finding ways to keep you happy. 

warby68

You seem desperate to have a moan which won't usually go well. Nor will questioning the judgement of the decision makers of which your manager is part.

As much as you are feeling this very personally, you will be better served by outwardly taking it professionally and somewhat objectively by seeking a mutual development plan so that you can be considered in future. Interview practice can be vital where much depends on saying certain things a certain way. Also you need to be able to connect your experience to the new role not just what you did well in the current one. Perhaps you did this but the tone of your posts suggests you feel that doing a very good job alone should get you a promotion and it doesn't work like that. Indeed, it can be counter-productive where management are reluctant to lose the skill in that role. Sometimes 'soft' skills can be bought in but being technically excellent at a particular job is harder to replace.

Getting promotion is often a project over a few years quite distinct from the day job.

Gavin83

esj13 said:

Elliott.T123 said:

Andy_L said:

Elliott.T123 said:

Ath_Wat said:

They don't take a job in such an inane organisation in the first place.

Unfortunately from my experience virtually all public sector jobs are like this. They cover themselves so heavily from any form of complaint by unsuccessful applicants that they do not allow interviewers to use common sense. I know instances in the NHS of staff applying for a promotion in a team they have worked in for 5+ years, are exceptional and everyone knows they would be perfect for the role, however on the day they were slightly off their game and didn't interview well and an external applicant did. Despite having had an informal off the record reference on the external applicant because on the scoring system they were better they got the job... and to no ones surprise they were awful.

Fully agree it is a terrible system, much better to use a bit of common sense and give the hiring manager some freedom, if they know someone is right then give them the job don't follow some tick box exercise. But unfortunately the world isn't full of common sense! 

A sensible interviewer could avoid that problem by only advertising the job internally first. 

If that were allowed yes, but again public sector often doesn't allow that. There are a million hoops to jump through and one of those is the job being advertised for a certain length of time externally.

It is allowed, as previous jobs here have been advertised internally only first, and filled that way as a way of ensuring redeployment to disadvantaged staff where there has been a restructure or redundancies. 
That being said, jobs usually go internally first and then externally where there has been insufficient interest/suitability from internal candidates.
This time, however, for whatever reason, it went externally only and I had to apply that way.
I have made my feelings known and my manager has scheduled in a meeting tomorrow, as they have been interviewing fro other roles, however I have noticed today they are absent from the panel, yet still working but said they were unable to make time for me today because of interviews.
It was also announced yesterday who got the job before I was even spoken to about feedback/support, which I am a bit miffed about and happen to know that the person who got the job knows the manager personally, so wonder if I should raise questions there.

Honestly, without being rude here you need to stop being so entitled. You had no right to this job and complaining about it certainly won’t do you any favours. You need to look at what you can do to improve and think about what’s actually worth considering as a plus point for yourself. Some of the things you listed as a positive actually seems like a negative to me.

Despite what some people have said I’ve sat on public sector interview panels and there’s more flexibility than you’d think. Ultimately someone didn’t want you getting the job. 

You’ve got two choices. Either learn from this and find out what you’d need to do in order to be considered next time or leave.

I do know how you feel though, I didn’t get a promotion I really should have done. I’m now in my final week at this employer having handed in my notice.

Undervalued

esj13 said:

Elliott.T123 said:

Andy_L said:

Elliott.T123 said:

Ath_Wat said:

They don't take a job in such an inane organisation in the first place.

Unfortunately from my experience virtually all public sector jobs are like this. They cover themselves so heavily from any form of complaint by unsuccessful applicants that they do not allow interviewers to use common sense. I know instances in the NHS of staff applying for a promotion in a team they have worked in for 5+ years, are exceptional and everyone knows they would be perfect for the role, however on the day they were slightly off their game and didn't interview well and an external applicant did. Despite having had an informal off the record reference on the external applicant because on the scoring system they were better they got the job... and to no ones surprise they were awful.

Fully agree it is a terrible system, much better to use a bit of common sense and give the hiring manager some freedom, if they know someone is right then give them the job don't follow some tick box exercise. But unfortunately the world isn't full of common sense! 

A sensible interviewer could avoid that problem by only advertising the job internally first. 

If that were allowed yes, but again public sector often doesn't allow that. There are a million hoops to jump through and one of those is the job being advertised for a certain length of time externally.

It is allowed, as previous jobs here have been advertised internally only first, and filled that way as a way of ensuring redeployment to disadvantaged staff where there has been a restructure or redundancies. 
That being said, jobs usually go internally first and then externally where there has been insufficient interest/suitability from internal candidates.
This time, however, for whatever reason, it went externally only and I had to apply that way.
I have made my feelings known and my manager has scheduled in a meeting tomorrow, as they have been interviewing fro other roles, however I have noticed today they are absent from the panel, yet still working but said they were unable to make time for me today because of interviews.
It was also announced yesterday who got the job before I was even spoken to about feedback/support, which I am a bit miffed about and happen to know that the person who got the job knows the manager personally, so wonder if I should raise questions there.

Not unless you have solid grounds to believe that there has been unlawful discrimination.

Deciding who to promote is always going to be "discrimination" in one sense of the word! However unless the "discrimination" is based on one of the handful of legally protected characteristics (such as race, religion etc), they can choose who they like for whatever reason they like or even no reason at all.

Being a person who tends to "raise questions there" can in itself be a reason not to promote in many situations! 

theoretica

What was the interview panel?  Two managers and HR?  That sort of thing is intended to stop managers hiring their incompetent mates.

esj13

theoretica said:

What was the interview panel?  Two managers and HR?  That sort of thing is intended to stop managers hiring their incompetent mates.

No, it was two managers only. 
When I first came to the organisation I was interviewed by the manager and HR, which is what I would have expected here but that didn’t happen.