Passed over for promotion by someone not eligible

Bobbygirl28

Any advice please. I've just got results of recent promotion interview.
Basically 2 posts and a panel. I missed out on the 2 posts but am on the panel for next in line.
I just found out that a male colleague (I'm female with young kids) got one of the 2 posts the thing is the job advertised "at least 3 years post qualification experience" as a requirement which he doesn't have.
I on the other hand have 9 years post qualification experience.
He recently went for another promotion whicj he didn't get but let it be known around that they promised him the next one if he didn't leave.
What would you do? If anything

Stheno

How do you know he doesn't have three years experience?

Full Marx

Are you a member of a trade union?

Something similar happened in my workplace and the union sorted it

JigglyMcJabs

What has your sex got to do with it? Are you implying that it was a factor in the decision?

paulpd

What would a union have to do with it?

Maybe the guy is simply better at the job and deserves the promotion?

Bobbygirl28

Stheno wrote: »

How do you know he doesn't have three years experience?

He trained within the organisation so I know when he qualified

Bobbygirl28

JigglyMcJabs wrote: »

What has your sex got to do with it? Are you implying that it was a factor in the decision?

I simply don't know to be honest.

Bobbygirl28

paulpd wrote: »

What would a union have to do with it?

Maybe the guy is simply better at the job and deserves the promotion?

He's not eligible for the promotion based on their own advertisement. Also he's not better at the job than me. Nor is he worse. My question is if someone not eligible got a promotion over you would you question it or not.

Stheno

Bobbygirl28 wrote: »

He's not eligible for the promotion based on their own advertisement. Also he's not better at the job than me. Nor is he worse. My question is if someone not eligible got a promotion over you would you question it or not.

Are you in the public or private sector?

Bobbygirl28

Stheno wrote: »

Are you in the public or private sector?

Public

Full Marx

paulpd wrote: »

What would a union have to do with it?

Maybe the guy is simply better at the job and deserves the promotion?

If a job is advertised as saying candidates must satisfy certain criteria and those criteria are ignored and better qualified candidates(as per the employers own specifications for the position!) are passed over then it is very much something that a union can be involved in.

The exact same happened in my company and after union intervention the job had to be readvertised and the process run again... The end result was they just promoted more people .

Full Marx

Bobbygirl28 wrote: »

Public

Definitely get in to the union so

Bobbygirl28

Full Marx wrote: »

Definitely get in to the union so

Our union are unfortunately very poor !!

Lux23

Could another role come up soon that you will get? If there is I think I would keep quiet because they may hold it against you.

If it is any consolation a similar thing happened to me just under a year ago, someone outside of the organisation got a job that I was pretty much lined up for. Of course being the Public Sector I should have known that there was no such chance of it being a sure thing. Anyway, long story short, I went looking elsewhere and got the first job I was offered with the €17K increase. So maybe you need to look around if they don't appreciate you where you are.

Full Marx

Bobbygirl28 wrote: »

Our union are unfortunately very poor !!

If the work place reps are poor find out who the regional organiser (ie someone who is employed by the union not a shop steward) is for the union with oversight for your branch and contact them directly.

mloc123

Bobbygirl28 wrote: »

He's not eligible for the promotion based on their own advertisement. Also he's not better at the job than me. Nor is he worse. My question is if someone not eligible got a promotion over you would you question it or not.

This is your opinion... it may not be others?

ec18

Bobbygirl28 wrote: »

Any advice please. I've just got results of recent promotion interview.
Basically 2 posts and a panel. I missed out on the 2 posts but am on the panel for next in line.
I just found out that a male colleague (I'm female with young kids) got one of the 2 posts the thing is the job advertised "at least 3 years post qualification experience" as a requirement which he doesn't have.
I on the other hand have 9 years post qualification experience.
He recently went for another promotion whicj he didn't get but let it be known around that they promised him the next one if he didn't leave.
What would you do? If anything

If it was the job advertisement those are rarely set in stone and more of a wishlist. Unless you had to fill out something stating explicitly that you have 3+ years experience then I don't think there's much you can do. Maybe he and the other other person just did better in the interview than you?

Glenster

I've got jobs that looked for X years of PQE and I've gotten them with less than that. It's more of a guideline.

That's in the private sector though, I'm sure in the public sector there's someone you can whinge about it to.

jackboy

Chances are they they are just impressed with this guy and are fast tracking him. This is common in multi nationals and lack of experience and qualifications can be overlooked. A corporate boss told us that a good manager does not need to know anything about the area involved, its all about dealing with people.

lawred2

requirements lists are pretty much wish lists

some will be hard fastened like qualifications but experience is definitely not...

Lux23

I think in an open competition in the Public Sector, the criteria is set and candidates have to meet that before they can be shortlisted.

eagle eye

Yes the rules are given for eligibility and if you don't qualify then you don't get it.

This is clearly a case where management think they can get away with promoting somebody they want.

Also in the public sector cronyism is still rife and it is more likely to be the case here than it is that they think he is good at the job.

conor222

In a lot of public sector jobs they also have what they call a "pool" of potential candidates.

These are candidates who have applied for (often similar) jobs but were unsuccessful, however the interviewers felt that they might be good for other roles and are therefore pre-screened for future roles.
This is likely how they circumvented the 3 years experience (which I find is often guideline, not requirement), and TBH I find that the panels look at candidates fairly holistically and weight requirements as they interview.
You may look at 3 years as a make or break requirement, they might not.
Does the other candidate have different skills that could be useful? Different strengths that might play more in the new role? Did they just simply do a better interview than the other candidates on the day?
All of these are possible as well as a million other things, requesting feedback on your interview and how you could do better next time would be a more productive method of both preparing yourself for the next promotion opportunity, and gaining insight into what criteria was used for hiring.

GhostMutt30

You could try contacting the CPSA get their view on it. They can tell you if there are grounds for action to be taken and if so, they can take on the issue.

http://www.cpsa.ie/en/

AndrewJRenko

conor222 wrote: »

In a lot of public sector jobs they also have what they call a "pool" of potential candidates.

These are candidates who have applied for (often similar) jobs but were unsuccessful, however the interviewers felt that they might be good for other roles and are therefore pre-screened for future roles.
This is likely how they circumvented the 3 years experience (which I find is often guideline, not requirement), and TBH I find that the panels look at candidates fairly holistically and weight requirements as they interview.
You may look at 3 years as a make or break requirement, they might not.

I've never heard of this, beyond the panels used for teaching roles. But if they are going to operate in this way, they need to do it openly and transparently. It sounds this was NOT the case in this instance.

It's not about 'personal opinions' on whether the three years is a make or break requirement. It is about what is written down in the job spec. It is either required or desirable.

eagle eye wrote: »

Also in the public sector cronyism is still rife and it is more likely to be the case here than it is that they think he is good at the job.

There is generally far less cronyism in the public sector than private. At least there is some opportunity to formally complain/appeal or refer to a 3rd party (CPSA) in public sector.

Miaireland

Could he have done similar work in another place. I worked four summers in a role? When I went for a promotion in my previous year they counted the four summers as an extra year experiencing.

testaccount123

eagle eye wrote: »

This is clearly a case where management think they can get away with promoting somebody they want.

Imagine that

bisset

In my area the three years post qualification requirement for a front line line management role is necessary.

HR has withdrawn offers to people who did a good interview , had three years experience on the day of the interview but were short of the three years experience on the closing date for the application.

I would guess that it is similar in the OP's area

Lux23

In my job, I had to get written references which said I had three years experience in X. And that X was fairly specific. I have over seven years in my profession but at times I wasn't doing X so that was quite tricky to pull together. This was in addition to two character references.

ec18

This is all conjecture and opinion unless we can see the Job Spec in question, its possible the spec was misinterpreted or there were other requirements not mentioned that the other candidates fulfilled better

CruelCoin

Bobbygirl28 wrote: »

He's not eligible for the promotion based on their own advertisement. Also he's not better at the job than me. Nor is he worse. My question is if someone not eligible got a promotion over you would you question it or not.

So they made a judgement call.
Not to be harsh, but sounds like he does just a good a job, despite having far less experience.
Maybe, they think he would grow into the next role faster than you would?

BrokenArrows

You said yourself that he is not worse or better than you at the job.
So regardless of the difference in years experience you are both the same.

The company probably realises that he is a cheaper candidate to hire. Why would they pay more to hire you when they can get the same skill level for cheaper.

Easiest thing to do would be to set a meeting with the hiring manager to discuss what it was that lost you the position and what can be improved. You can use this meeting to probe his hiring decision further.

AndrewJRenko

CruelCoin wrote: »

So they made a judgement call.
Not to be harsh, but sounds like he does just a good a job, despite having far less experience.
Maybe, they think he would grow into the next role faster than you would?

You're missing the point. If they set out mandatory criteria, there may well be great candidates out there who don't meet the criteria that chose not to apply, presuming it would be a waste of everyone's time.

If they then appoint somebody who doesn't have mandatory criteria, they turn the process into a farce.

The_Valeyard

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You're missing the point. If they set out mandatory criteria, there may well be great candidates out there who don't meet the criteria that chose not to apply, presuming it would be a waste of everyone's time.

If they then appoint somebody who doesn't have mandatory criteria, they turn the process into a farce.

Do we know it was mandatory and not ideally.

NinjaTruncs

Is experience actually a requirement? I previously got a job which required 5 years experience when at the time I had less than 2 years. When recruiting myself the experience requirement would be over stated usually in order to weed out the chancers with none.

This isn't aimed at you but what you never see on a job spec is minimum competency, experience is not the same and sometimes the best candidates don't always have the most experience.

AndrewJRenko

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Do we know it was mandatory and not ideally.

Here's what the OP said;

job advertised "at least 3 years post qualification experience" as a requirement

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

Is experience actually a requirement? I previously got a job which required 5 years experience when at the time I had less than 2 years. When recruiting myself the experience requirement would be over stated usually in order to weed out the chancers with none.

This isn't aimed at you but what you never see on a job spec is minimum competency, experience is not the same and sometimes the best candidates don't always have the most experience.

That's not how things work in the public sector. Recruiters are required to be open, transparent and fair. If it job spec says 5 years experience is required, then any application without that experience should not be short-listed for interview.

But I'm not really sure why any recruiter would not want to work in this way - public or private.

Why would you want to play games about overstating requirements? If you want 2 years experience, just ask for 2 and filter out anything that doesn't meet this. Any other approach is encouraging spoofers and incentivising applicants to chance their arm. What benefit arises from overstating requirements and under-filtering applicants?

BrokenArrows

every single job ive seen advertised says "at least x number of years required". Almost always that number of years is unrealistic and just a way of saying "we want someone experienced" not someone who needs to be trained from scratch.

Its not a mandatory requirement.

AndrewJRenko

BrokenArrows wrote: »

every single job ive seen advertised says "at least x number of years required". Almost always that number of years is unrealistic and just a way of saying "we want someone experienced" not someone who needs to be trained from scratch.

Why would a recruiter do this? Why not just specify your minimum requirement - one year or two years or whatever it is? Why play games overstating your requirement and miss out on good candidates?

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Its not a mandatory requirement.

In public sector job specs, mandatory and desirable requirements are clearly distinguished. There is no confusion about what is mandatory and what is desirable. If it is under the heading of 'required', then it is mandatory.

Diziet

It is very possible that there is gender or family status discrimination at play. You should raise it with the union, and raise a formal grievance. You are entitled to an explanation if the rules were disregarded.

Sup08

Just a stab, but maybe he might have had an equal amount of experience in a similar role or position before he moved to public service and before he recently qualified.

The requirement might be met if the experience was attained before and/or did not have to be relative to the qualification.

Possible?

Glenster

But I'm not really sure why any recruiter would not want to work in this way - public or private.

Why would you want to play games about overstating requirements? If you want 2 years experience, just ask for 2 and filter out anything that doesn't meet this. Any other approach is encouraging spoofers and incentivising applicants to chance their arm. What benefit arises from overstating requirements and under-filtering applicants?

The public service is a joke because it doesn't award performance. it awards time served. which means the road to top jobs is an endurance test rather than a competency test.

I've no respect for the OP who clearly spends more time spying on the job performance/ CV of the guy who was promoted over her than she does improving her own performance.

typical entitled public sector.

eagle eye

The public sector is rife with cronyism. Politics plays a huge part too. The best person for the job rarely gets it. This is why its so bad when you need to get something done which requires the public sector.

AndrewJRenko

Sup08 wrote: »

Just a stab, but maybe he might have had an equal amount of experience in a similar role or position before he moved to public service and before he recently qualified.

The requirement might be met if the experience was attained before and/or did not have to be relative to the qualification.

Possible?

The OP referred to 'post qualification experience' which is a standard term for accountants and other professions. So unless there was a specific requirement for the PQE to be specific, I don't think this would explain the OPs issue.

Glenster wrote: »

The public service is a joke because it doesn't award performance. it awards time served. which means the road to top jobs is an endurance test rather than a competency test.

I've no respect for the OP who clearly spends more time spying on the job performance/ CV of the guy who was promoted over her than she does improving her own performance.

typical entitled public sector.

Appoints based on service stopped many years ago.

eagle eye wrote: »

The public sector is rife with cronyism. Politics plays a huge part too. The best person for the job rarely gets it. This is why its so bad when you need to get something done which requires the public sector.

Could you give some examples of public sector posts awarded by cronyism please?

Glenster

Glenster wrote: »

The public service is a joke because it doesn't award performance. it awards time served. which means the road to top jobs is an endurance test rather than a competency test.

Incorrect, you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Same with the cronyism accusations. The public sector recruitment policy has its faults, but lack of transparency is the one thing that you cannot fault it on.

OP:- I think you've been shortchanged, based on what you have said here. However, Its your call... You can either rock the boat and ask why he wasn't deemed ineligible or keep shtum and wait til they reach you on the panel.

That is what the union is there for, so that they can ask for you, without it being obvious that it's you.

Diziet

Diziet wrote: »

It is very possible that there is gender or family status discrimination at play. You should raise it with the union, and raise a formal grievance. You are entitled to an explanation if the rules were disregarded.

Not in the public sector, not in the manner demonstrated here.

evolving_doors

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The OP referred to 'post qualification experience' which is a standard term for accountants and other professions. So unless there was a specific requirement for the PQE to be specific, I don't think this would explain the OPs issue.


Appoints based on service stopped many years ago.

Not quite true... you get a portion of points for seniority ...in teaching anyways so I'd assume it still counts in other areas. But they can skew the other criteria if they need to.


You could ask for the scoring OP (for self improvement... you could say). Anyway... get on to your union... forget about your rep who you work with, they'd be too close if you don't want to broadcast your anger. Ring head office and they'll go through how the interview was conducted.
Get advice before kicking up a fuss with your immediate superiors who were on the panel. You'll probably meet them across a table in future.

Yup... cronyism isn't rife but it's there, I ain't going to go into personal examples either. But one example is where a colleague kicked up a fuss as union advised her that procedure definitely wasn't followed in interview.. assurances were 'intimated' that she'd be looked favorably upon next time round if she withdrew complaint. So she did and she was. There's ways to get 'yer own' in if you want.

Donal55

Diziet wrote: »

It is very possible that there is gender or family status discrimination at play. You should raise it with the union, and raise a formal grievance. You are entitled to an explanation if the rules were disregarded.

Find it hard to believe that there would be a gender or family bias. My sector in the PS heavily promotes career breaks, family policies, shorter working week/year. Many of middle and top mgt are also female.

No, sometimes people just don't get the jobs/ promotions etc because someone else is better suited or qualified.
Simple.

patsman07

eagle eye wrote: »

The public sector is rife with cronyism. Politics plays a huge part too. The best person for the job rarely gets it. This is why its so bad when you need to get something done which requires the public sector.

Absolutely agree. I'm a teacher, I know of 7 occasions, off the top of my head, where a candidate was appointed who had less qualifications and/or less experience than another candidate. All an interview panel has to do is say that their chosen candidate done a better interview.

I think the OP should be taken at her word. We don't know the ins and outs of this situation but whats the point in questioning her on her statements. It's a more beneficial discussion if we accept the statements as fact and debate from there.

eagle eye

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Could you give some examples of public sector posts awarded by cronyism please?

Recently enough there was a promotion panel being formed and interviews were done and there was one particular candidate that pretty much everybody agreed was an outstanding candidate. He had been acting up in the role and dealt expertly with a couple of very awkward situations that arose.

He is a very good speaker too, not the nervous type either and has a good personality.

When the panel was formed he didn't make it but somebody who most would consider a poor candidate got the job. He just happens to be related to a senior member of management. Also making the panel were three people with very little service but with relatives in the job and also a very poor candidate, with a bad attendance record, who just happens to be taking a case against the public sector and its a slam dunk type of case which might cause embarrassment if it reached the media. All my years in the job means I've seen this before and this legal case will now be quietly settled.

I've never looked for a promotion myself so there's no sour grapes here. I'm just telling you what I've seen iny to.e in the public sector over the 19 years that I've been in it. They change things every couple of years to make it look lime things have changed but nothing changes.

At one stage they brought in an exam as part of the promotion process and suddenly the right people were in line for promotion before the interview stage. They then inexplicably decided to scrap the exam part and back we went to relatives and people who they wanted to fix up getting promoted.

myshirt

Op, don't confuse 3 years experience with 1 years experience repeated 9 times. I would be concerned that you haven't been promoted in 9 years or made a role for yourself, so it sounds to me like you are as far in your career as you are going to go, if not even lucky to have sustained where you are.

This chap may have done better in the 2-3 years than you have done in 9. They see the potential, they see the value, and they don't want to lose him. That is more than likely the scenario rather than some conspiracy.

nazzy

myshirt wrote: »

Op, don't confuse 3 years experience with 1 years experience repeated 9 times. I would be concerned that you haven't been promoted in 9 years or made a role for yourself, so it sounds to me like you are as far in your career as you are going to go, if not even lucky to have sustained where you are.

This chap may have done better in the 2-3 years than you have done in 9. They see the potential, they see the value, and they don't want to lose him. That is more than likely the scenario rather than some conspiracy.

I believe her point is that he qualified within the last three years, therefore, he couldnt have the 'post qualification' experience.

The incinuations made suggest the OP posted when she was still very angry about it.

OP if you are confident to do so, I would seek feedback and clarity on the mandatory requirements. But it is delicate, it could come across as bitter and may seem like you're a sore loser. However, if you are aggrieved and there is an injustice, because he isn't eligible, and that stacks up, you could have a case. But brace yourself for an awkward working environment!