opinion wanted

LegacyUser

Hi all
Just wondering about peoples opinions on this.

My brother was filling in for his supervisor for what was only meant to be 6 months but ended up being over 2 years.

When first asked to fill in for the supervisor by manager "A", it was made clear that as it was only a temporary arrangement, there would be no financial reward, so the only thing my brother asked for was that a letter be kept on file saying that he had filled in for the supervisor while he was dealing with other company issues.

Anyway to make a long story short, the supervisor never came back to his old position and the brother got landed with it for 2 years, still a "temporary" arrangment.

After the 2 years however the brother asked could it be made permanent or what and was told that the proper recruitment proceedure would have to be followed and the job was advertised. needless to say he applied for it with 2 others.

However a couple of weeks before the selection prcess began manager "A" who had asked the brother to do the job, was replaced by manager "B" who the brother is equally as well known by but doesn't see eye to eye with over quality issues.

When the selection process started, he was knocked out after the first round of interviews and the guy who eventually got it, to qoute my brother, "wears a bigger set of spurs than manager B". Anyway he was given the reasons for not being selected and settled back into his old role, thinking maybe next time and besides he had the letter in his file.

This was 3 years ago, and manager "B" has since been replaced by manager "C" who has lately told the brother that there is no letter in his file confirming that he spent 2 years as a temporary supervisor.

Now here is the bit I want an opinion on because it really has my brother down at the moment becasuse he no considers those 2 years a waste of his career.

We were talking to a cousin of ours that works in managment and does a fair amount of job interviews and the brother was telling him the story and he told the brother he was better off without the letter because if our cousin was interviewing a canidate for a job that the canidate had done for 2 years and not gotten it the first time he'd be asking what was he doing wrong and why was the canidate not given the permanent job the first time around.

So if you were an employer or manager, how would you react to the letter if you were interviewing the brother?

By the way, before some of you say that maybe he wasn't actually fit for the job, I should tell you that I asked some of his workmates about it and they told me that he was more than capable for the supervisors job but is a bit of a stickler for quality, but since he found out that there was no letter in his file that he's been in a bit of a funk

StillWaters

TBH I can see your cousins point, you would wonder why someone reverted back to a junior post after acting up for 2 years, or indeed why they didn't leave the company at that stage to seek a supervisory position elsewhere.

I don't think a letter is necessary in any case, a mention on the CV would be sufficient.

tony81

Sounds like they strung him along.

He should be able to confidently answer an interviewer's questions (giving examples) regarding his supervisor experience and have at least have one referee from the company who can vouch he worked this role (ideally manager A).

He shouldn't worry too much about being passed over for the permanent position. What's more worrying is it doesn't seem he make another effort to progress his career, and if he did, he was clearly passed up. This might create suspicion for an interviewer. Apart from that, the supervisory experience should stand to him.