Passed over for promotion by someone not eligible

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!

bmwguy

Don't try and win a promotion on an advertising technicality. More experience does not mean you are necessarily a more suitable candidate. Someone liked these 2 guys for the positions so that's that.

It's what's wrong with Irish public sector in many departments equating time spent there with entitlement to more money and better roles.

You played the gender card very early in your opening post as well.

bmwguy

bmwguy wrote: »

It's what's wrong with Irish public sector in many departments equating time spent there with entitlement to more money and better roles.

That's not what's being said at all, though. The person who got the job was ineligible, full stop. The OP is entitled to more money and a better role, not because they're longer serving, but because the other guy should be disqualified.

I'm sure there were others, better qualified than both the winner and the op, who didn't apply based on not satisfying the criteria for the job.

Rules are rules. I'm slightly confused, it's this ad hoc flouting of the rules to promote whomever they so wish that people are using as a stick with which to beat the public sector.

The OP has a genuine grievance and should consult their union rep.

patsman07

patsman07 wrote: »

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.

So those with more experience (I. E. Who've worked there longer) should be promoted ahead of those who haven't worked there as long? Isn't this a direct contradiction to what others are saying shouldn't be happening?

The second point you make is spot on, and one which I feel should be standard when reading anything on boards.

myshirt

Unless there is any legal or regulatory reason like a Doctor or Pharmacist, "3 years post qualification experience" should really be read as "may be suitable for a person post qualified 3 years".

Essentially you are ballpark looking for someone in that space, but by no way does amount of years post qualified equate to a more competent person. I'm now an accountant but when I was a young solicitor we had people make partner by 32, people who became the 'go to' person and really worked hard to make themselves indispensable and value adding, and others who qualified at the same time as that person stay associate solicitors well into their 40's because they either weren't as good as others or were happy with their brief etc.

No conspiracy theories, just plain competence. The firm would not stay a top firm unless it promoted based on competence and ability, and this is the reason why public sector organisations can be piss poor. They promote and give pay rises based on factors that bear no relevance to anything meaningful.

noodler

eagle eye wrote: »

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.

Absolute bullsh1t in my experience.

Civil service is based on the form and Interview process alone.

Cronyism seems far more likely in private sector to me where there'd be no consequences for hiring someone they like.

OP, could you type the exact wording relating to the bit about three years experience?

AndrewJRenko

myshirt wrote: »

Unless there is any legal or regulatory reason like a Doctor or Pharmacist, "3 years post qualification experience" should really be read as "may be suitable for a person post qualified 3 years".

Essentially you are ballpark looking for someone in that space, but by no way does amount of years post qualified equate to a more competent person. I'm now an accountant but when I was a young solicitor we had people make partner by 32, people who became the 'go to' person and really worked hard to make themselves indispensable and value adding, and others who qualified at the same time as that person stay associate solicitors well into their 40's because they either weren't as good as others or were happy with their brief etc.

No conspiracy theories, just plain competence. The firm would not stay a top firm unless it promoted based on competence and ability, and this is the reason why public sector organisations can be piss poor. They promote and give pay rises based on factors that bear no relevance to anything meaningful.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but years of PQE is a standard job spec requirement for many financial roles in your beloved private sector - are all these organisations 'piss poor' too?

https://m.hays.ie/Job/Detail/senior-financial-accountant-dublin-south-wicklow-en-IE_1047605?q=hays&s=%2BxReleaseDate&specialismId=FinMngtAccounting&subSpecialismId=FinMngtAccounting&_ga=2.182009511.1833150313.1500496648-860090056.1500496648&applyId=JOB_1716588&lang=en&isSponsored=N

http://www.irishjobs.ie/Jobs/Accountant-multinational-industry-background-8044849.aspx

http://jobview.monster.ie/Financial-Accountant-Job-Dublin-City-Centre-Dublin-IE-185373130.aspx?WT.mc_n=olm_sk_feed_indeed_ie

http://job-openings.monster.ie/Senior-Financial-Accountant-Dublin-Dublin-IE-CareerZone/11/185605170?WT.mc_n=olm_sk_feed_indeed_ie

Interested Observer

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Sorry to burst your bubble, but years of PQE is a standard job spec requirement for many financial roles in your beloved private sector - are all these organisations 'piss poor' too?

https://m.hays.ie/Job/Detail/senior-financial-accountant-dublin-south-wicklow-en-IE_1047605?q=hays&s=%2BxReleaseDate&specialismId=FinMngtAccounting&subSpecialismId=FinMngtAccounting&_ga=2.182009511.1833150313.1500496648-860090056.1500496648&applyId=JOB_1716588&lang=en&isSponsored=N

http://www.irishjobs.ie/Jobs/Accountant-multinational-industry-background-8044849.aspx

http://jobview.monster.ie/Financial-Accountant-Job-Dublin-City-Centre-Dublin-IE-185373130.aspx?WT.mc_n=olm_sk_feed_indeed_ie

http://job-openings.monster.ie/Senior-Financial-Accountant-Dublin-Dublin-IE-CareerZone/11/185605170?WT.mc_n=olm_sk_feed_indeed_ie

What point are you trying to make here, that you can't walk into senior financial accountant job without some experience?

Well honestly, no ****.

BrokenArrows

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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?

Because generally recruiters are a waste of space. They have no idea what they're doing and just spam out some random requirements. You should see the **** they put on job advertisements in Software Development roles which is my line of work.

A lot of jobs just overstate their requirements in an attempt to get an overqualified person to take a lower class job for less money.

I got an internal transfer a while back in my company (It was a new role a manager created specifically for me) but due to HR Rules they had to advertise the role internally to other candidates. I saw the specification that my manager sent to HR and i saw the specification that came from recruitment. Utter garbage added just to justify their role.

AndrewJRenko

Interested Observer wrote: »

What point are you trying to make here, that you can't walk into senior financial accountant job without some experience?

Well honestly, no ****.

I'm trying to make the point that PQE years is a standard requirement on my financial roles.

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Because generally recruiters are a waste of space. They have no idea what they're doing and just spam out some random requirements. You should see the **** they put on job advertisements in Software Development roles which is my line of work.

A lot of jobs just overstate their requirements in an attempt to get an overqualified person to take a lower class job for less money.

I got an internal transfer a while back in my company (It was a new role a manager created specifically for me) but due to HR Rules they had to advertise the role internally to other candidates. I saw the specification that my manager sent to HR and i saw the specification that came from recruitment. Utter garbage added just to justify their role.

Not my experience with recruiters, I have to say. Recruitment agencies - yes, waste of space - but in-house recruiters add value in my experience.

bisset

Suppose the job in the public sector is advertised as "must have 3 years post qualification on 1st may 2017 .

Anne will have 2 years 11 months experieince on that date as she took up a qualified post a week after she graduated on 1st June 2014.

Jane was at college with her and graduated and took up a qualified post at the same time.

Anne does not apply for the job as she knows that she does not have the required experience.

Jane applies and is appointed.

The union lodges a complaint that stating that she would have applied if the requirement had not specifically ruled her out.

The principle that "Appointments made in an open, accountable and transparent manner" has been breached.

In my experience in the above situation the job offer to Jane would be with drawn and the job would be re advertised. Obviously due to the passge of time that this process would take both Jane and Anne would now have more than the required 3 years experience.