Not all managers play by rules. The recruitment procedures are
designed to ensure candidates are not discriminated against and
managers can’t slot in their favourites. The process is designed to be
fair and transparent. However the focus is often on the selection
criteria and the interview. The candidates application form is
measured against the person specification for the post to determine
those to be interviewed and performance in the interview determines
who is offered the post. Interviews are however rather unpredictable
strong candidates can give a poor performance on the day and weak
candidates can cover up gaps in knowledge and thinness of experience
by good preparation and a confident display. Plus other members of the
interview panel can throw a spanner in the works/ can be unpredictable
and take a liking for a candidate Whois not the managers preference.
The devious managers knows the best way to ensure this does not
happen is to change the person specification to specifically exclude a
candidate. This will ensure they are not short listed for interview.
This tactic is most often used for internal candidates where the
manager knows the individual from experience and defiantly doesn’t
want them to get the post.
A director with a vacant assistant directors post would be very happy
with appointing the individual who is acting up but the board may have
other ideas and may even appoint a colleague who has more experience
and has made it known he intends to apply. This colleague is however
very old school and has persistently put obstacles in the way of the
directors modernisation plans. So the director has inserted into the
person specification an essential requirement for a formal management
qualification knowing that this individual does not have one. In the
past such a qualification may have been desirable and its absence more
than compensated by extensive experience at a senior level but the
director successfully argues with HR that modernisation requires
people with qualifications as well as experience.
In another more disturbing case the manager changes the person
specification for a first line management post to include as an
essential requirement of previous management experience. This is
unusual for a first line manager post but he successfully argues with
HR that as this is a new post as part of a pilot scheme it will be
high profile and needs some one with more experience than would
normally be expected which is why he is also advertising the post at
an enhanced grade. Only when the post is filled and a recruitment
complaint received does it appear that the manager may have had an
ulterior motive for the change. The pilot and post came out of the
recommendations of a small working group. A member of that group
applied for the post and was told they didn’t meet the person
specification which surprised them as the group had submitted a person
specification and job description as part of their reports
recommendations. She complained that the person specification had been
changed specifically to exclude her as a person of colour. This she
claimed was power for the course as this senior manager was know for
not employing people of colour.
In neither case was the complaint up held because discussions had
taken place with HR who had agree the changes were reasonable and
legitimate. Were they or did the managers pull a fast one?
Blair Mcpherson former Director, author and blogger www.blairmcpherson.co.uk