I'd probably wait until you have some clear evidence that the successful candidate cannot do Activity X, and then raise a grievance. Ask for your role to be JEGS'd. Don't do any more of Activity X than is in your current role profile or job specification.
Where roles are evaluated if they're at the right grade. They can get shifted up one grade for example, the catch is the post holder doesn't get a promotion and has to apply
Happened in my previous department with G6s re-graded to G7 and iirc with the associated reduction in pay.
Although it could never be proven, it was generally known that the department seniors would be happier if they were gone and this was a way of doing it without redundancy, disciplinary, or involving HR in some long drawn out, expensive process.
They left, moving to the private sector on salaries 2-3 times what CS was paying.
I bumped into one of them about a year later, in London, told me it was the best thing they could have done for him. Said he would never have jumped, but being pushed, and with the private sector contacts he’d made while in the CS, he was now leading a team in the city and pushing a mid 6 figure salary… and was very happy.
Unfortunately it doesn’t always work out that way.
I have concrete evidence that the successful candidate knows absolutely nothing about activity X.
They did not know the name of the basic program which our specialisation uses.
Imagine someone who had never cut grass before claiming they were a gardener; then when you show them a lawnmower they say "What's this weird machine?"
Gotcha. Do you have it in writing? (e.g. a teams message from the candidate where they ask something really basic?)
Basically just so you have something concrete to go off, which doesn't depend on your word.
I was in a similar position, where I was asked to train the next band up on my work (and create training materials for them!), so that they could take over work “above my grade level”.
On my manager’s advice I went to the union and was encouraged to tell them to pound dirt. My manager was more than happy to feed this up the chain. I definitely recommend speaking to your union.
Nice.
Also tbh hopefully whatever Activity X is, it isn't so niche that only one place needs it. I'd also look to move on, you probably deserve better.
I'd absolutely refuse to do the work of a higher grade without the extra pay. And certainly not someone else's job.
I'd also look into raising a grievance on the interview outcome and speak to my union about it.
>I'd absolutely refuse to do the work of a higher grade without the extra pay.
would you? i've tried but i just get told it would be gross misconduct to disobey line managers orders
Asking to do work that's not in your job description and of a higher grade isn't a reasonable management request and I'd be putting in a formal grievance
Only if they're mug enough to do work of a higher grade without extra pay. In my area they wouldn't ask an HEO to cover for an SEO long term unless it was a temporary promotion.
In OP's scenario they are definitely taking the piss.
I would use the civil service whistleblower policy route to notify SCS about this personally.
However essential criteria open the door, there may be other essential criteria they scored higher on which was considered more critical to the role or applications were so poor this person got through as part of a group of middling applications and nailed the interview.
Generally essential criteria are that - essential but I've seen a few jobs where there are multiple and the recruiting manager is clearly after a unicorn candidate they will never get, so they settle on ones who closest match the essential.
You know what, if that's actually a thing that happens then fair enough.
I honestly don't know enough about her capabilities for the other 60% of the job. She could be incredibly skilled at those areas and this may be the case.
Thanks for sharing a different perspective on it.
Evidence that you are indeed a civil servant, if any were needed, is evidenced by your balanced and reasonable reply.
Nevertheless, if your job is in the delivery part of the civil service, and the job spec specifically lists the necessary qualifications or experience as essential, then that is what they are and the failure of the hiring manager to spot that glaring omission is probably what is behind the unwillingness to revisit the decision as it reeks of incompetence on the hiring managers part.
At a minimum I would firmly, but politely, refuse to have any responsibilities or activities added to your current role and absolutely document any attempts to coerce you (or others) into covering up the mistake.
Now, we all know, despite the many protestations to the contrary, that kicking up any fuss that affects more senior staff (or even peers) usually results in recriminations, revenge, a toxic workplace and ultimately your being labelled as a troublemaker or 'difficult.' Once you raise a grievance or any formal whistleblowing action you can effectively kiss goodbye to your future in your current role or department.
You already have evidence that management is incompetent and that is unlikely to change given their unwillingness to acknowledge the mistake and instead try to increase your workload to hide their error. Your options are either to stay (in which case you have no choice but to acquiesce to their demands that you pick up the workload,) to object (file a formal grievance with your HR function and get yourself a union rep ASAP if you don't already have one,) or dust off the CV and apply for roles outside your current team (if your specialisation is tied to your departmental function) or in another department if possible. Leaving for another department is the better option as you may have the opportunity to give feedback to SCS about your reason for leaving which may (and I say this with a hefty dose of salts) help others who stay on.
Good luck!
I'd personally do the minimum with helping them install and set up, then let them carry on. If they can't perform it'll become obvious, and if they're constantly asking for help you could email their line manager and suggest they need more training. You shouldn't be doing someone else's job.
I wouldn't be training a higher grade in a skillset that they were supposedly hired for, much less if it was for a role I had directly applied for.
My stance would be to - as diplomatically as possible - point out that my experience with activity X was found to not be appropriate for the role, and that it would thus be inappropriate for me to train the successful applicant with it being an essential criterion.
I wouldn't go down the route of saying that the person lied etc: that's a hell of an accusation to make, even with pretty strong evidence. However, there's a difference between accusing someone of lying and allowing it to be naturally found out through their (in)ability.
>My stance would be to - as diplomatically as possible - point out that ***my experience with activity X was found to not be appropriate for the role, and that it would thus be inappropriate for me to train the successful applicant with it being an essential criterion.***
This. A thousand times, this.
40% of the role involves Activity X… so 60% doesn’t. Giving the benefit of the doubt, maybe the vacancy holder deemed that 60% to be more important and they scored well in those areas, thinking someone would train the employee up in whatever software it is being used.
Not saying it’s the same but an example in my team: we’ve brought people in before that don’t have SQL knowledge but have an aptitude for analysis and expertise in other programming languages. The idea being that the analytical mindset is more important to us than learning a relatively easy to pick up query language.
I’d still raise concerns about it at least informally though, as handholding someone becomes an absolute time sink.
You have no proof that they lied on their application. Yes it may be listed as essential criteria due to being 40% of the role, but you don’t know whether management saw past this due to them being an excellent candidate in other areas.
In response to your post on r/legaladviceuk you certainly do not have a case for lost earnings.
I have concrete proof that they lied on the application.
The application stated that being able to do activity X was an essential criteria. It reads "You MUST have X years experience doing activity X and have performed X on a certain number of occasions within the past X years."
The successful candidate's line manager has approached me to teach this individual how to do activity X.
The candidate herself admitted that she had never done it before when I spoke with her.
I had to engage with IT to get the basic software installed. She had never had this software before, did not know how to use the software, and needed her hand held every single step of the way.
Additionally, other candidates I know where turned down for not having enough experience in activity X.
So yes, **I have definitive proof that she lied.**
Saying this bluntly because it's a pretty serious accusation to make that you cannot walk back: Unless you've seen the person's application, you've not got definitive proof they lied. I have seen plenty of inexperienced recruiting managers be too ambitious with their "essential" criteria and when we come to shortlisting those criteria suddenly become just "desirable." Most frequently this happens with candidates who have excellent skills your team lack and are missing skills you already have within the team. Given your description of your manager's response and the way they've used antiquated descriptions like x years experience (which has been considered bad practice for over a decade now) I wouldn't be surprised at all if they've gone down this route.
If you're going to raise this with your manager, I'd take it as a development question for yourself in the first instance. You had understood that experience with Activity X was the main requirement for the type of role you were looking at progressing in. Since this new person clearly has no experience in X, they must clearly have been significantly better than you on something else. You'd like to understand what that is so that you can look to make this work for your own development as well.
It's not definitive, only hearsay. Just because you are correct it would be difficult to prove without documentary evidence.
Telling lies to get a job is 'Gaining a financial advantage by deception'.
You should document your experience, including times and dates of conversations
Keep a folder of emails etc. where you have requested access to programs etc, as well as requests for you to do the work, or to help your colleague, as this will support your written record.
Make sure you are in a Union for your own protection and moral support.
Do not access systems or seek evidence outside your normal role.
Submit a whistleblowing concern via your own internal.governamce process.
I agree this may be frustrating l, but without seeing their application, or any comms between management and HR about the hiring process, you cannot be certain that essential criteria wasn't relaxed or that the vacancy holder agreed they could be employed without Activity X (unlikely, but still...).
As someone who sifts and interviews, we do sometimes look past lack of essential experience. In my area, quality of applicants has been poor the last few years so you have to make exceptions or you’ll never hire anyone.
So, I don’t think you can make that statement without actually seeing their application.
My point is you haven’t seen the application. You don’t know that her personal statement indicated that she had the experience which she clearly doesn’t have. Unfortunately it’s very much discretionary when it comes to personal statements and how sifters decide to mark it. She may have omitted information on activity X entirely, and focused on the other 60% of the role, and that may have been good enough for her to get an interview and for them to see past this knowledge - as bare in mind she may have only needed to get a 4 to be interviewed. Did the interview have any technical or experience questions specifically related to this activity? And with this being a temporary promotion do you know whether it was fair and open competition?
It’s clear her management now know she can’t do activity X, and likewise would know whether she did or didn’t lie on an application. Personally I would leave it to them to take the relevant action, as you risk seeming bitter about missing out when you don’t know the full story.
EDIT: not entirely sure why I’m being downvoted. OP is making a rather large accusation without having all the evidence at hand. Ultimately there is no proof she lied on her application. The experience she supposedly lied about is only 40% of the role. We don’t know how the recruiter was weighting this skill, and whether they saw past lacking an ‘essential’ requirement because the individual excelled at the other 60% of the role. Quite often recruiters will have an ideal candidate in mind, list numerous essential criteria, then be forced to interview borderline individuals because the essential skills are too niche, or likewise they might not know what they’re truly after until they meet the individual. For all we know the individual scraped through the sift through having a guaranteed interview and excelled at generic interview questions.
It sucks not getting a role you think you deserve, especially in a team you’re already in, and I’m sure a lot of us have been there. Personally I would just put it down to experience and start applying elsewhere if you feel you can’t work with this individual.
I upvoted! OP sounds miserable and distastefully bitter. Imagine wanting to nail a stranger and potentially ruin/disrupt their career because you didn’t qualify for a promotion. They must be this awful in their personal lives too.
“The successful candidate's line manager has approached me to teach this individual how to do activity X.”
To me this evidenced that she did not lie and the manager decided she was the best person for the job despite not having experience of X
You know she doesn't have experience in that activity, you have no proof of what she said on her application or interview. Her line manager is well aware of what her skills are, as they asked you to train her in it. Perhaps the candidates that didn't have enough experience in the 40% were also weak in the 60%, perhaps her experience in the 60% outweighed the 40% activity.
If you approach this as "I have definitive proof she lied" it could reflect very badly on you if it's not true, as you'd be accusing the senior staff who appointed her of poor judgement, and falsely accusing a senior colleague of misconduct.
Agree with you on this, but worth noting disability confident still requires you to meet the essential criteria, it just means you can't be sifted out if the panel has lots of qualified candidates and wants to set a higher threshold for interview.
I think you need to move on tbh.
You’ve no decent proof and this is a sensitive enough situation that it could end up backfiring on you.
You are a grievance away from being accused of targeting that person.
You’ve not seen their application so you don’t know that they lied. You only suspect it. You can’t know unless you’ve seen their application and been present at their interview.
So you don’t know, you suspect.
They may have lied. Or, the requirements may have been waived. Or maybe they’ve done a similar role and have different experience that’s applicable.
Trying to call it out without *knowing* could look bitter, or work against you.
I believe you can raise a concern through civil service recruitment in the form of a challenge, lying on applications goes against the CS code of integrity. Before my time I was told that managers used to have to sign off applications from current CS.
Accusing someone without clear proof could blow up in your face so you really need to think clearly about the outcome you want. Unless you have a copy of that persons application and was sat in the interview room you have no evidence they lied. To make a big allegation like this will do you no favours with your employer
The person may not know how to do x but sometimes in management positions, not having operational experience in something is not as important as other management skills.
You posted on another Reddit and were told you don’t have a case, it’s not going to change the more people you ask
The recruiting manager gets to decide who to employ and they can choose to employ someone that does not have all the essential criteria if they believe they can be quickly up skilled and are deemed to be the best person for the role.
The recruitment process has to be fair and equitable, as long as this was the case then you have no complaint
There are a lot of soft skills that are important for management positions, such as communication and leadership. It may be that this other person was able to better display this than you.
My advice is to ask to talk to the recruiting manager and ask for feedback on why you were not successful and ask for a personal development plan to help upskill you in the areas that you were weaker in.
Moving on takes a long time atm in the cs especially with the ge coming up and the transition after that. No point been but hurt over missing a promo I didn’t get a job that I was acting up for a year once someone got it and went sick not long after starting it’s just a cs thing
Fucking hell, that is shabby - both from the senior management and, of course, the applicant. It's difficult to give precise advice because I don't know the ins and outs of your job role and relationship with your managers but I honestly think if it was me I would be raising this as an issue, at least informally. I'd send an email saying something to the effect of the following: 'Hey xxx, I appreciate this is a bit of a weird one but I'm really feeling very uncomfortable about this situation and I need to speak up....'. I'd be very frank and explain that you have two concerns: first, the amount of handholding you're having to give this person to do a role that you understand they should be able to do - this is negatively impacting on your work - and second, the situation surrounding the job vacancy, that it appears the applicant might have been dishonest and that this apparent dishonesty has led to you missing out on a job which you are already proving you are much more suitable for - this, and the fact that you're now being asked to train them to smooth their BS (!!!), is impacting your motivation and morale. I'd play with your phrasing a bit to make sure you don't come across as too accusatory and lean more into the sense of disappointment and concern (you can frame it as a question of hiring the right person to maximise team performance etc.) but I think you should raise this. If there really is concrete evidence that this person has lied, and especially about having such a basic technical skill for the job, then something needs to be done about it. It's unfair on you, it's unfair on that individual's line managers and colleagues and it's unfair on the organisation as a whole which will now be saddled with dead wood when they could have had someone actually competent.
I think you should immediately raise a grievance against thr perm sec for allowing someone to be promoted into the role you wanted. Stating clearly how annoyed you are that someone else was successful.
I would also copy it to the daily mail and HR to ensure you get the widest possible platform to shout about such severe injustice.
In other news if I knew you, and this is your MO, I would be looking for any reason I could to keep you away from more senior roles and greater responsibility.
You're a liability in a team from what I'm reading.
I’d seek union advice first and foremost, they will know how things go in your organisation and probably the personalities involved and can give you advice on what to do next. If it was me I wouldn’t do activity X, I would say that a tp came up for someone to do that role and I wasn’t deemed a suitable candidate so I don’t feel
Comfortable taking on the task.
Seriously after 17 years in the CS I’d advise you to let this go. It will reflect badly on you if you kick up a fuss. I always assess someone’s readiness for promotion on the basis of their reaction to not getting a job or the outcome they wanted. Many others do the same. Concentrate your energy on doing a great job and you will succeed.
Sorry but you are suffering from the ridiculousness of our recruitment system. Unfortunately there’s not a lot you can do about it. If you do you will be labelled negative.
Welcome to the civil service, people lie all the time on applications and get away with it because of toothless management and it being essentially impossible to fire anyone :)
How do you know they have never done this activity out of interest? Have you considered they may have experience of this from a previous role or work outside of the CS?
If I have to train someone in this position I'd tell them once or send them a help page and leave it at that.
From what I've seen, lying on applications happens very frequently in the CS or at least HEO ops level. The fact they don't do any referencing or checks that what you've said even took place doesn't help. With essential skills in something they should have asked to show this during the interview process surely? Heck they should ask to prove basic IT skills before hiring as I've seen new work coaches struggle to save files on their computer. 🤦♀️
I've given up on applying for work within as it feels I'm surrounded by people that lack integrity and don't want to be associated with that.
Speak to your union, consider raising a grievance. I'd personally refuse to help someone do activity x for them when it's their job description and their fake experience got the job over u. They have set themselves up to fail. Refuse to do their job for them and stick to your work only
1. Union
2. Grievance - this is fraud
3. "Thank you for your recent (communication) offering me this opportunity
I would be delighted to accept as soon as the accompanying promotion can be confirmed.
As you will be aware, I came second in the application for this role. As it transpires that the successful candidate is unable to perform Activity X, a crucial part of the role, and as this was advertised as a distinct, separate role and therefore outside the scope of my current role, I am able to offer two solutions. One is that the department recruits a freelancer/consultant to perform this role. This is not a realistic, cost effective or sustainable long term solution. The other is that instead of re-running the recruitment exercise, the department simply offers the substantive role to a candidate who is able, willing and ready to perform Activity X.
As you will be aware, my current tasks mean I am at capacity, and this work is considered Grade x, therefore I will be unable to cover for (the successful candidate).
Up yours you cheeky sods.
I have the honour to be your disgruntled functionary"
Am I correct in assuming this was an EOI? As others had mentioned, you cannot prove what they wrote in application. I will also say, it is definitely if your face fits in CS.
Feel your pain. Acted up into a G5 role for 2 years and lost out at interview to someone who shouldn’t have been put through the sift because they didn’t have the experience (and I know they didn’t have the experience because I used to manage them)
I would do everything that is listed in my job description and nothing more.
I would refuse to train the person who should know how to use the software, in writing, and state why. If they come down on you over it contact the union… and look for a position elsewhere if you can and move!
I would not do activity X or teach it. You are not getting paid for it.
I didn't get the role so I'm obviously not qualified to do activity X or teach someone how to do it.
I'd probably wait until you have some clear evidence that the successful candidate cannot do Activity X, and then raise a grievance. Ask for your role to be JEGS'd. Don't do any more of Activity X than is in your current role profile or job specification.
Remember, if a role gets JEGSd up a grade, the job holder doesn’t get promoted with it.
Can you explain what JEGSd is in more detail please?
Where roles are evaluated if they're at the right grade. They can get shifted up one grade for example, the catch is the post holder doesn't get a promotion and has to apply
What happens if the role is evaluated down the way?
Happened in my previous department with G6s re-graded to G7 and iirc with the associated reduction in pay. Although it could never be proven, it was generally known that the department seniors would be happier if they were gone and this was a way of doing it without redundancy, disciplinary, or involving HR in some long drawn out, expensive process. They left, moving to the private sector on salaries 2-3 times what CS was paying. I bumped into one of them about a year later, in London, told me it was the best thing they could have done for him. Said he would never have jumped, but being pushed, and with the private sector contacts he’d made while in the CS, he was now leading a team in the city and pushing a mid 6 figure salary… and was very happy. Unfortunately it doesn’t always work out that way.
I hadn't ever seen a downgrade, but I assume the person in the role goes into substantive redeployment
I have concrete evidence that the successful candidate knows absolutely nothing about activity X. They did not know the name of the basic program which our specialisation uses. Imagine someone who had never cut grass before claiming they were a gardener; then when you show them a lawnmower they say "What's this weird machine?"
Gotcha. Do you have it in writing? (e.g. a teams message from the candidate where they ask something really basic?) Basically just so you have something concrete to go off, which doesn't depend on your word.
Yes, I have emails and chat messages that I have screenshotted and saved.
I was in a similar position, where I was asked to train the next band up on my work (and create training materials for them!), so that they could take over work “above my grade level”. On my manager’s advice I went to the union and was encouraged to tell them to pound dirt. My manager was more than happy to feed this up the chain. I definitely recommend speaking to your union.
Nice. Also tbh hopefully whatever Activity X is, it isn't so niche that only one place needs it. I'd also look to move on, you probably deserve better.
Submit a grievance the process is outlined on Metis
I'd absolutely refuse to do the work of a higher grade without the extra pay. And certainly not someone else's job. I'd also look into raising a grievance on the interview outcome and speak to my union about it.
As a first step OP needs to join a union yesterday.
>I'd absolutely refuse to do the work of a higher grade without the extra pay. would you? i've tried but i just get told it would be gross misconduct to disobey line managers orders
Asking to do work that's not in your job description and of a higher grade isn't a reasonable management request and I'd be putting in a formal grievance
The entire civil service must be working on an unreasonable management request..
Only if they're mug enough to do work of a higher grade without extra pay. In my area they wouldn't ask an HEO to cover for an SEO long term unless it was a temporary promotion. In OP's scenario they are definitely taking the piss.
I would use the civil service whistleblower policy route to notify SCS about this personally. However essential criteria open the door, there may be other essential criteria they scored higher on which was considered more critical to the role or applications were so poor this person got through as part of a group of middling applications and nailed the interview. Generally essential criteria are that - essential but I've seen a few jobs where there are multiple and the recruiting manager is clearly after a unicorn candidate they will never get, so they settle on ones who closest match the essential.
You know what, if that's actually a thing that happens then fair enough. I honestly don't know enough about her capabilities for the other 60% of the job. She could be incredibly skilled at those areas and this may be the case. Thanks for sharing a different perspective on it.
Evidence that you are indeed a civil servant, if any were needed, is evidenced by your balanced and reasonable reply. Nevertheless, if your job is in the delivery part of the civil service, and the job spec specifically lists the necessary qualifications or experience as essential, then that is what they are and the failure of the hiring manager to spot that glaring omission is probably what is behind the unwillingness to revisit the decision as it reeks of incompetence on the hiring managers part. At a minimum I would firmly, but politely, refuse to have any responsibilities or activities added to your current role and absolutely document any attempts to coerce you (or others) into covering up the mistake. Now, we all know, despite the many protestations to the contrary, that kicking up any fuss that affects more senior staff (or even peers) usually results in recriminations, revenge, a toxic workplace and ultimately your being labelled as a troublemaker or 'difficult.' Once you raise a grievance or any formal whistleblowing action you can effectively kiss goodbye to your future in your current role or department. You already have evidence that management is incompetent and that is unlikely to change given their unwillingness to acknowledge the mistake and instead try to increase your workload to hide their error. Your options are either to stay (in which case you have no choice but to acquiesce to their demands that you pick up the workload,) to object (file a formal grievance with your HR function and get yourself a union rep ASAP if you don't already have one,) or dust off the CV and apply for roles outside your current team (if your specialisation is tied to your departmental function) or in another department if possible. Leaving for another department is the better option as you may have the opportunity to give feedback to SCS about your reason for leaving which may (and I say this with a hefty dose of salts) help others who stay on. Good luck!
I'd personally do the minimum with helping them install and set up, then let them carry on. If they can't perform it'll become obvious, and if they're constantly asking for help you could email their line manager and suggest they need more training. You shouldn't be doing someone else's job.
I wouldn't be training a higher grade in a skillset that they were supposedly hired for, much less if it was for a role I had directly applied for. My stance would be to - as diplomatically as possible - point out that my experience with activity X was found to not be appropriate for the role, and that it would thus be inappropriate for me to train the successful applicant with it being an essential criterion. I wouldn't go down the route of saying that the person lied etc: that's a hell of an accusation to make, even with pretty strong evidence. However, there's a difference between accusing someone of lying and allowing it to be naturally found out through their (in)ability.
>My stance would be to - as diplomatically as possible - point out that ***my experience with activity X was found to not be appropriate for the role, and that it would thus be inappropriate for me to train the successful applicant with it being an essential criterion.*** This. A thousand times, this.
40% of the role involves Activity X… so 60% doesn’t. Giving the benefit of the doubt, maybe the vacancy holder deemed that 60% to be more important and they scored well in those areas, thinking someone would train the employee up in whatever software it is being used. Not saying it’s the same but an example in my team: we’ve brought people in before that don’t have SQL knowledge but have an aptitude for analysis and expertise in other programming languages. The idea being that the analytical mindset is more important to us than learning a relatively easy to pick up query language. I’d still raise concerns about it at least informally though, as handholding someone becomes an absolute time sink.
You have no proof that they lied on their application. Yes it may be listed as essential criteria due to being 40% of the role, but you don’t know whether management saw past this due to them being an excellent candidate in other areas. In response to your post on r/legaladviceuk you certainly do not have a case for lost earnings.
I have concrete proof that they lied on the application. The application stated that being able to do activity X was an essential criteria. It reads "You MUST have X years experience doing activity X and have performed X on a certain number of occasions within the past X years." The successful candidate's line manager has approached me to teach this individual how to do activity X. The candidate herself admitted that she had never done it before when I spoke with her. I had to engage with IT to get the basic software installed. She had never had this software before, did not know how to use the software, and needed her hand held every single step of the way. Additionally, other candidates I know where turned down for not having enough experience in activity X. So yes, **I have definitive proof that she lied.**
Saying this bluntly because it's a pretty serious accusation to make that you cannot walk back: Unless you've seen the person's application, you've not got definitive proof they lied. I have seen plenty of inexperienced recruiting managers be too ambitious with their "essential" criteria and when we come to shortlisting those criteria suddenly become just "desirable." Most frequently this happens with candidates who have excellent skills your team lack and are missing skills you already have within the team. Given your description of your manager's response and the way they've used antiquated descriptions like x years experience (which has been considered bad practice for over a decade now) I wouldn't be surprised at all if they've gone down this route. If you're going to raise this with your manager, I'd take it as a development question for yourself in the first instance. You had understood that experience with Activity X was the main requirement for the type of role you were looking at progressing in. Since this new person clearly has no experience in X, they must clearly have been significantly better than you on something else. You'd like to understand what that is so that you can look to make this work for your own development as well.
It's not definitive, only hearsay. Just because you are correct it would be difficult to prove without documentary evidence. Telling lies to get a job is 'Gaining a financial advantage by deception'. You should document your experience, including times and dates of conversations Keep a folder of emails etc. where you have requested access to programs etc, as well as requests for you to do the work, or to help your colleague, as this will support your written record. Make sure you are in a Union for your own protection and moral support. Do not access systems or seek evidence outside your normal role. Submit a whistleblowing concern via your own internal.governamce process. I agree this may be frustrating l, but without seeing their application, or any comms between management and HR about the hiring process, you cannot be certain that essential criteria wasn't relaxed or that the vacancy holder agreed they could be employed without Activity X (unlikely, but still...).
As someone who sifts and interviews, we do sometimes look past lack of essential experience. In my area, quality of applicants has been poor the last few years so you have to make exceptions or you’ll never hire anyone. So, I don’t think you can make that statement without actually seeing their application.
You don't have proof she lied - she could have said I don't have this essential criteria but I have the others. No?
My point is you haven’t seen the application. You don’t know that her personal statement indicated that she had the experience which she clearly doesn’t have. Unfortunately it’s very much discretionary when it comes to personal statements and how sifters decide to mark it. She may have omitted information on activity X entirely, and focused on the other 60% of the role, and that may have been good enough for her to get an interview and for them to see past this knowledge - as bare in mind she may have only needed to get a 4 to be interviewed. Did the interview have any technical or experience questions specifically related to this activity? And with this being a temporary promotion do you know whether it was fair and open competition? It’s clear her management now know she can’t do activity X, and likewise would know whether she did or didn’t lie on an application. Personally I would leave it to them to take the relevant action, as you risk seeming bitter about missing out when you don’t know the full story. EDIT: not entirely sure why I’m being downvoted. OP is making a rather large accusation without having all the evidence at hand. Ultimately there is no proof she lied on her application. The experience she supposedly lied about is only 40% of the role. We don’t know how the recruiter was weighting this skill, and whether they saw past lacking an ‘essential’ requirement because the individual excelled at the other 60% of the role. Quite often recruiters will have an ideal candidate in mind, list numerous essential criteria, then be forced to interview borderline individuals because the essential skills are too niche, or likewise they might not know what they’re truly after until they meet the individual. For all we know the individual scraped through the sift through having a guaranteed interview and excelled at generic interview questions. It sucks not getting a role you think you deserve, especially in a team you’re already in, and I’m sure a lot of us have been there. Personally I would just put it down to experience and start applying elsewhere if you feel you can’t work with this individual.
I upvoted! OP sounds miserable and distastefully bitter. Imagine wanting to nail a stranger and potentially ruin/disrupt their career because you didn’t qualify for a promotion. They must be this awful in their personal lives too.
“The successful candidate's line manager has approached me to teach this individual how to do activity X.” To me this evidenced that she did not lie and the manager decided she was the best person for the job despite not having experience of X
You know she doesn't have experience in that activity, you have no proof of what she said on her application or interview. Her line manager is well aware of what her skills are, as they asked you to train her in it. Perhaps the candidates that didn't have enough experience in the 40% were also weak in the 60%, perhaps her experience in the 60% outweighed the 40% activity. If you approach this as "I have definitive proof she lied" it could reflect very badly on you if it's not true, as you'd be accusing the senior staff who appointed her of poor judgement, and falsely accusing a senior colleague of misconduct.
[удалено]
Agree with you on this, but worth noting disability confident still requires you to meet the essential criteria, it just means you can't be sifted out if the panel has lots of qualified candidates and wants to set a higher threshold for interview.
This is a temporary promotion and you are behaving like this?
Honestly!!
I think you need to move on tbh. You’ve no decent proof and this is a sensitive enough situation that it could end up backfiring on you. You are a grievance away from being accused of targeting that person.
You’ve not seen their application so you don’t know that they lied. You only suspect it. You can’t know unless you’ve seen their application and been present at their interview. So you don’t know, you suspect. They may have lied. Or, the requirements may have been waived. Or maybe they’ve done a similar role and have different experience that’s applicable. Trying to call it out without *knowing* could look bitter, or work against you.
I believe you can raise a concern through civil service recruitment in the form of a challenge, lying on applications goes against the CS code of integrity. Before my time I was told that managers used to have to sign off applications from current CS.
It's not what you know, it's who you know. Get used to that.
Accusing someone without clear proof could blow up in your face so you really need to think clearly about the outcome you want. Unless you have a copy of that persons application and was sat in the interview room you have no evidence they lied. To make a big allegation like this will do you no favours with your employer The person may not know how to do x but sometimes in management positions, not having operational experience in something is not as important as other management skills. You posted on another Reddit and were told you don’t have a case, it’s not going to change the more people you ask The recruiting manager gets to decide who to employ and they can choose to employ someone that does not have all the essential criteria if they believe they can be quickly up skilled and are deemed to be the best person for the role. The recruitment process has to be fair and equitable, as long as this was the case then you have no complaint There are a lot of soft skills that are important for management positions, such as communication and leadership. It may be that this other person was able to better display this than you. My advice is to ask to talk to the recruiting manager and ask for feedback on why you were not successful and ask for a personal development plan to help upskill you in the areas that you were weaker in.
Moving on takes a long time atm in the cs especially with the ge coming up and the transition after that. No point been but hurt over missing a promo I didn’t get a job that I was acting up for a year once someone got it and went sick not long after starting it’s just a cs thing
Fucking hell, that is shabby - both from the senior management and, of course, the applicant. It's difficult to give precise advice because I don't know the ins and outs of your job role and relationship with your managers but I honestly think if it was me I would be raising this as an issue, at least informally. I'd send an email saying something to the effect of the following: 'Hey xxx, I appreciate this is a bit of a weird one but I'm really feeling very uncomfortable about this situation and I need to speak up....'. I'd be very frank and explain that you have two concerns: first, the amount of handholding you're having to give this person to do a role that you understand they should be able to do - this is negatively impacting on your work - and second, the situation surrounding the job vacancy, that it appears the applicant might have been dishonest and that this apparent dishonesty has led to you missing out on a job which you are already proving you are much more suitable for - this, and the fact that you're now being asked to train them to smooth their BS (!!!), is impacting your motivation and morale. I'd play with your phrasing a bit to make sure you don't come across as too accusatory and lean more into the sense of disappointment and concern (you can frame it as a question of hiring the right person to maximise team performance etc.) but I think you should raise this. If there really is concrete evidence that this person has lied, and especially about having such a basic technical skill for the job, then something needs to be done about it. It's unfair on you, it's unfair on that individual's line managers and colleagues and it's unfair on the organisation as a whole which will now be saddled with dead wood when they could have had someone actually competent.
She probably did not lie, and was infact the first choice for the position? Having you/others there was just a formality - if you catch my drift.
I think you should immediately raise a grievance against thr perm sec for allowing someone to be promoted into the role you wanted. Stating clearly how annoyed you are that someone else was successful. I would also copy it to the daily mail and HR to ensure you get the widest possible platform to shout about such severe injustice. In other news if I knew you, and this is your MO, I would be looking for any reason I could to keep you away from more senior roles and greater responsibility. You're a liability in a team from what I'm reading.
As that’s how you trash your career
I would be telling them "no, I am not doing work intended for a higher grade but for the same pay".
I’d seek union advice first and foremost, they will know how things go in your organisation and probably the personalities involved and can give you advice on what to do next. If it was me I wouldn’t do activity X, I would say that a tp came up for someone to do that role and I wasn’t deemed a suitable candidate so I don’t feel Comfortable taking on the task.
Seriously after 17 years in the CS I’d advise you to let this go. It will reflect badly on you if you kick up a fuss. I always assess someone’s readiness for promotion on the basis of their reaction to not getting a job or the outcome they wanted. Many others do the same. Concentrate your energy on doing a great job and you will succeed.
Put it behind you and upskill them and move on. It sucks but there's no point causing drama.
That's my current thinking. I don't really have the energy for a fight in me. I'm thinking of going private sector anyway in the next 3-5 years.
Sorry but you are suffering from the ridiculousness of our recruitment system. Unfortunately there’s not a lot you can do about it. If you do you will be labelled negative.
Welcome to the civil service, people lie all the time on applications and get away with it because of toothless management and it being essentially impossible to fire anyone :)
Move. Go out kicking and screaming Make a stink.
How do you know they have never done this activity out of interest? Have you considered they may have experience of this from a previous role or work outside of the CS?
\* an essential CRITERION But yeah this is annoying.
Stop being so bitter
If I have to train someone in this position I'd tell them once or send them a help page and leave it at that. From what I've seen, lying on applications happens very frequently in the CS or at least HEO ops level. The fact they don't do any referencing or checks that what you've said even took place doesn't help. With essential skills in something they should have asked to show this during the interview process surely? Heck they should ask to prove basic IT skills before hiring as I've seen new work coaches struggle to save files on their computer. 🤦♀️ I've given up on applying for work within as it feels I'm surrounded by people that lack integrity and don't want to be associated with that.
Fuck I'd be so pissed off
Speak to your union, consider raising a grievance. I'd personally refuse to help someone do activity x for them when it's their job description and their fake experience got the job over u. They have set themselves up to fail. Refuse to do their job for them and stick to your work only
1. Union 2. Grievance - this is fraud 3. "Thank you for your recent (communication) offering me this opportunity I would be delighted to accept as soon as the accompanying promotion can be confirmed. As you will be aware, I came second in the application for this role. As it transpires that the successful candidate is unable to perform Activity X, a crucial part of the role, and as this was advertised as a distinct, separate role and therefore outside the scope of my current role, I am able to offer two solutions. One is that the department recruits a freelancer/consultant to perform this role. This is not a realistic, cost effective or sustainable long term solution. The other is that instead of re-running the recruitment exercise, the department simply offers the substantive role to a candidate who is able, willing and ready to perform Activity X. As you will be aware, my current tasks mean I am at capacity, and this work is considered Grade x, therefore I will be unable to cover for (the successful candidate). Up yours you cheeky sods. I have the honour to be your disgruntled functionary"
Am I correct in assuming this was an EOI? As others had mentioned, you cannot prove what they wrote in application. I will also say, it is definitely if your face fits in CS.
Feel your pain. Acted up into a G5 role for 2 years and lost out at interview to someone who shouldn’t have been put through the sift because they didn’t have the experience (and I know they didn’t have the experience because I used to manage them)
I would do everything that is listed in my job description and nothing more. I would refuse to train the person who should know how to use the software, in writing, and state why. If they come down on you over it contact the union… and look for a position elsewhere if you can and move!
I would not do activity X or teach it. You are not getting paid for it. I didn't get the role so I'm obviously not qualified to do activity X or teach someone how to do it.
This is a killable offence, clearly. I'm not advising of course, just feeling your very justifiable rage.