Direct Appointment

Direct appointment, or the decision by a company not to openly recruit a position but to simply move a pre-determined existing employee into it, is seemingly the preferred (and default) route of many employers in Australia. Certainly for private companies anyway (based on research, reading and LinkedIn discussions). I discussed this matter at length with colleagues and with the HR business partner for the firm I was, until recently, employed with (and had been since arriving in Australia) and find that I fundamentally disagree with the stance that it is ‘beneficial’ for the business. Cautiously, I decided against posting this until I was no longer employed by the company as although this is purely a matter of opinion, I am concious that it could have rocked a number of boats among people who I am genuinely fond of. 

I never quite realised what a driver for me 'fairness' is in relation to progression in the workplace until I saw such a complete farce of a 'promotion' happen within the team I was part of, that I was enraged. For me this was the beginning of the end of my being able to be engaged in this company, it was the start of the rot setting in and my realising that the future, for me, was unlikely to be with them as an employer long term.  

In looking for alternative employment, I do also realise that I am, to some level, privileged by being white, straight and university educated whilst on the other hand also being (potentially) disadvantaged by being female. What I can say with certainty is that every role I have ever taken on I have fought for and won fairly and to me that is important. Also, in defence of the previous employer referred to here, I know that they do also appoint external candidates to roles (I was one) from time to time. Unfortunately, they are not consistent with this approach and a deeply rooted (historical?) belief in direct appointment as a preferred method prevails, especially where positions with any kind of authority come up. 

So - direct appointment. Maybe in one or two instances it might genuinely be the case that there is only one viable candidate for a role and talent retention might encourage such a decision without having any undue (negative) side effects; but in general I believe it is a solution best avoided and one which can be symptomatic of lazy, helicopter management decisions which impact hugely on the culture of a workplace – and not necessarily in any positive way.

I have seen first-hand the disenfranchisement of staff members when they feel that they were passed over, when they are confused and disappointed that they didn’t get a chance to be considered for a position, when they subsequently don’t respect the person appointed because there was, seemingly, no fair and open validation for why the decision was made. I have seen it be the cause of people starting to look elsewhere, I have seen it cause resentment and disengagement.

The consistent response from those not given a chance to apply for a direct appointed post is that they feel devalued.The fact that when management were making such decisions these employees did not even register as a potential contender for a role is disheartening and does make one reflect on whether this is the kind of place where it will ever be your turn, and if not what that means for your career progression (or more pointedly, the lack thereof). 

One of the key arguments that is made in favour of direct appointment is that there is a risk when a post is advertised internally and then some of those candidates are inevitably unsuccessful, that they will naturally immediately seek to leave the company. I say to that, there is always turnover anyway and although when interviewing a number of internal candidates there is unavoidably the risk of ‘losing face’ and therefore coming to the decision that it is time to move on - there are bigger and broader negative effects from not advertising and recruiting in a fair and open manner. 

In any event, if the culture of a workplace is truly positive and encouraging of staff development and continuous learning, then the likelihood of unsuccessful candidates leaving is minimal. The opportunity to try out for a promotion or a change of position can be educational and a positive experience that at least flags openly that an employee is keen to improve, to learn and to grow. The fact that they are invited and encouraged to fully try out for a post is affirmation of their being taken seriously by senior management and a nod to the fact that career progression here is encouraged for all.

If these opportunities are denied then the culture risks becoming such that unless you are singled out for a position you will never get the chance to show you could do it. It kind of makes a farce of the ‘professional development’ that we are repeatedly told that companies encourage and value. 

Personally, I would always feel slightly uneasy if I had been handed a promotion I did not feel I had legitimately tried out for and earned. If the post in question has a number of direct reports into it then it stands to reason that some of those reports may have tried out (or wanted to but not had the chance) for the post. If no actual process has occurred where they got the chance to apply, it is fairly likely that there will be a natural resentment towards the person chosen – and a whole heap of extra legwork that the appointed candidate will need to do to earn the respect of their team as a result. 

Having said this, it is, thankfully, no longer strictly my problem. I feel quite lucky in that I have successfully managed to manoeuvre my way back into the HE sector where fair and open recruitment is practised as standard. Point in case - I interviewed against internal candidates for the post I have just commenced. This enables me to feel highly positive about my new employer in relation to their processes and decisions, I already believe that decisions are made objectively and that is a valuable thing. For the first time in my working life in Australia I feel like I stand a chance of moving forward with my career.