I just interviewed for a small promotion to replace a supervisor. I was surprised to find on the interview committee, 6 co-workers, including:
- the incumbent (awkward, I felt I had to congenially show respect for her past work, felt uncomfortable about putting forth alternative strategies in total contrast to her style very openly; also, I was on her hiring committee which was very lightweight in comparison),
- the upper boss I would report to if got the job (fair enough),
- 1 worker I would be supervising if I got the job,
- 2 co-workers I had worked closely with in the past year,
- and 2 new junior hires who I had been an informal mentor to in different ways.
They went through the procedures as if they didn't know me and to ask the same uniform questions of all candidates - but in the past, when I was in charge of interviews, I always upheld the code that I would recuse myself if I knew any of the candidates personally and would therefore be biased... in this case, I felt at least 4 should have recused themselves and the other 2 were poorly qualified, knowing little of the work that was required.
Whether I get the job or not, Iʻm not sure the decision will sit right with me - if scrutinized, I don't think there would be much credibility in the selection procedures followed.
Am I being overly "by the book," or does the composition of the selection committee sound inappropriate to anyone else?