Reflections on job hunting

I've been unsuccesful in applying for three jobs now. The first I was a bit surprised to end up being interviewed [it was a diocesan post but wasn't really something I had experience in, there were some congruencies but I thought there must be a lot of people more suited ...], the second I was glad they offered to someone else after the interview and in fact made it a bit harder for them to offer me the post [and the person appointed to me seemed a good choice], the third was -on paper- the one most likely: right sort of experience, right sort of interests and even the right sort of churchmanship. Or so I thought. The one least likely to result in not being invited to interview of all my applications. And in fact the one I was most interested in and keen on.

I was disappointed to be told I wasn't being asked to interview. I asked for feedback and was graciously given some feed back on my application. I thanked them for it. I went away and thought about it. And then I started to be concerned ....
You see I was told that my application had been found wanting: "given the experience you had, a lot of what you wrote was by way of aspiration rather than evidential."
Well, I looked through my application form; could I find any aspirational statements? No. In fact, I would have said it was all evidential [though sketchy 'cos there was a good bit to put in and little space] -mostly "I have done ...", "I set up ...", "I led ..." kind of stuff. So I kind of wondered -are they looking at the same application: have they mixed me up with someone else?

Also I was told; "The panel would have valued more in the way of analysis of the situations facing universities and students and examples of strategies you have employed in developing partnerships both within the university, ecumenically and in the community."
True: I didn't put much of that in. But hang on ... where was that asked for on the form? To eliminate a candidate on the basis that they didn't provide you with something that you didn't ask for is unfair, the more so if you end up appointing someone who couldn't have done so because they didn't have that experience [or am I missing something here?]. And in fact, I did evidence some of that stuff incidently as I answered the questions I was actually asked on the form. Feeling sore, as you can probably tell!

I've been involved a bit with selecting and interviewing under equal opp's conditions and we were not allowed to apply to one candidate a criterion that could not apply to another in this kind of way. I felt that the kind of thing that was mentioned here, given that is was not asked for in the application material, should have been asked at interview.

Perhaps I'm missing something; but it looks screwy to me. I wrote and told the chair so, who put it to the panel and they still nixed it but without giving any reason: so I'm left still wondering about that feed-back which was so badly fitting. Did they mix up my details with another candidate? Did they already have someone in mind and wanted to keep strong candidates from 'outside' out of the running? [!] Perhaps it was really random; they simply laid out the forms and chose every third form? Did someone who knows of me and didn't like what they thought they knew 'spike' the mix?

Anyway it's made me even more aware of the need for good process when setting up interviews; the more so as today I was actually involved in interviewing people for positions at the Fair Trade Cafe in Bradford ... which went well and I think we dealt with things justly ... perhaps I will blog again in a little about the lessons I think I've been learning about how to do this recruiting stuff well-ish.