Husband passed over for promotion. What to say?

[Anonymous]

My husband just found out he was passed over for a promotion. He heard through the grape vine that he was the more qualified candidate, but that the person promoting felt obligated to go with the candidate with more longevity.

He's pretty upset. I'm not sure what exactly to say to him. I've been telling him to not change, to not act different and prove them right, but to prove them wrong. Maybe this is bad advice?

Any tips on bringing up his spirits? He seems to be counting on me, even though I know his coworkers have been supporting him.

[Anonymous]

tell him to keep smiling and act like a team player. moments like these, you can do a lot of damage to yourself.

[Anonymous]

Have his favorite food for dinner and make him a stiff drink. Drink a bottle of wine together.

Don't try to make him feel better, say, "that sucks" ... don't give advice.

[Anonymous]

BJs help.

[Anonymous]

Be thankful he wasn't let go. Happened to my spouse a few months ago.

[Anonymous]

"Longevity" sounds like age discrimination unless there's some other explanation. How old is he and how old is the person who got it?

But to answer your question, I'd try to ramp up the happiness factor and quality of life at home, to make him feel that work is only one part of his life and other parts of his life are pretty great. I wouldn't give him advice unless he asks for it, and then the advice would be aimed at helping him make it work and keeping his job. Could he find another job or is his industry hard to find something these days?

[Anonymous]

Encourage him to keep up performance and appearance. He can either stay and hope for another promotion to come soon, or begin quietly looking for other (higher level) positions elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Longevity" sounds like age discrimination unless there's some other explanation. How old is he and how old is the person who got it?

But to answer your question, I'd try to ramp up the happiness factor and quality of life at home, to make him feel that work is only one part of his life and other parts of his life are pretty great. I wouldn't give him advice unless he asks for it, and then the advice would be aimed at helping him make it work and keeping his job. Could he find another job or is his industry hard to find something these days?

Not necessarily. There are many companies and institutions that reward seniority within the company. If you are choosing between two candidates and both are qualified for the position, you choose the one who has been with the company longer as a reward for providing good service over many years. Even if the second candidate has more experience or skills, if the person with more seniority is qualified for the position, you give that person the job. You may not like it, but is a common convention. While it is nice to be a pure meritocracy, it isn't always in the best interests of the company itself. Having a good person who can do what you need, is devoted to your company and will stay through thick and thin is worth a lot more than a shining start who takes a job (or two) and then bails with that wonderful experience and skill set to another company who offers him/her a new dangling carrot or bigger salary. The key is that both have to be qualified for the job, even if not necessarily the best qualified for the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Longevity" sounds like age discrimination unless there's some other explanation. How old is he and how old is the person who got it?

But to answer your question, I'd try to ramp up the happiness factor and quality of life at home, to make him feel that work is only one part of his life and other parts of his life are pretty great. I wouldn't give him advice unless he asks for it, and then the advice would be aimed at helping him make it work and keeping his job. Could he find another job or is his industry hard to find something these days?

Not necessarily. There are many companies and institutions that reward seniority within the company. If you are choosing between two candidates and both are qualified for the position, you choose the one who has been with the company longer as a reward for providing good service over many years. Even if the second candidate has more experience or skills, if the person with more seniority is qualified for the position, you give that person the job. You may not like it, but is a common convention. While it is nice to be a pure meritocracy, it isn't always in the best interests of the company itself. Having a good person who can do what you need, is devoted to your company and will stay through thick and thin is worth a lot more than a shining start who takes a job (or two) and then bails with that wonderful experience and skill set to another company who offers him/her a new dangling carrot or bigger salary. The key is that both have to be qualified for the job, even if not necessarily the best qualified for the job.

I think OP needs to clarify this in terms of longevity. The way I read it, it sounded like company picked the younger candidate because s/he would have longevity in terms of years of employment left in career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Longevity" sounds like age discrimination unless there's some other explanation. How old is he and how old is the person who got it?

But to answer your question, I'd try to ramp up the happiness factor and quality of life at home, to make him feel that work is only one part of his life and other parts of his life are pretty great. I wouldn't give him advice unless he asks for it, and then the advice would be aimed at helping him make it work and keeping his job. Could he find another job or is his industry hard to find something these days?

Not necessarily. There are many companies and institutions that reward seniority within the company. If you are choosing between two candidates and both are qualified for the position, you choose the one who has been with the company longer as a reward for providing good service over many years. Even if the second candidate has more experience or skills, if the person with more seniority is qualified for the position, you give that person the job. You may not like it, but is a common convention. While it is nice to be a pure meritocracy, it isn't always in the best interests of the company itself. Having a good person who can do what you need, is devoted to your company and will stay through thick and thin is worth a lot more than a shining start who takes a job (or two) and then bails with that wonderful experience and skill set to another company who offers him/her a new dangling carrot or bigger salary. The key is that both have to be qualified for the job, even if not necessarily the best qualified for the job.

I think OP needs to clarify this in terms of longevity. The way I read it, it sounded like company picked the younger candidate because s/he would have longevity in terms of years of employment left in career.

Ah, I see how you read this. To me, it echo'ed the oft-repeated complaint that young, smart up-and-coming people don't get the good opportunities because of older people (often implied that the older peers don't deserve the opportunities) in their way.

Yes, OP needs to clarify the term longevity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Longevity" sounds like age discrimination unless there's some other explanation. How old is he and how old is the person who got it?

But to answer your question, I'd try to ramp up the happiness factor and quality of life at home, to make him feel that work is only one part of his life and other parts of his life are pretty great. I wouldn't give him advice unless he asks for it, and then the advice would be aimed at helping him make it work and keeping his job. Could he find another job or is his industry hard to find something these days?

Not necessarily. There are many companies and institutions that reward seniority within the company. If you are choosing between two candidates and both are qualified for the position, you choose the one who has been with the company longer as a reward for providing good service over many years. Even if the second candidate has more experience or skills, if the person with more seniority is qualified for the position, you give that person the job. You may not like it, but is a common convention. While it is nice to be a pure meritocracy, it isn't always in the best interests of the company itself. Having a good person who can do what you need, is devoted to your company and will stay through thick and thin is worth a lot more than a shining start who takes a job (or two) and then bails with that wonderful experience and skill set to another company who offers him/her a new dangling carrot or bigger salary. The key is that both have to be qualified for the job, even if not necessarily the best qualified for the job.

I think OP needs to clarify this in terms of longevity. The way I read it, it sounded like company picked the younger candidate because s/he would have longevity in terms of years of employment left in career.

Ah, I see how you read this. To me, it echo'ed the oft-repeated complaint that young, smart up-and-coming people don't get the good opportunities because of older people (often implied that the older peers don't deserve the opportunities) in their way.

Yes, OP needs to clarify the term longevity.

But does someone older and with more seniority always "deserve" the opportunities, simple because they've been there longest, even if a hard-working, ambitious up-and-coming is more highly-qualified? Is it really that black and white?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BJs help.

Yep. You'd be surprised what hot sex can do for a man's self worth. I wouldn't offer any advice, per se, but I'd just be supportive, let him vent, then just bang his brains out a lot.

In the grand scheme of things, not getting a promotion, while being a bummer, is really not such a big deal. I wouldn't put too much stake in the other candidate getting the promotion because of seniority. Often times people will say that to the people that lost out to make them feel better but the other candidate may very well have been more qualified.

[rebecca99]

Nothing could console him more than the way you could by showing your care and love to him. Tell him that he has nothing to prove to others because he have proven to be the best for his family and that is enough. I'm sure he will get over it and just continue to do his best regardless of the reward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Longevity" sounds like age discrimination unless there's some other explanation. How old is he and how old is the person who got it?

But to answer your question, I'd try to ramp up the happiness factor and quality of life at home, to make him feel that work is only one part of his life and other parts of his life are pretty great. I wouldn't give him advice unless he asks for it, and then the advice would be aimed at helping him make it work and keeping his job. Could he find another job or is his industry hard to find something these days?

Not necessarily. There are many companies and institutions that reward seniority within the company. If you are choosing between two candidates and both are qualified for the position, you choose the one who has been with the company longer as a reward for providing good service over many years. Even if the second candidate has more experience or skills, if the person with more seniority is qualified for the position, you give that person the job. You may not like it, but is a common convention. While it is nice to be a pure meritocracy, it isn't always in the best interests of the company itself. Having a good person who can do what you need, is devoted to your company and will stay through thick and thin is worth a lot more than a shining start who takes a job (or two) and then bails with that wonderful experience and skill set to another company who offers him/her a new dangling carrot or bigger salary. The key is that both have to be qualified for the job, even if not necessarily the best qualified for the job.

I think OP needs to clarify this in terms of longevity. The way I read it, it sounded like company picked the younger candidate because s/he would have longevity in terms of years of employment left in career.

Ah, I see how you read this. To me, it echo'ed the oft-repeated complaint that young, smart up-and-coming people don't get the good opportunities because of older people (often implied that the older peers don't deserve the opportunities) in their way.

Yes, OP needs to clarify the term longevity.

But does someone older and with more seniority always "deserve" the opportunities, simple because they've been there longest, even if a hard-working, ambitious up-and-coming is more highly-qualified? Is it really that black and white?

I'm the PP above you. Of course not. This type of decision is fully in the control of the person who has the final say in awarding the job. There are managers who reward seniority and there are managers who reward merit. There's no right answer. It's the responsibility of the person who will be hiring the position, and typically who will be managing the position, to decide which particular qualification(s) that they deem more important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:tell him to keep smiling and act like a team player. moments like these, you can do a lot of damage to yourself.

+ 1000

Handle himself with grace. The next promotion is his.