To Q if interview candidates are really chosen solely based on scoring the most points?

[LemonWasp]

I wonder if the best candidate is always the one who scores highest on paper. What if the panel doesn’t like them or they don’t come across well during the interview, even if they technically scored the most points? Shouldn’t personal rapport and overall presentation play a role in the decision?

Depends on the employer I suppose. I've sat on interview panels for my employer that aren't for my department so I don't really need rapport. We also get down to business quite quickly so there isn't much of you to get to know or like. We also hired over Zoom during covid so again, less time for rapport building.

Eta - a smaller company might care but ultimately if you need someone to do accounts and someone shoes better, you probably want the person with the most ecident capability.

It's all fun and games until you have to coach or ultimately performance manage a lovely person because they aren't up to the job and then recruit AGAIN.

In the civil service yes

Definitely isn't in the NHS.

There's a minimum score to be appointable, but after that we consider relevance of skill set, team dynamics etc.

Charity sector. Unfortunately yes.

I had the misfortune of interviewing 3 candidates for a job. I knew all 3 of them. I knew which was the most capable. Unfortunately I had to offer the job to the candidate who interviewed best, even though I knew she wouldn't be as good at the job. So frustrating.

If the scores are close I pick the best fit, I wouldn't pick someone with a drastically lower score though, although I have chosen not to appoint where someone has scored well but just wasn't right for the role.
Some of the reasons I haven't appointed despite a high score was a ridiculous commute that we knew wouldn't work and they had suggested they would be looking for more home working than we could offer. Someone who was quite abrupt and rude despite answering the questions well and I knew would clash with others in the team.
I have heard of companies who have a policy whereby it is simply highest score gets the post, but everywhere I've ever worked and recruited at we have taken a common sense approach.

Can't really say if YABU or YANBU as it is a "it depends" situation.

Depends on the job.
It will also depend on how much collaboration or team working there is.
Might depend on if you do most of your role, out and about, on your own or if there are a small team, all working in close proximity.

So yes, in some roles, "personal rapport and overall presentation" will be important, in others, it will be less so - but, if there are candidates on equal "points" as you put it, then I think human nature would lead you towards appointing someone you feel would fit in really well with people already there.

Yep same. Charity I worked in had a strict scoring process. Panel weren't allowed discuss candidates and all scored independently and submitted scores to HR. Hiring manager was then told who they were hiring. I hated it.

Where I work the official policy is highest scores but the reality is if someone comes across as a poor fit they aren't appointed.

I interviewed someone who had amazing experience and answers but was very critical of her current workplace including specific individuals, it just seemed like such a glaring red flag she wasn't appointed.

Yes. But of course you may tend to score more harshly those who you don't like. But all our panels are 2 or 3 so that overrides one person taking against the candidate.

What if the panel doesn’t like them or they don’t come across well during the interview, even if they technically scored the most points? Shouldn’t personal rapport and overall presentation play a role in the decision?

Of course it does and that influences the scoring whether consciously or unconsciously.

It's one of the reasons why subconscious bias training is such a waste of time.

If you are subconsciously biased against (eg random choice) men with long hair and a Newcastle accent but you are a white middle class woman who went to Oxford with a cut glass accent, you maybe aware of and identify your bias but if you interview two candidates one who is a man with long hair with a Newcastle accent and the other is a woman just like you, you will feel more comfortable with the woman and it will influence both your scoring and the candidates performance because they will subconsciously sense rapport v repellence

You won't be consciously thinking well I don't want Newky BrownAle working here so I'm going to score him a bit lower, you'll do it anyway.

Charity and mostly. I was on one panel where the top two candidates had half a point difference. We discussed it for ages, and ultimately went for the lower scoring candidate as we felt she better fit the role and organisation.

We interview everyone who meets the person spec.

tbh, a recent recruitment round ended up heavily biased towards people that did well on a Word test I'd put together.
I know it's trainable, but if someone's put in their application that they have excellent MS365 skills, but they don't have a scoobie how to use a page break, add in a footer or they take 45 minutes to copy type a single paragraph and don't even bother to correct the typos that Word flags up with giant red wavy lines, it makes me wonder how much else of the application is bullshit.

And alot of the time, there is already someone lined up 4 the job! Although I could never prove that in a court of law

I've recently had feedback from an interview for which I wasn't appointed for the post.

A number of us scored above the threshold in the final interview (very strong field). In the information pack for the post, the organisation stated that there were underrepresented regions/countries and an aspiration was to recruit to address this. (It's not that unusual to see packs that emphasise a preference for candidates for (say) Scotland, Wales, NI.)

They opted to appoint a candidate who was over the threshold and from an unrepresented area. Disappointing as this is to the unsuccessful candidates (includes me), that makes sense for the organisational needs as it potentially brings a better balance to missing local/national knowledge.

Rapport and overall presentation doesn’t necessarily equate to doing the job best of all or various other positive people can bring to a job.

Imo "personal rapport and overall presentation" should definitely not play a role in the decision.

Taking account of either could lead to indirect discrimination. An interviewer may find it easier to have "rapport" with someone of a particular sex, ethnicity or sexual orientation; and "presentation" is something of a value judgment.

Where I work, recruitment is done solely on points, and where technical knowledge is required, there's often a test as well as an interview.

Definitely is in my bit of the NHS.

Public sector, yes, although I've been on a panel where we made the scoring work in our favour...

Private sector, not so much. Was on one where we did a first round for a role in my team and my preferred candidate was about ten points ahead of everyone else. My manager insisted we did a second round, so we had to interview the second highest scoring. Unfortunately they were only half a point ahead of the one behind them. So we ended up doing second interviews with all three of them. The purpose of the second interview was more cultural / personality fit. My manager hated the first two, and the first candidate seemed a good compromise. They were awful in the role, and didn't pass probation.

Which takes us back round to it depending on the job.

It could be a very important skill for example in a job where you are there to gain the trust of families or individuals who don't trust 'authority' , to be able to support them.
It will matter less if you are a field worker counting the number of insects / mammals / fish for an environmental survey.

Not always. We're looking for the best candidate. The questions and scores should help you identify that person but fit for the team is really important and impossible to score with a question. The scores will generally reflect who the best candidate is, but we often give it to someone who scores slightly lower based on fit and gut feel.
You could also find that someone who is exceptional in a couple of areas could score higher than a good all rounder, but that wouldn't necessarily make them better at the job, especially if those skills happened to be less important than some of the others.

It was when I worked in the public sector. As a result we ended up with two awful members of the admin team. That cost time and money replacing them after they inevitably left after a short period.

I did mention it in my exit interview many years later.

In my experience, the public sector are quite rigid about this. However, I had it in reverse whereby I went for a promotion and I was highest scoring candidate by a considerable margin. Senior management wanted to appoint me but it transpired my line manager didn't. She had the final say as she would be working alongside me. Long story short: boss lady , later, appointed one of her chums, to the position. I resigned from my position, shortly afterwards, as it felt untenable.

Therefore, I think sometimes 'fit' can be the deciding factor.

Yes and its infuriating. Someone i think would be a great fit for the department we would reject because they didn't answer the question as well as Mr knob head. Ive often had to fight this but often lost

I work for the civil service and it's 100% who scores the highest.

We score candidates on behaviours as well as their technical responses, so it gives some wiggle room when it comes to team fit etc.