Lack of diversity in interview panel in civil service

[JoanJettsBlackheads]

I currently work for the civil service, am a G6, and recently had an interview for a job in another department. They wanted someone with strong experience of leading large teams, and I was asked if I would consider applying for the job, as I’ve previously headed up departments of 80 and 60 staff.

I was one of the last two. The interview didn’t go well, and I could tell from body language that they weren’t really interested. I found out later that the job went to a male G7 in his mid 30s, on promotion. He’s never had to manage more than four people. (This job is managing a department of 70+)

The interview panel consisted of two fast stream G7s, both Oxbridge, in their early 30s, and the SCS hiring manager who was in his early 40s. I’m in my late 50s. I also realised after the interview that there was no independent panel member, as both the G7s work directly to the SCS man.

The SCS officer has offered me feedback, which I’ve accepted. Would it be wrong of me to point out the lack of diversity in the panel (although one of the G7s was a woman), and the fact that there was no independent panel member? I know I could have appealed this within 24 hours of the interview, but wasn’t really in any position to do so - I’d only had 48 hours notice of the interview. Should I also complain to HR?

Alternatively, has anyone any advice on how to interview with the confidence of a 30 something Oxbridge man? As I keep being beaten for jobs and 9 times out of 10 it’s to someone who fits this profile. I’ve also interviewed men with this profile for jobs and while a lot of them can talk the talk at interview, they’ve been arrogant disasters actually doing the job!

The Civil Service is a jobs for the boys club and always has been. ~60% of perm secs went to Oxbridge.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/elitist-britain-2019/elitist-britain-2019-the-educational-pathways-of-britains-leading-people-summary

Maybe he was just a better candidate…

Ignore the Oxbridge issue. It's good that the CS can still attract the best, and I honestly don't think that will have made any difference. In some ways it can be detrimental, bizarrely.

Age though, yes, definitely.

I would mention the lack of diversity on the panel and there being no independent member. Also, the 48 hour notice that disadvantages people with demanding jobs and caring responsibilities.

In fact, I think I'd say you're letting them know as a courtesy and you will be taking your concerns about the process to HR, as they oversee it.

This stuff is really important. The civil service prides itself on its 'blind' sift process, which becomes meaningless if they don't carry the measures to reduce bias through to the interview stage.

OP, I believe you are entitled to a minimum of 5 working days for interview notice. Did you ask for this before confirming? What did they say?

Regards the panel, it is best practise but not essential for the panel to have panel outside of line management/the dept. especially is this is an emergency FTA/TP, which might explain the short interview period? I think raising this generally with HR, but not making a complaint is the best way forward, as it’s unlikely to have an impact on the job outcome.

Regards the “ageist” comment. That’s a tough one. It’s talking about how you presented, not what answered. If this was a success profiles interview, it would be wrong to mark you down in that. You are entitled to ask for your scores based on behaviours competency and see where they were low. If you were marked down on that, I’d genuinely raise it with HR.

You said it was a long week, and you only had two days to prep for interview - you may well have been tired and unable to take the time to prep for it. That’s your responsibility and you have to own it. Sorry if that sounds tough but it’s true. I’ve made the same mistake myself and turned up flustered to interviews, bouncing out of an overrun teams meeting.

I have it up to my neck with young arrogant men sailing into senior roles. It’s an age old conundrum. I don’t have the answer there. But honestly, I see the same with older folk who believe they are entitled to senior or management roles on the merit of being older, without at all working on their own continuing development. It doesn’t mean you’re the better person for the job because you’re older and have more work experience.

So the question I would pose back to you as a hiring manager were you better than him on the day? Why not?
If the answer is because you’re not a young white posh lad, move, and leave that as your feedback.

Is it normal to have two people of the grade below the role you’re interviewing for to be on the panel?!

I’d note the lack of independent panel member, but probably not the lack of diversity. I would be annoyed, but not sure ‘they were too young and posh’ would go down well.

I do find that younger panels tend to favour younger candidates. They speak the same jargon, and want to think they all deserve to be shooting up the pole. They often seem to think older people at about their level must have got ‘stuck’ for some reason.

Eyerolls ok, ~60% of them went to private school. Still think they're "the best" instead of just "the richest"?

He was clearly very good at interviews, but he’s going to find it quite a stretch going from leading a team of 4 to managing an entire department. Had I been the hiring manager I would not have shortlisted someone with so little experience of leading large teams.

@Words you are spot on.

Def mention the 48hr notice and the lack of diversity on the panel. I work in a Dept that has worked really hard to diversify as it was really male heavy. Our HR is very hot on making sure panels are diverse in terms of gender and race /ethnicity. It's harder when recruiting at G6 upwards levels, as obviously the pool of potential panel members is smaller, but we all give up our time to be the 3rd independent member on panels run by other teams if needed. Sorry you weren't successful this time.

You’re assuming only some candidates have caring responsibilities. It could be all or none. Ive been involved in interviews where some candidates have prepared to the nth degree but interviewed terribly, others where candidates didn't prep as well but interviewed really well.
By the actual interview stage, I think having someone prepare presentations etc is pretty pointless. Their application letter should tell you all you need to know, and how they come across in the actual interview will tell you if they're going to be a good fit.

He got the job because in OP’s own words: ‘the interview didn’t go well’

Perhaps they were looking for someone to train up rather than someone who had a set way of leading a team? Maybe one of the interviewers was a mate of his.
If the interview panel were more diverse or if you had been given 3 more days to prep, do you think you would have performed better on the day? It’s perhaps a good idea to point out these issues to HR if the recruitment process wasn’t applied fairly.

@JoanJettsBlackheads
That's a completely ludicrous decision and I am so sorry I failed to read your post properly.

I have always avoided onerous management of large teams ( and chapeau to you Joan, for doing so- my god, I know what that involves!) - mainly because I had enough humility to know I would be utterly rubbish at it, so found my niche elsewhere.

The young bloods of today are different.

It's no comfort to say it's their loss, but it absolutely is.

Have a glass of wine and watch this. It chimes with your username.

yes, I saw that. But my question is ‘why?’
@Michelle12A

It’s not fair if OP wasn’t given a fair chance, but also doesn’t help your own progress to dismiss a crap interview experience as discriminatory.

Ach. Just google Joan jett I love getting old.

Link doesn't work.

I told you I was old!

@Soontobe60 why would you assume that more experienced people have a set way of leading a team?

I think a more diverse panel would have been fairer and less likely to recruit “in their own image.”

I would also say that I didn’t deserve the marks I was given. The interview didn’t go brilliantly but it wasn’t completely pants. (I was given 1s and 2s.)

That’s not good. Even if you weren’t great, I’d trust you weren’t that bad. That seems fishy - I’d challenge that scoring first and then bring up the panel structure.

• One mark: This indicates no positive evidence to evaluate the candidate's behaviour. It can also denote negative evidence, depending on the interviewer's understanding and impression.
• Two marks: This denotes limited positive evidence or primarily negative evidence for specific behaviours.

You mean, would you offer a job to an experenced, knowledgeable middleaged, (and potentially disabled with the inherent effects many disabilities have upon perceived physical strength and energy) woman in perimenopause when you could have a brighteyed young man without experience?

@NeverDropYourMooncup are you ok?

So they had two G7s on the interview panel for a G6 post?

That’s bizarre. What does that department’s recruitment and selection policy say about the make-up of panels? I wouldn’t expect to be interviewed for a G6 post by a G7, unless the G7 was the HR rep on the panel.

Was experience of managing a large team one of the essential criteria? If so, he shouldn’t have been shortlisted.

I agree with the pp who said this

“I do find that younger panels tend to favour younger candidates. They speak the same jargon, and want to think they all deserve to be shooting up the pole. They often seem to think older people at about their level must have got ‘stuck’ for some reason.”

And women are subjected to ageism more than men.

m_

Hope this works Joan

One of the G 7s must have been HR or I couldn't see how this panel was legitimate as the interview was for a G6 ( are you mad )

Sounds like the panel was completely clueless.

Firstly, they can’t have done any unconscious bias training if they believe it’s ok to use something like “energetic and dynamic” as criteria. And if energetic / dynamic wasn’t in the criteria, why are they even commenting on that in the feedback?

Secondly, they are idiots to actually put “tired and lacking energy” in their written feedback. It could easily leave them open to accusations of bias / indirect discrimination on the grounds of age.

I'm surprised that one SCS snd two grade 7s were allowed to be the panel for a G6 recruitment. The G7s won't have had the strategic leadership experience to make judgements about suitability for the role and therefore this places too much on the Scs judgment. I would query the process- ask for some to review the departments recruiting practices.