Public sector interviews - is this normal? (scoring)

[IDontHateRainbows]

Just wondering if anyone has experience interviewing or being interviewed within the public sector, and how rigid they are on appointing the highest scorer regardless of other factors.

I have been working in a role via agency for 10 months with excellent feedback, told the job was mine and interview just a formality etc but they have to advertise the role externally as per procedure to put me on a contract. I'm used to private sector where if someone is working well in the job as agency, you'd just do a quick internal interview and offer them a contract as after all if they can do the job well what is the need to further prove themselves in an interview?

Ihave had my interview which is for the exact same role, nd was pretty sure I'd get it so maybe didn't do as much prep as an external candidate. Big mistake as although I got offered, they then said to me they had nearly given it to another external candidate who scored slightly higher and had to make a special case to give it to me, the lower scorer. This was based on my performance in role which they hadn't been 'allowed' to consider before as I had to be treated the same as external candidates.

So by the skin of my teeth I have kept my job (going from agency to a contract) but I was suprised that I so nearly lost it and it's making me doubt whether the panel really wanted to appoint me due to some internal politics - given that the feedback I have had has always been positive and I had no reason to think they would consider anyone else particulary an 'unknown'

So I guess what I'm asking is - does being the slightly lower scorer usually throw you out, even if you are alread doing the job well, in favour of a higher scoring but unknown candidate - or did one of the panel really not want to appoint me?

in my experience in public sector, they’ve usually decided who they want to give the job to before the interview.

It absolutely has been the case in every civil service recruitment campaign I have been involved in. And in my experience as a candidate. I was doing a job on a temp basis and had excellent feedback but still had to apply and score the highest to secure it permanently. I'm actually surprised they were able to make a special case for you (assuming public sector is the same as civil service)

I have been involved in a lot of public sector recruitment and always appointed the highest scorer.

Always the highest scorer in my experience too.

My understanding is that they have to appoint the highest scorer.

I would imagine they generally they make sure that the candidate they want to appoint scores highest.

it's making me doubt whether the panel really wanted to appoint me due to some internal politics

Sounds like the opposite, they DID want to appoint you.

But in all interviews I always tell the candidates that we can only score what we see/hear on the day.

I actually think they’re on dodgy ground with rejecting the higher-scoring candidate.

I think you’re lucky to have got it as it sounds like you were a bit complacent going into the interview. Don’t make that mistake again!

All public sector departments I worked in always offered to highest scoring candidates. I knew a few who like you, didn’t prep and who also didn’t do good interviews thinking the job was in the bag, as they already did the job, and did not get offered the job.

My daughter just got a job in the public sector - She scored the highest (only just) and got the job.

Yep, totally normal. We can't pick someone just because they've been in the role for a few months, we have to show how they've scored in the interview against set criteria. We may be able to assign an extra point here or there, but we have to upload our notes from each answer and the corresponding score, which all interviewees are entitled to view if they wish.

Always prepare for your interviews, even if you think you're a shoo-in.

I’m quite surprised they gave it to you and I think you’ve been really lucky- most of the time, it would automatically go to the highest scorer.

These replies are making me realise I totally misjudged the situation and I definitely won't make this error again, and as the role is fixed term I'll have to go through it again in time.

In private sector you'd be crazy not to appoint a good performer who'd already proven their value through delivering well against an unknown who scored a smidgen higher!

I was actually beginning to think one of the panel who ill be working with closely secretly hated me and was trying to replace me so these replies have actually reassured me this may not be the case at all, which is immensely helpful.

Lesson learned!

I wouldn’t be going around telling anyone you got the job without being the highest scoring candidate, because if I was that candidate and got to hear about it, I might push back.

In my experience in the public and voluntary sector, they always appoint the highest scorer. The idea is that you appoint the best person for the role rather than appointing/rejecting someone because of a personal impression/bias/prejudice.
People who are interviewing you - even if they've seen you do the job perfectly well for ages - are allowed to take into account only what you put in your application form and say at interview.
I don't know whether you've been told how the scoring is done. If not, here's how.
Go through the person specification. For each 'essential' attribute, state you can fulfil this and give evidence/show how. Do this in detail and don't be modest. Then do the same for the 'desirable' ones. If you are weak on anything, address this. For example, if a desirable attribute is having a certain knowledge of skill, say you're learning this or willing to learn it. You'll need to be ready to repeat all this at interview.
You'll be giving a score for each attribute.

Sounds like they did want to appoint you but you didn’t perform in the interview as well as an external candidate. But taking into account that they know you, you perform well, they appointed you instead. Fair enough. They obviously like you.

I'm surprised you were offered the job too. I was a public sector manager for many years and we would always have offered the post to the highest scoring candidate. We had to submit documentation from interview scoring afterwards, so this could have been scrutinised and challenged. On more than one occasion I've had to break the news to an internal candidate (sometimes someone who had been on a temporary contract or who had been 'acting up' in a senior position) that they hadn't been appointed.

I think i was definitely complacent as id been told it was just a formality and they liked me, wanted me to stay on etc so I just presumed it was in the bag which I won't ever presume again!

I'm actually going to get some interview coaching as if this is how it works in public sector , all about your performance at the interview regardless of any previous feedback in the role, its clearly an important skill to develop and hone if i ever want to progress or even just remain in employment if not in a perm job.

This - we have to score when interviewing for nursing posts. If you were going from an agency to full term contract you were lucky that they were able to advocate for you.

One question for those who've interviewed this way - what would happen if a candidate scored really high on some questions and really low on others - but ended up a smidgen higher than a more 'stable' candidate who'd scored medium on everything. Would you still have to offer the higher one even if they'd given some really poor answers to some questions albeit balanced with high scores on others. Understand this is perhaps not a usual situation but if someone said some particularly 'red flaggy' things but this was balanced with high scores in other areas this would still have to give them the job?

When you're in the redundancy pool at my council then you get offered interview coaching when applying for internal roles, but absolutely the role goes to the highest score.

We also get audited, so each member of the panel submits their own scoring as well as the overall agreed score and discussion notes, so we can provide decent feedback and minimise bias as far as possible.

Think of it this way; an external, with no special knowledge of the job, managed to score higher than someone who should have walked it. They are probably likely to be significantly better at it. But better the devil you know. You’re lucky they made a special case. I would probably not have been allowed to.

Next time, do some serious prep work.

In my organisation there is actually a section for ‘reds’ evident in answers, which can be behavioural, blind spots, over used strengths at the detriment of other, more relevant approaches etc. So ‘red flag’ stuff, as you call it, does impact the overall score.

We weight the questions. And some are an ‘insta-fail’ is what I call them. If you don’t get a passing grade (which is fairly high) on the most important questions, you won’t go through. If we had concerns about a specific questions which was core, we would consult higher-ups and ask.

I’ve insta-failed someone for one sentence. Actually one word in one case (sexist).

I'm exceptionally surprised you got the job without scoring highest. Recruiting manager would be facing a disciplinary for doing that in my Public Sector organisation, and for good reason.

Amazed they could make an exception and I’d be double checking with someone senior that has all been officially approved as it is a complete no go - have they bumped your score to make you the highest in order to get the job? Either way I’d keep it quite as a HR case from the higher scorer very possible!

in terms of your question on averages - basically there is a minimum score for all questions (normally a 3/6) but yes if someone achieves the minimum in all it’s all about highest total points… eg 3,3,6,6 is appointed over 4,4,4,5.

either way best of luck! Defo prep next time as twice I’ve had to reject someone from a role they’d been doing for a year based on interview! Fair and open etc

My understanding is there they are allowed to take into account 'exceptional factors' where it is marginal between two candidates - they did consider a tiebreaker stage but were then able to apply the exceptional factor of my performance in the role so could appoint. It's all official now so it's been senior level approved. The other candidate has I think been offered another lower grade role..

Given that this is a fixed term contract albeit the role may go perm eventually, I am realising now that I will possibly lose it in a year's time if I'm not the highest scorer which is making me very nervous - I'll certainly do all the prep I can but realise nothing is guarateed.