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?

I always think of it as public sector = public money, so they have to be accountable for how they spend it and evidence the reason the candidates were appointed

Why would you bother scoring if you didn't then offer the job to the person with the highest score? I am also really surprised that they were able to offer you the job over the higher scoring candidate.

The point of scoring is to make it 'objective' - of course, it doesn't really because you can fix the scores if you want to.

We always interview in panels so often that averages out any particularly spiky performance.

Otherwise it would be a discussion if the top two or three candidates scored within a mark or two of each other but one had an even spread of scores whereas another it was more uneven.
Each question scored out of 5. Usually 8 questions. So potential for 40 points x no. of panel members. 120 marks max.

Someone scoring a two out of five or lower on any question is very likely to be discounted. Someone scoring five on a question about a technical skill we really need would be considered even if a few 3s in other questions. Someone scoring poorly on behavioural questions can be a red flag as about attitudes to work, developing themselves, teamwork.

Definite red flags for things like poor attitude, inappropriate language, rudeness about current employer or to other staff on interview day

Previous poster was correct. They know who they want for the job. They just like making people jump through hoops for no reason. Gives the “interviewers” a bit of power. Most aren’t qualified to interview anyone. A lot of the public sector is bollocks.

were then able to apply the exceptional factor of my performance in the role so could appoint.

If you think about it, and I do, they've given you points for something the other candidate had no opportunity to show. Again, very lucky.

And @Catpiece I have both experience and training in interviewing, and direction from people who have even more. I understand why people want it to be nonsense, because it makes not getting hired feel better. But if you go into an interview with that attitude, it probably leaks out.

You misunderstand me. I’ve only ever worked in the public sector. Started in 1980. Never failed an interview. What I’ve posted is what I’ve observed over the years.

Not in my teams.

No idea what sector you work in, but that's not been my experience in 30-plus years. We might have an idea that someone has been very successful (or unsuccessful) in a role, but it's only when we see the applications and go through the interview that we get a sense of the skills and experience that people are bringing to the role. As for 'power' - nope, never felt that way, although I imagine there are people across all 3 sectors who get off on it. Lack of interviewing skills? I've seen great interviewers and appalling ones in all 3 sectors again, and in the NHS there's no shortage of training on how to interview.

Yep this. I have seen loads of people lose out by assuming that they would get the job because of some factor that wasn't on the score sheet. I'm not saying that some people interviewing candidates cheat the system, but I have seldom seen it happen. We would never have been allowed the excption you were - highest scorer would have had the offer.

@Passthecake30 in my experience in public sector, they’ve usually decided who they want to give the job to before the interview.
I have never seen that happen and I am surprised that you have seen so much of it. Of course, there is another possibility. That the most obvious person for the role is the one that performs best at interview. I have seen that happen many, many times. Of course, to the disgruntled candidates who failed to secure the job it might look like having made the decision before the interview, or favouritism, or whatever else makes them feel better about not getting the offer and doesn't involve the fact that the other candidates failed to make the grade.

You think in every single public sector job this is the case? That's mad.
Maybe you should get involved in recruitment if you ever get the chance?

Absolutely this!

I interview in the public sector and we do it on scoring. This means losing some good people who are bad at interviews, but generally the internal candidates have help from colleagues and know which questions will come up so prepare better. The key to public sector interviews is to try and say 5 things for each question then they’ll give you 5 points whereas if you only make one or two excellent points (eg ‘what skills make you good for this job?’) they can’t score you highly

This is good advice and I need all I can get - I'm going to start making a note of any interview-worthy experiences I have during the coming 12 months in order to be sure of having lots of interview fodder - and then get some coaching on presentation / delivery to make sure this doesn't happen again.

I have a lot if experience of public sector interviews, on both sides of the table. It should always be the highest scorer, and based on interview performance only. You’re lucky @IDontHateRainbows, but you are in now. Good luck in your new role.

I'm expecting about 200 applications for the role I'm putting out soon. It'll go to the best candidate on the day. It's the only fair way and I refuse to waste 199 people and my time. You've been exceedingly lucky.

I’ve recruited for the NHS for years and the expectation is that the highest scoring candidate is appointed. There is the option of not doing but I’d be expected to justify, in writing, my reasons for doing so.

In my experience internal candidates can be at a disadvantage due to the mindset of ‘well they know I can do this’. I always advise internal candidates, who ask for advice, to state the bleeding obvious!

I always worked in the public sector sndvthirf sector snd in my experience they sre very strict sbout how they assess people. However much they like you, they go by a strict scoring system.and if yoi dont score yhe mkst tou dont get it. It feels unfair but that's what they do. At least that is my experience..And it is also my experience that they often pick rhe wrong person amd the outside person turns out to be rubbish .

Completely agree. They should never have said the interview was a formality. Completely irresponsible of recruiters

It was my now line manager who said this! And another panel member said 'we dont want anyone else' a couple of weeks before the interview Looking back i was terribly naive but I do think those in charge didn't set my expectations as they should.

I completely agree with you. They should have been upfront and honest about the process. At least you know for next time.

I don’t know specifically what you mean when you reference the public sector but for the Civil Service, it’s always the highest total scorer who gets put through and so my mind is a little blown as to how they’ve ’made an exception’ as you say for you as legally that shouldn’t happen. That’s why in the CS along with the one or two senior mangers/post owners who hold the interview there is always another ‘neutral’ senior manger on the panel who’s purpose is to ensure that the answers are fairly scored.

Re your Q about red flags, as said, it doesn’t matter as the panel will allocate based on the highest total score - however, if someone did give a completely leftfield or illogical answer to a Q, in the CS anyway, they are pretty good at either rewording the Q or asking a follow up on the same competency as they want to ensure they get the best candidate and so will ask follow up Qs to give that candidate a chance as it were to clarify/support a potential weakness so they don’t automatically score badly.

All that said, well done you got lucky but importantly you recognise it and sound appreciative but as other PP, I wouldn’t advertise how you were selected to anyone! And good luck with the role 🙂.

My advice to internal candidates is, “it’s yours to lose if you don’t prep. Remember that for the purposes of this interview we don’t know you so don’t rely on our knowledge, rely on yours”.

This is local gov not civil service.

The interview to get the role via agency was just a slightly informal discussion about what they wanted and whst I'd done before so I don't get how I've had such different experiences for the exact same role but I guess agency doesn't 'count' like a proper headcount role vacancy?

I agree entirely, I recently recruited someone that I’d known for over 20 years for a role I knew she’d be amazing at.

Despite her vast experience and how much I wanted her for the post I said, of course if some so and so comes along with loads of experience in the specialism then there’s no guarantees.

She massively swotted on the changes in the NHS and this particular specialism and she smashed it.

Thanks for everyone's comments. I had no idea the scoring rules were like this.
I'm thinking now not to necessarily wait until the 12 month contract is up to try and secure the role permanently as if i get outscored I'll be left high and dry. I'm going to start looking for perm roles elsewhere at the 6 month mark to be more sure of remaining employed which is a shame as I really like my job but I can't take the risk.of unemployment in this market.