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 would ask for more feedback from your line managers, and ask them for specific advice on how to improve your scores. Also spend time looking at the criteria (Success criteria if civil service) and develop your past examples of each and conforming to STAR (or similar). You can also ask someone to mentor you, and even give some time for mock interviews.

Absolutely this! They really wanted you! IMHO public sector recruitment is generally awful, so thankfully someone used common sense here.

unfortunately it is totally scored, you have to meet the criteria, you have to say a lot to score enough

In what way is having a fair process to all candidates 'absolutely awful'? As I said, we get hundreds of applications to posts we put out. If I didn't have a clear rationale for appointing that was applied equally to everyone I'd end up in court and be blasted for being unfair, as well as costing the public purse money in fines. I would be wasting hundreds of people's time if I made my mind up before recruiting. I work with a panel to recruit the best candidate for the role and my track history is excellent. I hate rejecting internal candidates but it's not a reason to have a process that is detrimental to external ones and breaks the law.

@IDontHateRainbows I would encourage you to be selfish in your career development. The joy of the public sector is it's massive if you get into civil service or NHS. You can shadow people or get a mentor to check roles out. There's secondment opportunities too. You can supercharge your career if you're ambitious and motivated and really build your cv, but it's hard work and you can't take anything for granted or take hiring decisions personally.

Yes, we offer to the highest scorer. But we make sure the candidate we want is the highest scorer. We will sit down together after the interview to do the scoring together.

I agree with other posters but also in my experience as both a recruiter and an applicant the scores are often massaged so that the desired applicant comes out on top. Interpreting the STAR examples is often quite subjective anyway even though you're assessing against criteria.

I've previously had to interview a candidate for a job they had been doing already for six years, big waste of everyone's time but it has to be "fair and open competition".

I do public sector recruitment, it’s score based.

Many moons ago I was the "other" candidate although working in a similar role (NHS). I had prepared well and gave appropriate examples to back up my answers. There was someone in post who went for the job and didn't get it as apparently she said "Oh you know what I am like to work with".Not sure if it was ignorance or complacency.

I think you're overthinking this now. Your experience in the role does count. It gives you the advantage of having done the thing you are being asked to demonstrate the skills for. What you have to do is shift your mindset from 'of course I'm suitable - I've been doing it!' to 'I've been doing this role, so what has made me suitable?'

They can only score what you say in the interview. Someone who hasn't done the job, but has transferable skills and shows insight and commitment to developing the skills for the role is going to score higher than someone who says 'well I've been doing it for a while, as you know...'. But someone who has been doing the job and pulls relevant examples of how they've addressed the scenarios put to them in practice and shows commitment to development in the role is likely to score better than the person who has no experience in it.

@darkforces well in principle it sounds fantastic. My experience however tells me otherwise.

It’s supposed to give everyone a fair chance and get the best candidate for the job and disregard the fact that they might be already friendly with panel so it’s unusual they’ve been able to appoint you. You’ll know for next time it really is down to what happens on the day.

in our local authority though they can keep extending a temporary contract without recruiting so you might be fine next time

Apologies @dontmalbeconme. Didn't mean to quote you. Not enough coffee yet.🤣

I've been in the public sector a long time and I've never heard of anyone being able to appoint anyone other than the highest scorer. I'd say you were extremely lucky.

OP they appointed you because they wanted to. If they didn’t they would have given it to the other candidate. They should never have said or implied it was a formality though. You should think about getting help with interview skills in future. I recommend a book called ‘the Perfect InInterview’ for some tips.

I absolutely think they should have set your expectations better - but having been doing that exact job for months is a massive advantage in interview, so they probably did think you would easily be able to shine in the interview. As you know now, you have to actively use that advantage to give better answers, not take it as a read, though.

You have been lucky but you also more have the advantage of knowing what sort of questions you are likely to be asked next time.
Someone has already mentioned this but remember that each question varies several points so you will not score 5/5 points of you only make a couple of points, even if they are good.
Another point to remember it's that your application is also pointed. You have to meet the person spec, and for shortlisting purposes they will have chosen some of the spec to give points to if evidenced in the application. So, go through it with a fine toothed comb and give evidence of everything mentioned. If there is something very specific mentioned that you do not have experience in, try and mention something similar that you have done, or say that you are willing to learn.
There is little wiggle room for shooing in favourite candidates and I have experienced an employment tribunal where my shortlisting, pointing and appointment has been scrutinised so anyone who ignores the points can get caught out! So definitely do not mention this at work!!

I was once the external candidate who outperformed the preferred internal candidate at interview and got the job. Which I was very successful at. In the public sector it always comes down to the interview.

So i should try and make at least 5 points/say 5 good things in my answer ? I always worry about waffling on but I suppose better to over than under do it?

I'm a hiring manager in a public sector position and you are extremely lucky that they decided to appoint you and I really don't think they should have done. Never be complacent about a job interview, especially a public sector one.

They have to score a minimum of 3 on every question to be appointable. There wouldn't be anyone who was that inconsistent who would be appointable.

It's not about 5 separate things - it's about covering the question as thoroughly as possible. You don't want to give 5 examples of the same thing.

I suggest you search something like “Civil Service Interview Scoring” there are YouTube videos that explain the system. If not civil service (or a department that doesn’t use Success profiles) then I would find out the criteria they score against and the definitions for those criteria. So “Working at Pace” has a full definition and there are strengths associated with it for each grade. And you should aim to show how you meet them all.

Based on the responses here you can see I'm hardly unusual in my approach. I recruit based on the law, not who my mates are.

Now where did I say that mates should be given first priority? Its clear to me that the interview process doesn't work.

Ok. Well you do you and I'll continue to actively apply the law when I recruit.