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?

Have recruited a lot in 3rd sector and its always gone to highest scoring candidate so sounds like you were lucky. A couple of years back, I was on the panel that included interviewing the mat cover employee - they were arrogantly complacent about it being in the bag that interviewed dreadfully and we appointed externally to the higher scoring candidate, turned out that external candidate was dreadful but afaik they're still there.

Yes they have to advertise externally, they do not do internal interviews. By rights, the highest scorer should have got the job. 'special case ' is code for your face fits. So as much as they bang on about equal ops this didnt happen in this case as they gave the job to you

Yes. I'll carry on with the latest new recruits, one is hardly ever in for various different reasons, one who does fuck all, and another who has to constantly remove themselves from the environment as its all too much. Excellent use of public funds.

I think this is appalling. I’ve interviewed several n these panels and when I’ve done it it’s always gone to the highest scorer. The external candidate has had their time completely wasted if they don’t get the job despite being the highest scorer. They could have paid money to travel etc. if they ask to see the scores then people are going to be in trouble. We’ve always had to keep the score sheets and send to hr after.

I had to interview for my own job about a decade ago, and my manager actually made a point of coaching me and hinting at what the themes of the interview questions would be, just to ensure I scored highest and got to keep my job! Obviously not totally above board but they wanted to keep me!

I know the scoring system is designed to minimise bias but in these sorts of situations, where the employee is already known to the employer, there's a huge amount of bias... it does seem like a different approach is needed under those circumstances.

I have been on many interview panels and the job has always gone to the highest scorer, sometimes when we have had a gut feeling that they maybe weren't really the best candidate in fact. But you can only score on what you see on the application and on the day, and on every panel I have sat on there's been a representative from the relevant Royal College and/or someone from HR breathing down the panel members' necks to ensure the rules are followed. I can think of a couple of occasions when excellent, well liked long term locums who have proved themselves capable of doing the job have not been appointed permanently because they have been outperformed by someone else at interview. Whether we've always actually got the best person for the job is debatable, but in my experience the required procedures have always been followed.

Perhaps you've been very unlucky. Or you are not very good at interviews? Getting through public sector interview is a distinct skill. I've had to reject amazing internal candidates for positions after poor interviews- it's frustrating but we have both ethics and procedures in place meaning that unless you're very corrupt you recruit properly.

I am not talking about myself. I have a job in local government..but its becoming untenable due to the quality of recruitment.

Ask to join the recruiting team. Sure you'll do a much better job than the rest of us.

As if it works like that

in my experience, while the highest scorer gets offered first, the scoring will reflect who they most want, iyswim, particularly where one candidate is already performing in role. However, I've twice had to offer to highest scores who were not our preferred, but fortunately both times they turned down and it went to our preferred second scores.

I’ve worked in civil service 10yrs and they are very strict on points scoring. They’ve def helped u out for sure!
I have an example of one recently and it was quite ridiculous but they basically weren’t expecting anyone internally to apply apart from the person doing the role. The unexpected person scored higher so they got the job of the person doing the job and doing it very well. They then had to fill the other persons role so offered it to person that scored slightly less but still scored well. So basically they’ve swapped jobs and now need to train each other 🤣

Sounds like I was extremely lucky - I would have regretted missing out on the job so much, having developed this role pretty much from scratch over the past year. Thankfully the person on the panel with the most stake in my output perhaps saw that as she was the one who pushed for the exception.

I am now worried about my fate in 12 months time and whether it would be better to try and line up a perm job before - dilemma - but if I do decide to wait it out and go for it (role is likely but not certain to go perm) then at least I know now not to take any bloody chances and will do a lot of research into how these interviews work.

In my experience it’s always the highest scorer. When you’ve done it before you have an advantage though because you just need to know how to play the game. Points win prizes and there is usually a person specification with the job role so you need to be ticking off those attributes in the interview to get the points.

If you get a chance to do recruitment training in your organisation go for it. It'll give you a lot of insight into the process

Yes, it's normal. And ridiculous.
I went from a temp to permanent in public sector, they gave me a couple of hints for the interview.

We used to see utter idiots employed just because they scored the highest points and they'd last a few weeks. Such a waste of time and money.
I did mention it in my exit interview many years later. There should have been some sense checking so the right person got the job, not just the highest scorer.

I hope you interviewers have a watertight case if the person who didn’t get the job puts in a subject access request for their and the other candidate’s interview scores.

Agree with this. I remember a case where this happened in my department some years ago, and it didn't end well.

My understanding is that this isn't a legal issue, unless a protected characteristic was a factor. The LA I work for allows exceptional circumstances to be taken into account, one of which is previous work performance so i don't think they would need a watertight case as they are still playing by their own rules? And if they didn't, none of my business really as I didn't ask them to bend the rules although will be eternally grateful of course that they did.

Having been an interviewer under local government procedures in the past, I would agree that you are not supposed to take your knowledge of the person’s ability to do the job into account and you have to base it on responses to interview questions given on the day. An individual interviewer could skew their responses/scores in favour of the person they know but all paperwork from the interview needs to be kept for scrutiny in case of appeals. It’s also possible that a whole panel may skew in favour of the person they know, although this wouldn’t work if there is a HR person supporting and monitoring the process . But you still have to appoint as per evidence on the paperwork.

Yes @pinkpony88it is definitely knowing how to ‘play the game’ and evidencing the person spec is absolutely key. Never, ever assume that the panel will make assumptions that you can do particular things if you don’t actually say that you can (with examples).

We appoint based on scores, but we can look at individual scores so if two scored the same then we could choose that the more consistent was a better fit to the role, or that the higher scorer in one area was a better fit.

(eg. Technical role, could have two people score 8, one from 3+5 and the other 4+4).

We also need candidates to ‘pass’ each question. So a 5,5,0 wouldn’t be appointed over a 3,3,3.

As I said somewhere else, I've experienced ppl being recruited under this system who turned out to be awful workers. And other ppl turned up for the interview who I felt would have been better. I think I prefer the old days when people chatted and got a feel for what the person could do and recruited based on actually assessing in real time what the applicant was like. I do understand why recruitment is done using this system, but like I said, I'm not entirely convinced it works. I've definitely seen some people lose out who would have fitted in brilliantly, where the person who DID get the job left after a short time because they were a bad fit.

From my private sector background, things are very different there when it's the SAME job not a promotion - if you had someone doing that on a temp or agency basis that you liked you'd probably just advertise internally and do a bit of a sham interview to secure them - if no one else was interested or had a relevant skill set a little more than a chat. In fact I can remember people on agency contracts where the company wanted to put them on fixed term and they were just offered the contract with no interview at all.

This has all made me realise - no good busting a gut slogging it and getting great feedback if I can't then evidence this at an interview where I have to be treated the same as someone they don't know from adam - so I am going to get some proper interview coaching on public sector style interviews and ensure I'm fully battle-ready for next time as I wake up every day shuddering at the thought of what I could have very nearly lost and thanking my lucky stars that someone was able to make an exception on this occasion.