Let's Abandon Interviews!

The UK civil service and other public sector recruiters put great weight on interviews when selecting amongst candidates for their more senior roles.  I am far from sure that this results in the best candidates being appointed.

Summarising briefly, candidates for senior jobs in the UK public sector are typically 'sifted' down to a shortlist of four to six who are then all interviewed at hourly intervals by a three-strong panel. This allows 45 minutes for the interview itself plus 15 minutes for the panel to compare notes etc. The interviewers often ask candidates to make short opening presentations.

It is now 10 years since Catherine Baxendale reported¹ that:

[Senior Civil Service] panel interviews were…impersonal and [lacked] depth. ‘[The interview was] dispiriting and weird.. a tick box process that did not acknowledge me as an individual’. The competency based interview…did not allow for candidates to get to know the people or the role properly. This is in stark contrast to people’s experience of the private sector which often involved ‘adult conversations and some charming. In the Civil Service it felt like they were reluctantly choosing the least worst option’.

Sadly, it was not surprising that the Institute for Government reported², eight years later, that little had changed.

Conversations, not Interrogations

So what is to be done?

I think we should begin by abandoning the standard 45 minute interview. Some confident types appear to interview well. Others, perhaps more thoughtful, need more time or a less confrontational format. As one excellent candidate said to me:

My first thoughts are never my best ones. I need to go away, be quiet, and think things through to have an actual good reflection.

The best interviews are conversations, not interrogations. Interviewers need to respond to, and if necessary gently challenge, what the candidate says. They need to understand why they have might have been given an apparently odd answer to one of their questions.

It is therefore generally much better to arrange for short-listed candidates to have two discussions with two different halves of a four-person recruitment panel. These are more relaxing for the candidate and facilitate a much deeper investigation of the candidates' interests, character, strengths and weaknesses. This may seem time consuming, but it is a lot less time consuming than dealing with the aftermath of a sub-optimal appointment.

And do we always have to start with those 'five minute presentations'? They used to terrify me, especially when there was no reaction from the interviewing panel who immediately moved on to their pre-prepared questions. Did they love it or hate it, or had I missed the point entirely? Some candidates are natural performers; others aren't. Does the job really require high-level presentation skills above anything else?

Such presentations also discriminate against candidates who have not worked in the civil service. The panel and any internal candidates will both understand the implications of the question that is to be answered in the presentation. But external interviewees will find it much harder to give a relevant and properly considered answer, and this might be seen as a weakness unless an extended interview allows discussion and gentle challenge, without too tight a time constraint.

Dinosaurs appoint baby dinosaurs

Another problem is that we all tend to appoint in our own image (dinosaurs appoint baby dinosaurs) and this is even more likely to happen when the decision is made immediately after face-to-face interviews.

Interviews should therefore always be merely a small element in a process that begins with the application letter and CV, and hopefully includes significant pre-interview conversations, at least with short-listed candidates. It is best to rank candidates in advance of final discussion/interview based on a careful (and sceptical/evidence based) review of their achievements in previous jobs. The interviews can then be used to test the accuracy of the ranking, rather than as an event on which the whole process hinges. 

For the avoidance of doubt, there is nothing in UK equality legislation (or practice) that requires all candidates to face the same questions. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service does suggest that ‘it's a good idea to ask each applicant the same questions where possible’ but I would put a great deal of emphasis on ‘where possible’, especially in the case of senior appointments.

Applicants' experience and apparent strengths will vary, as will their answers to interview questions. Your questions therefore need to vary, too, if you are accurately to assess their suitability for the job. It would be crazy not to enquire into an apparent weakness simply because other candidates were clearly strong in that area and so could not sensibly be questioned about it.

Be clear who should (and should not) apply

This leads naturally to the design of the job specification. It may sound odd, but this should at least make it clear who should not apply for the job. If you need the appointee to be 'good with people' (friendly, approachable and flexible) then this needs to be spelt out in advance. Equally, if the job can be filled by a shy, backroom sort of person, then other attributes will need to be stressed. And does the position require strong leadership/change management skills, or is it more a case of steady state and project management?

Similarly, civil service recruiters should not demand sophisticated drafting skills from everyone. There is a marked waste of talent in many government departments because good managers, good networkers (especially with those outside government), good ‘deliverers’, and many professionals are deemed unsuited to working closely with government ministers.

It is equally important—and I speak from experience—that you do not downplay the difficult aspects of the job for which you are recruiting. Many public-facing positions and jobs in ministers' offices are very stressful, as are jobs (such as some regulatory jobs) whose outputs are subject to intense scrutiny, including by the courts. The need for these positions to be filled by robust personalities must be spelt out to all candidates as it is no kindness to them (or the department) if they are appointed to a job in which they cannot succeed.

One more thought: I have occasionally, and to great effect, employed someone from outside my organisation to help a successful candidate bed into their new team. Where, exactly, are the borders between their responsibilities and those of their boss, their direct reports and their colleagues at similar levels? How often, and to what extent, do they need to report to others? What changes can they implement on their own or only with others' agreement?

Issues such as these don't always cause problems, but they can be destabilising, especially when recruiting someone from a different organisational culture. The best recruiters do not ask candidates to ‘come in and we’ll show you how to be like us’. They say ‘Come in…and help us become a new organisation’. A temporary mentor, free to talk to everyone in the team, can help ensure this happens.

Note: This blog is a very slightly amended version of an earlier article in Public Money & Management

Martin Stanley

1. Baxendale, C. (2014). Baxendale report: How to best attract, induct and retain talent recruited into the senior civil service.

2. Thomas, A., & Jordan, U. (2022). Anything to declare?: A progress report on the declaration on government reform – and what should come next. Institute for Government.