Unfair Interview Board-public Sector

exiemack

So I’ve been sitting on whether or not to take this to HR, but I feel like I’ve had an unfair disadvantage in my past three promotional interviews at my current workplace (public sector). For background: I’m female, non-Irish/non-EU. I’ve had the same guy on my interview board for the past 3 interviews and after each of these interviews I either didn’t get a second round interview, or I was marked low on 2nd interview and didn’t place as high as I should have on the panel. I’ve done interviews elsewhere and have done exceptional so at this point I do not believe it has to do with my interview skills/competency. I feel like my background puts me at a disadvantage because I stick out like a sore thumb, as my accent is clearly not Irish nor are most of my education qualifications (taken on home country). I feel like if this guy either did not like me or didn’t think I was qualified in the first interview, his mind would not have changed by the 3rd interview and I know he definitely recognized me in the 3rd interview. Has anyone else experienced? I am not sure I want to question the interview process integrity and “rock the boat.” Should I just keep my head down and hope I don’t get him again for an interview?

Jim2007

Fortunately in order to win a complaint you need actual evidence of wrong doing, not opinion.

Just because the same guy was on the interview panel is no basis for assuming that he marked you down, for all you know he might actually be the one who marks you up. And at the end of the day, perhaps you are just not as good as you think you are, it does happen. If you are doing well in interviews else where, then perhaps that is where you should go.

Rocking the boat is one thing, but making groundless allegations will just embarrass yourself before your employer and probably won't win you any fans in the promotions race.

Flinty997

They will give you feedback if they ask. If its public sector they will have been careful to document how they ran the process.

If you are getting an interview and the not the second it suggests they are looking for something specific.

Though I'm not a fan of competency interviews, at least the ones I've been involved in are just HR BS.

Mongfinder General

As somebody who has worked in the public sector - you’re wasting your time questioning their processes and decision making.

If you raise a problem with with how they’ve dealt with you - you will become the problem.

It’s odd and unfortunate that you’ve had the same guy three times as interviewer. At this point - look for a lateral move or leave.

Flinty997

Have to agree with MongFinder.

Not impossible I would doubt it's anything to do with your background. If anything its an advantage, they will want to be seen encouraging diversification.

Usual HR bingo.

cuttingtimber22

You can ask for feedback on your interviews. And boards expect to be asked.

The request can be framed in a positive way which can leave a good impression.

If you think feedback is objectively not fair or not something you can reasonably improve then look for a move.

gauchesnell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058270070/unfair-interview-board-public-sector

public sector interviews are competency based so your background is not relevant - neither is your accent or your gender. Neither is whether or not any interviewer liked you.

Get your feedback and review it. As already pointed out they may be looking for something specific or you are just not interviewing as well as you think. Stop comparing these interviews to interviews elsewhere.

Get your feedback and work on improving your answers. Stop wasting your time blaming the interviewers for not being successful. Doesnt work like that.

Flinty997

Competency interviews are far from perfect. have to agree with MongFinder and Cutting22

Mrs OBumble

Competency interviews are implicitly discriminating on age: A younger person has less opportunity to have amassed previous experiences that they can use to display the competency.

They also lead to people getting jobs that they don't have growth potential in, because they already have the competencies needed to do the job.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119828225#Comment_119828225

Have to agree with you for once.

People without room to grow won't stay as long. People who can't get promoted will also leave. No wonder retention is a problem.

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119828225#Comment_119828225

There are some jobs that do actually need experience and a young person without experience is not what is needed.

Mrs OBumble

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119829340#Comment_119829340

Agreed.

But clerical officer for a government agency, for example, is not one of them.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119829340#Comment_119829340

In my experience its used as a template across all roles regardless how appropriate.

Wishbone Ash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119828225#Comment_119828225

I interview regularly (public service) across several grades and it works both ways. I've interviewed staff who have 40 years experience but don't appear to have learned much from their experience. I've interviewed staff with very limited experience but have been very impressive at interview. Young staff tend to be a lot more confident at interview.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119831791#Comment_119831791

Where that happens.

BattleCorp

Ask for feedback.

I am in the public service and applied for another role within the public service. I didn't get called for interview but I got a feedback sheet detailing the areas where I didn't show competence. This gives me something to work with for my next application/interview.

Flinty997

I remember once a colleague going for the role that they been doing as temporary replacement (acting up) for a number of years. Not getting the interview then being told they didn't have enough experience, or the skillset But being asked to train in their replacement. Then they tried to block them transferring out of the role, because they had no one to replace them.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119833483#Comment_119833483

Something similar happened one of my colleagues in the private sector.

He was doing the job through an agency for four years and because he only finished his degree in the third year of the four, they told him he didn't have enough experience. The requirement was to have three years experience. They were disregarding his first three years doing the job and only started counting from when he finished his degree. They tried to tell him he had only one year's experience. He was tempted to rip the roof off the building but somehow he didn't. He stayed put and eventually got hired there directly. He's happy as Larry now.

Flinty997

Saw the same with agency staff.

Completely baffled why HR come up with this stuff.

Wishbone Ash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119833527#Comment_119833527

Perhaps the requirement was 3 years post qualification experience?

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119833699#Comment_119833699

The advertisement didn't specify that but my main point is that he had been already doing the job without any issues for four years.

the requirements are there and laid out for every role interviewed for.

how youve done previously in other interviews isnt evidence

find out where you're dropping marks (the feedback you get will be very matter of fact and sparse) and work on why your performance at interview might be leaving questions unanswered in terms of demonstrating relevant experience and understanding, that's the route forward.

if theres a flaw in public sector hiring practices its that the board are *too* tied to the rigours of the competency based interview, tbh- allegations of bias or favouritism tend to not really understand this.

its straightforward enough to leave a board no choice but to give you decent marks if you have the experience and demonstrate that you have the experience and deal well with the manner in which the board attempt to verify this.

candidates who think theyve done well but dont score well could nearly always- in my experience - do with speaking less about themselves and their entire cv and more about the situation/method/results/learnings from the examples in each of their answers- that's just one big piece of advice ive noted from experience in front of and sitting on boards.

perhaps one guy has taken against you, id find it incredibly unlikely to be honest- ive interviewed people and in the depths of trying to check did their answers hold up and marking them fairly i wouldnt remember their name or face the next day, let alone for the next panel and the next panel.

even if you found out it was his areas of questioning upon which you fell down- his colleagues on the board would have been marking you also for those, and they would have taken the better notes for discussion afterwards.

and, even after all that, he was the common factor in lower marks, it still would only prove one thing- your answers didnt convince him, so perhaps he might be quite strict on some aspect of answering that you personally tend not to approach your answers using- it happens.

allegations of bias/unfairness from unsuccessful candidates are ten a penny, and successful allegations brought through to a finding are pretty much nonexistent.

if the board can demonstrate they followed process then that's the end of the line for your complaint- I'd take the experience gained and apply it to your next attempt, a much more productive avenue.

EchoIndia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058270070/unfair-interview-board-public-sector

I have sat on quite a number of interview boards in the public service and the central question in a board's mind is really (or should be) "would this person be able to do the job?" - and do it to a reasonable standard. I don't get a clear sense of whether the OP has thought about the job and whether s/he would perform well in it, if promoted. Perhaps s/he has but this is not apparent in their post. Matters of qualifications are relatively secondary and would not be a deciding factor for me, I have to say. Showing clearly that you have already performed work and/or have taken on responsibilities akin to what the more senior post would involve are much more convincing for a selection board. In a competency-based process, the quality of the examples chosen is important and many people either don't have or don't offer good enough examples of achievements under the specified competencies. No selection process, whether structured or otherwise, is perfect but a good interview board will be looking to identify the candidates who are qualified for the position, regardless of what instrument/s they are required to use.

A further point to bear in mind is that a board would be doing a disservice to the candidate if they put them through, even though they had significant doubts. I have seen more than a few examples where a person has been put on a panel and eventually appointed to the new grade even though their limitations would have been fairly apparent. They then struggled in the new role, perhaps only then realising what the job actually entailed.

Flinty997

If you aren't good enough and don't have the experience, you won't be called for interview and if you do get it and are bad, you'll end up being placed at the bottom. Its very easy to steer a panel, or scoring to favor one candidate over another. Enough to drop a candidate out of the running. Its impossible to prove.

I think if you are scoring high elsewhere. Go where you are valued. Go around the roadblock.

I'd look at this slightly differently.

Did it occur to you that the fact that the guy was surprised to see you again at a third interview, meant he was surprised you didn't get after the first or at least, the second interview?

I doubt very much he is the reason you are not passing interviews.

Get the feedback and see what it says.

Flinty997

The OP is not scoring highly in his interviews. But is consistently in other interviews. Could be coincidence.

no two interviews, no two roles are the same.

unless the OP is applying for a role theyve ready achieved then the requirements may be very different and comparison to earlier interviews is misguided.

Flinty997

Dunno about that. Very little has changed on the panels I've sat on. They follow a template so closely, you could drag a stranger off the street to sit on them. They just follow the script.