The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

DIVERSITY IN THE PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS PROCESS IN SCOTLAND

SECTION FOUR THE SELECTION PROCESS, PROVISION OF FEEDBACK AND MONITORING

4.1 This section considers diversity issues during the selection process, provision of feedback and monitoring ¹⁶.

THE PROCESS

4.2 The Commissioner's Code of Practice provides information about what is required at these stages, including the need for: independent scrutiny of the process; an interview panel for upper tier bodies; shortlisting on the basis of merit, with decisions being documented; formal interviews for upper tier bodies and at least a "conversation with a purpose" for others; documenting of interview decisions and providing monitoring information. The PAT guidance material also refers to these stages (although, as noted, this was not available in its final form to those involved in this study).

Current practice

4.3 In practice, it was found that the selection stages began, in some rounds, with a process of longlisting (sometimes with an initial sift by Scottish Executive staff against the criteria). A process of shortlisting was undertaken in all cases, generally by the selection panels (although the Independent Assessor in two postal survey rounds was not involved until the interview stage). The selection panels generally involved a representative from the organisation (or independent expert), an Independent Assessor and a senior representative of the Scottish Executive sponsor division (who acted as chairperson).

4.4 All of the case studies and most of the other rounds involved face to face interviews, and only one round was identified as involving a "conversation with a purpose". The majority of candidates in the postal survey (69%) had been selected to take part in an interview and almost all of these (96%) stated that they had participated in a formal interview. Most rounds involved one interview, although a second interview took place with the Minister in one case study (a process described as "strange" by two candidates).

4.5 There was some variation in whether or not candidates were asked to make a presentation to their interview panel. (Two case studies involved making short presentations, as did a small number of rounds examined in the postal survey.) The questions asked during interviews covered a wide range of issues, some of which related to the post itself and candidates' vision for the post, some to their more general views of public appointments and some to their past experience. In all of the case studies, the panel members agreed the areas of questioning and the responsibilities of each member beforehand and, in most cases, panel members stated specifically that candidates were asked the same questions. Most interviews took 30-45 minutes, and were held in Scottish Executive buildings in Edinburgh.

4.6 Panel members then made a decision about which candidates were suitable for appointment and their ranking. Most (although not all) undertook this after each individual interview, with a final session at the end to make the overall decisions. Written advice was then provided to the Minister, summarising the panel's conclusions, with documentation of all processes retained on file by the Scottish Executive.

4.7 Generally, unsuccessful candidates received a letter from the sponsor team and successful candidates received a letter from the head of the division or the Minister, sometimes preceded by a telephone call (although this was not always the case). In most cases, feedback about performance and reasons for selection was not provided routinely to candidates, although this was generally available on request and one or more candidates in most of the rounds had requested feedback.

4.8 Monitoring information was also identified as being gathered by the Public Appointments Team and most respondents in the case studies were aware that candidates were asked to provide this. Almost all of the sponsor team members and NDPB representatives stated that they knew why monitoring forms were completed. Most also believed that they knew what was done with the information collected (although Independent Assessors in small number of cases did not). There was, however, considerable variation in whether or not respondents were aware that the Scottish Executive set targets for the inclusion of people from particular groups in public appointments.

Equality/diversity issues in the process

4.9 As in the previous section, there was a general view amongst those conducting the process in the rounds examined that the selection stages had been undertaken appropriately. Independent Assessors in a number of cases stated that "good practice was observed throughout" and there was overall satisfaction that the rounds were documented. The majority of respondents believed that that the selection and feedback would not have affected whether under-represented groups could compete effectively, nor whether people from under-represented groups would apply again in the future.

4.10 Most candidates themselves also believed that the interviews were appropriate (although more than a quarter of those responding to the postal survey did not). Views of feedback were, however, less positive and none of the case study candidates believed that this would have encouraged people from under-represented groups to reapply, while more than two thirds of postal survey candidates stated that they did not consider the feedback to have been appropriate.

4.11 Around a fifth of candidates suggested that there may have been particular aspects of the selection processes in their rounds which affected under-represented groups. Additionally, Independent Assessors in around a fifth of cases, nearly two thirds of the "other" respondents and equalities organisations (commenting more generally) believed that aspects of selection may have had an impact on under-represented groups. A fifth of postal survey candidates believed that feedback may have had an impact, and more generally, the majority of equalities organisations and "other" respondents believed that this might affect application by under-represented groups in the future. A small number also suggested ways in which the collection of monitoring information could affect participation by under-represented groups.

PERCEPTIONS OF BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION/DEVELOPING PRACTICE

4.12 Again, the remainder of the section focuses on the commonly identified barriers to participation, examples of good practice and potential suggestions, which will assist in the development of the diversity strategy. As before, the issues presented were raised in specific rounds and in the more general perceptions of "other" respondents and equalities organisations.

The selection panel

4.13 At a basic level, it was suggested that the composition of the panel undertaking the sift and interview stages could present a potential barrier for under-represented groups, in terms both of perceptions of the organisation and the nature of the process. Equalities organisations and the Equality Unit noted that panels comprising white, middle aged men can affect perceptions of how relevant an organisation might be to people from under-represented groups. It was also suggested that there is a danger that they recruit "in their own image" and perpetuate under-representation. Additionally, it was noted that:

"the interview panel may be overwhelming for applicants in different ways - age and seniority of members, gender etc."

4.14 This issue was raised relatively infrequently in specific rounds, with none of the case studies identifying problems with the composition of the selection panel, and a small number of candidates in four postal survey rounds highlighting this issue. It was raised frequently, however, as a general potential barrier (for example by "others" and specialist equalities organisations) and as an aspect of practice which those involved should take into account.

4.15 The only specific example given of a problem with the composition of a panel in the cases examined, was in one round where a candidate noted that a member of their interview panel had been an ex-colleague. The candidate raised this issue with the Scottish Executive prior to the interview (to find that the panel member had not highlighted this). It was suggested that the inclusion of this panel member was inappropriate, and made the interview difficult.

4.16 There were, however, some positive instances in individual rounds of actions taken to ensure a diverse group of panel members, and some of the case study respondents noted that their panel had been mixed (or, in one case study, all women).

The sift process

4.17 It was suggested that the lack of a clear focus on equality/diversity, or the lack of full discussion of candidates and their skills during the sift process could also disadvantage under-represented groups.

4.18 Perceived barriers relating to the sift process in individual rounds were raised in three of the case studies (by a small number of respondents including an NDPB representative, two Independent Assessors and a candidate) and in three of the postal survey rounds (by candidates). The potential for the introduction of barriers in the sift process was also highlighted more generally by "other" respondents and equalities organisations.

4.19 It was noted earlier that there was variation between processes in the extent to which specific consideration was given to diversity issues, and it was suggested that this was also the case at these stages. Again, some participants took account of these issues, while others engaged in less direct discussion.

4.20 In terms of other examples of issues relating to the initial sift process, one case study Independent Assessor stated that they did not believe that there had been sufficient opportunity for discussion of the candidates. One of the candidates was also aware that applications had been sifted by Scottish Executive staff and did not believe that this was appropriate. It was also noted that there had been confusion in one case, about the inclusion of disabled people at interview.

4.21 Again, there were also examples of good practice, and it was noted that some sponsor team members and Independent Assessors had reminded panel members of the need to consider diversity in their deliberations. NDPB representatives and Independent Assessors in the rounds explored in the postal survey provided examples of reminding panel members about the guaranteed interview scheme and the need for diversity. One senior Scottish Executive staff member also noted that they had had a specific discussion with the Independent Assessor in order to check gender balance during shortlisting. One of the NDPB representatives stated that their panel had discussed the need to work towards a composition "which looks a bit more like the real world".

4.22 There were also a number of examples of the development of more transparent decision making with, for example, the practice of "marking" candidates and open discussion of the results as a panel. One of the Independent Assessors also indicated that a case study had allowed panel members to take turns in introducing their thoughts about each candidate, in order to avoid undue influence by any one member. This is consistent with the current policy approach to public appointments which emphasises the need for openness and accountability.

Selection criteria

4.23 Many issues were raised in relation to the potential for the selection criteria to present barriers for under-represented groups, particularly in terms of the nature of the criteria used. It was suggested that selection on the basis of criteria which focused on specific skills and experience which under-represented groups were less likely to be able to demonstrate, would constrain their participation. This might include selecting a narrow range of professional skills and qualifications, business skills and experience, and undervaluing the skills which people from under-represented groups may have.

4.24 Other potential problems raised with criteria included the use of:

• Vague or unclear criteria.
• Criteria meaning different things to different members of a panel.

4.25 Issues relating to the criteria used were raised specifically in two of the case studies, as well as in more than a third of the postal rounds and were recognised more widely by "other" respondents and equalities organisations as a potential barrier to participation by under-represented groups.

4.26 There were many examples from specific rounds of issues relating to the criteria used. In one of the case studies, for example, the NDPB representative suggested that there may have been an overemphasis on the presentation (rather than content) of the application. This linked to the suggestion that people could be excluded from a sift who were not skilled in submitting applications, and one of the sponsor team members noted that they were:

"sure there were some other good people, but you can't make allowances".

4.27 One of the case study Independent Assessors also noted a:

"tendency to go for people who have done this type of thing before."

4.28 Other examples of the perceived use of inappropriate criteria included:

• A preference for people who are assertive, aggressive and "risk takers".
• A perceived tendency to favour those with degrees.
• Ageism.
• "Traditional" criteria, coupled with personal assumptions.
• "Unconscious stereotyping" and the "instinct to select people like us".

4.29 The most common good practice development mentioned was the use of the guaranteed interview scheme for disabled people who met the essential criteria. Respondents in all of the rounds examined (with the exception of one NDPB representative) were aware that there had been such a scheme (although such interviews were not always required, as disabled people did not always apply for posts.) In one of the case studies, it was also suggested that the Scottish Executive representative had reminded the participants of the need to stick to the identified criteria.

Preparation for interviews

4.30 The means and extent of preparation of the interview panel was also identified as a potential barrier for under-represented groups, in terms of its impact on the subsequent process. It was suggested, for example, that the lack of discussion of interview questions in advance could lead to an inappropriate approach.

4.31 Although this was not raised widely (being identified in two of the case studies and two postal survey processes) the importance of preparation by panel members was also identified by a small number of "other" respondents and equalities organisations.

4.32 In terms of specific examples, one of the Independent Assessors highlighted a round in which it was felt that sufficient discussion had not taken place. It was also suggested in one of the case studies that a particular interviewer had had little knowledge of the functions of the post, and in another that the panel were:

"not aware of or understood BME issues."

4.33 In other cases, however, examples of good practice included panel members meeting to discuss the interview questions, and ensuring that they would adopt a consistent approach to the process.

Addressing candidates' requirements

4.34 A major potential barrier to under-represented groups was identified where candidates' needs were not recognised and met. It was recognised that the use of inappropriate venues, failure to address needs such as childcare, timing, travel, financial and other requirements could present major barriers to participation for some groups.

4.35 Issues relating to addressing candidates' requirements were raised in all of the case studies (by candidates themselves) and in almost half of the postal survey processes (by a number of candidates and one Scottish Executive representative). Although, as will become clear, some needs were met, there was a perception amongst others that there was not always a consistent approach to this. The importance of meeting needs was also recognised as a major issue more generally, and was raised by "other" respondents and equalities organisations.

4.36 A range of examples were provided from the specific rounds examined of ways in which barriers could be created by not addressing candidates' needs fully. Although several candidates suggested that there had been a general feeling that arrangements would have been made to address their requirements, less than half of the candidates themselves remembered being asked to indicate these.

4.37 Criticisms of the venues which were used related largely to the formality of the surroundings. In one case study, for example, the interviews were held in a large room, which the Independent Assessor described as "intimidating" and which one of the candidates suggested offered no privacy. One of the Independent Assessors suggested that coming into the Scottish Executive could, in itself, be quite intimidating and that:

"candidates with little experience of such could be disadvantaged by the time they get to the interview".

One of the candidates stressed that their interview had taken place at a "very intimidating venue" and another had found it "daunting" that a previous candidate had passed them in the waiting area.

4.38 In two of the case studies, a small number of candidates (and one Independent Assessor) noted that no childcare arrangements had been made.

4.39 One candidate noted that their interview time had been changed, but they could not attend at the changed time, while another noted that:

"I was given a 9.30am interview over two hours travelling time from my home and I am a lone parent. It made arranging child care very difficult."

4.40 In one of the case studies, the date of the second interview was changed, without recognition of the arrangements that candidates (particularly those travelling a long distance) may have already made.

4.41 Other difficulties identified by candidates in specific rounds included:

• Parking problems.
• The lack of provision of an expenses claim form and the lack of payment of expenses.
• Variations within a round in whether or not candidates were offered expenses claim forms.
• The perception that there was "no easy means" of claiming travel expenses (or that this candidate was unaware of how to do so).

4.42 In terms of examples of good practice in the rounds examined, specific arrangements which were made related primarily to location and timing. It was suggested that all of the venues used were physically accessible, and there were a small number of cases in which other arrangements were made (such as access for a wheelchair user or general "attention to comforts"). One respondent (who had a visual impairment) noted that, in one round (although not one of those examined in this study) the behaviour of the interview panel had demonstrated an awareness of an appropriate response to their requirements, and that:

"nobody tried to push, prod or guide. They all got up and came round to shake hands."

4.43 Some simply stated that the staff "couldn't have been more helpful" and one of the "other" respondents identified an example of a case in which an NDPB took advice from a specialist equalities organisation and requested that an equality specialist participate as a member of the interview panel, enabling the identification of a number of positive steps.

4.44 It was also considered positive that interviews in one of the case studies took place outwith the central belt.

The interview process

4.45 A number of aspects of the interview process itself were also identified as presenting barriers for some members of under-represented groups. This related both to the conduct of interviews and the overall interview process. Equalities organisations, for example, raised issues about the types of questions which may be asked during an interview, and the ways in which these could potentially create barriers (including the use of complex questions/concepts and "professional speak", as well as a panel's failure to recognise existing communication issues). It was recognised that the specific parts of an interview, such as a requirement to make a presentation, could undermine candidates' confidence (particularly when this is not part of their day to day experience). It was also suggested that some candidates from under-represented groups would have found the whole interview process "daunting" and not necessarily the most appropriate means of enabling them to demonstrate their full potential.

4.46 Issues relating to the interview process were raised specifically in three of the case studies (primarily by candidates, but also by one of the sponsor team members) and in half of the postal survey processes (by candidates). As noted above, however, general issues relating to the interview process were also raised by equalities organisations and "other" respondents.

4.47 Examples of issues relating to particular rounds which were raised about the conduct of the interviews included:

• The length and nature of the interview. (In one of the case studies, for example, it was suggested that the interview was "too long, too sophisticated and irrelevant").
• The nature of questioning. (In one of the case studies this was said to be "very poor", and this arose in a small number of other rounds, with examples of vague questions).
• The conduct of the interviewers, including:

• one female candidate who was seen to be given "a hard time" by a male interviewer to establish that she could withstand rigorous questions, and two other candidates who felt intimidated.
• two candidates who pointed to a perceived general lack of enthusiasm of panel members.
• a small number of candidates who believed that interviewers made inappropriate comments, for example: "a telephone call was made in my earshot before I was invited into the room. The caller told the listener that they already had a candidate who would fit the bill."

• The perception that the result was a "foregone conclusion".

4.48 The length of time taken, and the lack of information provided during that time, was raised by a number of candidates (both prior to the interview and for the process as a whole) and, more generally, by equalities organisations. For example:

"three months is a long time to wait to be asked for interview. Seven months after interview is a long time to hear nothing. I think the whole process was abysmal, and I am quite disgusted. I will never apply for anything like this again."

4.49 It was noted that these types of experience could deter participants not only from applying for public appointments in the future, but also from other forms of community participation.

4.50 Examples were also provided, however, of good practice during the interview process, and it was clear that there were some rounds in which candidates believed that this had been conducted in a "friendly and appropriate manner". In one of the case studies, for example, it was suggested that the questions were considered and fair. In another round it was suggested that the panel members were welcoming and put the candidates at their ease. Such differences in views suggest that there were some variations in candidates' experiences of the interview process.

4.51 It was suggested that the means of informing candidates of the outcome of an interview may have an impact upon future application by under-represented groups and may present a barrier to this. It was noted that this was part of the overall experience of participation in the process, and would affect overall perceptions and the extent to which candidates believed that their contribution was valued.

4.52 Although specific issues were raised in relatively few rounds (two of the case studies and three postal rounds), the accounts provided by the candidates who were affected by this suggested that the experience had an impact on their overall view of the public appointments process and their likelihood of future participation.

4.53 In one case study, three separate candidates stated that they had not been informed of the outcome at any stage. One asked, during interview, whether the researcher knew the outcome, another stated that they had found out by accident during a conversation with their referee, and a third had been told by a friend who was a board member.

4.54 In another case study, the problem related to the means of publicising the outcome. One candidate stated that they found out through a phonecall from someone in the NDPB, when it was apparent that they had not been successful but the organisation wanted to announce the outcome. Another candidate in the same case study heard the result on local radio (receiving a letter the following day.) A further candidate received "a call from a mobile phone two hours before the media announcement."

4.55 In another round, a candidate described their experience as follows:

"My rejection letter was sent to wrong address and I heard the outcome very late. No apology was received and my secretary chasing the missing letter was upset by the Scottish Executive secretary!"

The timescale for the results to be passed to candidates was also raised.

4.56 Although it is clear that, in most of the rounds, there were no problems with this aspect of the process, all of these individual experiences were identified as inappropriate and likely to affect the future involvement of this group of candidates.

Feedback

4.57 A further identified barrier to future application was the lack of feedback, or the provision of inappropriate feedback. For example, it was noted that:

"In the absence of any feedback/reasoning behind rejection, some minorities will inevitably feel it's simple discrimination."

4.58 The Equality Unit suggested that a lack of feedback could be discouraging to any candidate who believed that there had been anything "prejudicial" in the interview. Additionally, it was suggested that a "dismissive and impersonal note confirming lack of success" could discourage interest, an issue echoed in comments by a number of equalities organisations. It was also suggested that inappropriate feedback could potentially be undermining and discouraging to future participation (for example, where this focused only on a candidate's shortcomings). The quality of the information provided during feedback was also identified as a potential barrier to re-application, particularly where this is "superficial", "bland and standard" or "sterile" (and, as such, of little use). A number of the "other" respondents highlighted that a lack of specific information which is linked to the role specification and person specification could potentially be discouraging.

4.59 Issues relating to the provision of feedback were raised in three of the case studies (by a small number of candidates) and in three of the postal rounds. The importance of feedback was also recognised and raised by many of the "other" respondents and equalities organisations.

4.60 In terms of specific examples of experiences, a small number of candidates pointed to having asked for feedback which they did not receive. The nature of feedback was also raised, and in one of the case studies, a candidate stated specifically that the feedback which they received was "all a bit patronising and unhelpful". A small number of candidates stated that they believed the feedback to have been inaccurate, and one candidate in the postal survey stated that their feedback was:

"a gratuitous insult. The panel chose to fabricate a reason rather than state the issue which was expressed as their actual concern."

4.61 Some others noted that their feedback had been vague. It was interesting to note that, when asked whether they would consider applying to the same organisation again, there were examples in almost all of the case studies of candidates who would not (although almost all would apply to a different organisation).

4.62 In terms of positive action and examples of good practice, there was one round in which an attempt had been made to make the feedback available routinely. In this case, reasons for selection were provided in writing in the letter which was sent to candidates indicating the outcome of the process. In other rounds there were no specific issues raised with this (either in terms of positive action or problems).

Monitoring

4.63 The final area in which potential barriers were highlighted related to the monitoring process, and two potential problems were identified (by a small number of case study candidates and others) relating to the collection and use of monitoring information. Firstly, it was suggested that the inclusion of monitoring questions in the application form may deter some applicants, who may perceive that this may make it more likely that personal prejudices would impact upon selection. Secondly, the nature of information sought was identified as potentially problematic, and one of the equalities organisations suggested that the current monitoring form would actively discourage groups which are not mentioned specifically (such as LGBT people).

4.64 Although there was overall agreement about the need for monitoring, such issues relating to the means of undertaking this were raised specifically in three of the case studies (although in only one of the postal rounds). Equalities organisations and "other" respondents, however, were also clear about the importance of carrying this out in the most appropriate way.

4.65 Examples of specific issues raised included two case study sponsor team members who noted that some candidates may feel that the information may be misused and may affect whether or not they received an interview. For one applicant, it was noted that the ethnicity question had caused a tension, while another suggested that it could be quite difficult to work out which category you were in. One candidate noted that there were no questions relating to "hidden disabilities" and another that the categories did not include religious/faith groups.

GOOD PRACTICE SUGGESTIONS

4.66 A number of respondents of all types stressed the overall importance of fairness and equity in the selection process, summarised by a selection panel member as follows:

"the candidate must leave knowing that they were treated equally and fairly and that they had the opportunity to express their attributes - it is critical that it [the selection process] functions according to best practice."

4.67 On the basis of the findings presented above, many suggestions were made of ways in which best practice could be promoted.

The selection panel

4.68 It was noted that it is vital to ensure the appropriate composition of the selection panel, particularly in terms of the diversity of the members, but also in the level of their understanding of equalities issues. Some candidates identified the need for more careful selection of the panel from a range of groups, and a small number of respondents suggested that an equal number of panel members might ensure discussion until consensus was reached (although others identified that the panel should remain small). The possibility of having three independent panel members was also suggested, as was a stronger role for the Independent Assessor and the importance of careful selection of Independent Assessors.

The sift process

4.69 Some suggestions were also made about the long and shortlisting processes. One of the Independent Assessors stated, for example, that where longlisting takes place, the selection panel should always take part in this (rather than having a preliminary sift prior to the panel's involvement). One of the NDPB members also highlighted the need for any sponsor team undertaking a sift to be fully aware of the role required and the needs of the organisation.

4.70 The need to continue to remind participants about the importance of diversity was also highlighted by one of the senior Scottish Executive staff (particularly for those involved regularly and routinely in making public appointments, where it was suggested that this could be overlooked). One respondent also suggested that applications from under-represented groups should be taken "twice through the sift".

Selection criteria

4.71 A number of suggestions were made about the selection criteria, including that:

• The panel should agree accurate, relevant and specific criteria.
• The criteria should give equal weighting to "social" skills.
• A "miscellaneous" category should be added to recognise a wider range of skills.
• Candidates should be scored against the criteria identified, which should not change nor increase mid-process.
• There should be full and open discussion during scoring.
• Those carrying out the selection should note clearly the factors meriting the score which they applied.

4.72 The continued use of a guaranteed interview scheme for disabled people meeting the essential criteria for a post was generally considered appropriate (although the need to ensure that all participants are aware of the way in which this operates was acknowledged). One organisation suggested extending this to other groups to increase their representation (although the Cabinet Office guidance also notes that it is important to be aware that not all disabled people are supportive of the scheme, nor would wish to take part).

Preparation for interviews

4.73 One of the Independent Assessors suggested that there should always be full discussion, prior to the interviews, of the proposed questions. This view was echoed by an equalities organisation, which noted that the discussion and rule-setting at the start can sometimes be rushed, causing difficulties in the assessment where a candidate is considered to be "borderline".

4.74 It was also suggested that clear instructions and guidance should be provided to panel members about areas which should be covered during an interview, and the way in which questions should be asked.

Addressing candidates' requirements

4.75 The importance of continuing to use venues for interviews which are physically accessible to all interviewees, and the need to take account of issues such as the size/layout of the room were stressed by several respondents in specific rounds, as well as by "other" respondents and equalities organisations. It was also suggested that interviews could be conducted in more familiar, local settings (or at the organisation's base), rather than in Scottish Executive buildings. Candidates in many of the processes suggested that there should be less formal surroundings and a less formal process. Several equalities organisations suggested that consideration should be given to whether there may be more appropriate means of selecting public appointees (through, for example, the use of dialogue/group discussion or a combination of selection techniques).

4.76 It was also considered important to identify and meet a wider range of practical needs of candidates, and to:

• Be aware of, and address flexibly, any timing issues for those travelling a long distance or with other commitments.
• Take account of religious and cultural needs.
• Provide information about accessibility and any arrangements made (such as childcare and other expenses and procedures for claiming these).
• Provide candidates with full details of the nature and timescale of the process and details of how many applicants and posts are available.

4.77 As with many of the suggestions, these are supported in the Cabinet Office guidance, which notes the importance of addressing the needs of interviewees.

The interview process

4.78 Suggestions about the content/conduct of the interview included that:

• The chairperson should begin by providing some background information about the body and its work, clarifying the roles of all of those present.
• The questions should not favour those already in an organisation.
• There should be no "gender or race-specific questions".
• Questions should be asked in appropriate language (e.g. simplifying the ways in which questions are expressed and explaining what they are about).
• The interview should explore candidates' understanding of diversity, to ensure that those appointed promote an appropriate approach to this during their involvement with the NDPB.
• All candidates should be asked the same or a similar range of questions.

4.79 Some candidates pointed to the general need for consistent, high quality interviewing, to:

"… explore the contributions which candidates might be able to provide, particularly the extent to which they can contribute to board/group heterogeneity".

4.80 It was suggested that high quality interviewing requires an understanding of equality/diversity issues amongst all panel members, to enable them to acknowledge and address personal prejudices and to conduct the interviews in an appropriate way. (The Cabinet Office guidance, for example, notes the need to conduct interviews "in a way that is sympathetic to those with less experience of job hunting.") The overall need to ensure that candidates' participation was valued was also stressed.

4.81 Generally, there was seen to be a need by some to avoid lengthy delays in the process (particularly between submission of an application and the interview stage) and to ensure, in all cases, that information relating to candidates is treated confidentially.

Informing candidates

4.82 Candidates who were unhappy about the ways in which they had been informed of the outcome stressed that good practice required that all candidates should be told the result by letter, within a reasonable timescale (and prior to an announcement in the media). The Cabinet Office guidance provides details of appropriate ways of addressing this stage of the process.

Feedback

4.83 There were differences of view about whether feedback should be provided routinely or whether it should be provided only on request. Several sponsor team members (and some candidates) suggested that this should be provided only when sought, and this was the view of many respondents in the one round in which information had been provided routinely. For a larger number of candidates in the postal survey and case studies, however, the view of feedback was that provision should be made as:

"a normal part of the process [which] could be very useful to keen candidates looking to improve their performance for another time."

4.84 A number of equalities organisations shared this view, and one suggested that it should be made clear to people prior to their interview that feedback, in some form, would be provided (and that the documentation of the process would be used for this purpose). There was a preference amongst equalities organisations for verbal feedback (interpreted where required). A number (including the Equality Unit), as well as some candidates identified the need for a two way process, with interviewees having the chance to discuss their experiences and to engage in dialogue. It was noted that this would provide an opportunity for candidates to discuss any other appointments to which they might be better suited. (The Cabinet Office guidance suggests asking for feedback from applicants and using this to plan future appointments processes.)

4.85 One sponsor team member suggested that the provision of feedback should be undertaken centrally (although it was recognised that this may be less informative) but this did not appear to be a widely shared view. Members of the Public Appointments Team noted that the provision of feedback must take account of the need to comply with the Data Protection Act and suggested the use of the Chairperson's summary sheet as the basis of information given.

4.86 In terms of the actual content of the feedback, it was suggested that candidates should:

"know that they have been given due consideration and their experience is valued."

4.87 One postal survey respondent suggested that appropriate feedback would:

"minimise misunderstandings, invite future reattempts if appropriate, and say thank you for the interest shown".

4.88 More specific suggestions included giving feedback which:

• Is positive, honest and constructive and "… encouraging without raising expectations if the required level of experience/knowledge is not evident".
• Includes factors which may help in subsequent applications and indicates areas in which candidates could "hone their skills".
• Provides information relating to the selection criteria in the role and person specification.
• Treats candidates "like adults" (raised by two candidates) with feedback addressing the reasons for the decision.
• Focuses on strengths and relates to experience.
• Provides more positive encouragement. As one candidate suggested "they should probably ask you to apply again - they didn't and I won't."

Monitoring

4.89 There was general support amongst respondents for the continuing collection of monitoring information, and the Cabinet Office guidance suggests the need to track and record the progress of those from under-represented groups. All of the equalities organisations and the Equality Unit believed that the Scottish Executive should continue to carry out monitoring, giving many reasons for this, including that this allows the current situation to be highlighted, areas for action identified, changes highlighted and future action targeted appropriately. It was also noted that a publicly funded process must be monitored, particularly as the promotion of diversity has been identified as a priority.

4.90 A number of respondents suggested that general good practice in relation to recruitment monitoring should be followed for the public appointments process. More specifically, some suggestions related to the means of collection of the information. Several equalities organisations, an Independent Assessor and some of the candidates believed that the monitoring information should be gathered on a separate form (rather than as part of the application form) and should not be made available to the selection panel. (Cabinet Office guidance also suggests that "it is highly advisable to separate the sections requiring data for monitoring purposes".) It was acknowledged that there is a need to identify disabled people in order to implement the guaranteed interview scheme, but the existence of the scheme perhaps offsets the potential for exclusion.

4.91 One sponsor team member suggested that the PAT could receive the monitoring information directly from the candidates. It was also suggested that the monitoring questions should make the purpose of the monitoring data clear. (Currently, the form does make reference to this for people from minority ethnic groups and the PAT guidance suggests that this should be included in the covering letter which is sent to candidates, suggesting the wording: "The enclosed ethnic origin/disabilities questionnaire is required for monitoring purposes only. This information will form no part of the selection process.")

4.92 Some comments were also made about the nature of the information collected. For example, one of the candidates and a case study sponsor team member suggested that the categories relating to ethnicity should be improved, and this was also raised in the postal survey ¹⁷. It was also suggested that the form should refer to sexual orientation and gender identity, as:

"the direct message is given that the Executive does not care about sexual orientation equality in the public appointments system. We know in fact that is not the case … it is vitally important however that that inclusive equality commitment is mainstreamed fully across the public appointments system."

4.93 Another organisation suggested that a question should be included about trades union membership/activism. The Equality Unit also noted that it will be important, in the future, to collect information about sexual orientation ¹⁸, religion and age as legislative protection develops.

4.94 Some comments were also made about the use of monitoring information. One of the sponsor team members, for example, suggested that feedback should be provided to NDPBs about the composition of applicants, interviewees and appointees (a view shared by an equalities organisation, which suggested that public bodies should then be encouraged to review their progress). One of the "other" respondents also suggested that each Minister should be made answerable for the appointments records of NDPBs whose appointments they approve. It was also suggested by an Independent Assessor that it would be useful:

" to see this [monitoring] information. We could then suggest possible improvements."

4.95 The need to prepare summary reports and to publicise the monitoring information was also raised (although one of the "other" respondents expressly disagreed, suggesting that monitoring information should not be published). Many, however, believed that there was a need to make the information available, and one Independent Assessor noted that this could be publicised as part of the press release on an appointment, while another noted that:

"statistical info could be used more widely in publicity campaigns aimed at encouraging applications from under-represented groups".

4.96 Equalities organisations were also clear about the need for information to be publicised regularly, with "complete transparency in the process", and some identified more specific information which should be collected and made available, including:

• Baseline information.
• A comparison of the characteristics of applicants to the characteristics of those appointed.
• A breakdown of the information by equalities group (using the Scottish Executive definition of groups as far as possible).
• A breakdown of the sectors in which specific under-represented groups may be concentrated. ¹⁹

4.97 Several equalities organisations also suggested a need for target-setting, publicised targets and linking of the monitoring information to the strategy and positive action which develops. The Equality Unit noted that this should not extend to the establishment of "quotas", which is outwith Scottish Executive policy. Targets, however, were seen to provide a goal to which to aspire, which would allow the evaluation of the strategy, as well as providing a clear message about the Scottish Executive's intention to address the issues. Within this, it was suggested that there should be further consultation/needs analysis with under-represented groups to inform future action.

OVERVIEW

4.98 As with the findings in the previous section, it is clear that there are variations in the ways in which equality/diversity issues are addressed at these stages of the public appointments process. Again, however, the examples of perceived barriers and positive developments assist in the identification of a range of good practice suggestions for the future.

« Previous | Contents | Next »