Deciding on the best candidate

Making your decision

At the end of the interview process the panel will need to discuss who is the best candidate and whether they are appointable. It is worth structuring this stage properly to help you make an objective and sound decision:

• Each panel member should initially take some time to refer to their notes, including the scores and summary comments on the Candidate Interview Assessment form. Independently, each panel member should then rank the candidates in order;
• The panel should then come together and discuss how each candidate performed in relation to the selection criteria. You may want to look first at whether there are any candidates who are clearly not appointable or less suitable than others, although make sure you have a full discussion before deciding on this.
• If you have used other selection methods alongside the interview such as tests or presentations, make sure that performance assessments of each candidate also inform your final decision.
• If any University staff formally at risk of redundancy (as indicated by a covering letter from the Resourcing Manager) have been interviewed, then they should be considered in accordance with the University's Redeployment of Staff policy.
• A panel operates best if it works as a team to come to an agreed decision. The Chair's role is to ensure that there is a full discussion, that all have their say and that any differences of opinion are debated. Ultimately the Chair will make the final decision if there is unresolved disagreement on whom to appoint.
• When you assess a disabled applicant’s suitability for the job you must take account of how reasonable adjustments could enable them to do the job.  If, after taking reasonable adjustments into account, they would not be the best person for the job, you do not have to offer it to them. Always contact Human Resources for advice where you are considering a candidate with a disability.
• Sometimes if there is a large amount of discussion or the interview day has been long, you may feel that its best to take some time out and reconvene the next day. 
• If there is still uncertainty over the first-choice candidate, or if you are finding it hard to decide between two or more candidates, it is often a good idea to call them back in for a more focussed follow-up discussion so that you can come to a more final and fully informed decision. This should involve at least two representatives from the original panel and should be arranged as soon as is possible.
• It's often the case that although there is a first-choice candidate, there are also others who would be appointable. Make sure that you establish who falls into this category and in what order so that you can move quickly if your first-choice candidate does not accept the job offer. A further discussion with the rest of the panel before making any further offer is normally sensible.
• Finally, if the panel has significant doubts about the ability of any of the candidates to fulfil the role effectively - don't appoint. It may not seem like it at the time but it far better in the long run to go through a second recruitment process and find the right person than to appoint the wrong person and have to deal with the consequences.
• f you are unable to make an appointment for whatever reason, you may wish to re-advertise the vacancy.

(Back to top)

Avoiding bias

Panel members are only human and decision-making is not a mechanical process but based on judgment; therefore we are all potentially susceptible to unconscious bias, distortion or stereotyping. The risk is that this could lead to decision-making that is potentially discriminatory. Here are some things to remember to help you avoid this and ensure your decision is an informed one: 

• The primacy effect - If you are interviewing several candidates then the most recent will be clearer in your memory than those seen earlier in the day. This may magnify the good or bad points of the most recently seen at the expense (or benefit) of those seen earlier. Good notes and making sure you refer back to them can help to avoid this.
• Accuracy of recall - Similarly, your memory of who said what can become blurred and distorted as the day progresses. Again, your notes will help to ensure you counteract this effect.
• The 'halo-horns' effect - Sometimes one particular element, whether positive or negative, can influence your overall judgment of a candidate. Try to avoid this by checking the candidate's performance against the full range of your selection criteria.
• The 'like me/us' syndrome - It may often be tempting to favour people who seem similar to you or those already in the team. If this feeling is based on an objective judgement that the person best fits the selection criteria, then fine. But make sure that other factors are not influencing your decision and remember that the best teams have a range of people with different personalities and skills sets.
• Personal liking bias - Similarly you may find yourself feeling a preference for someone because they seemed the nicest person or someone you would have a lot in common with. Again, you need to focus on whether they are the person who best meets the selection criteria and will do the best job.
• Interpreting information differently - Different panel members may interpret the same information in different ways. This is why its so important for the whole panel to have a full and detailed discussion about each candidate to identify and discuss any differences in interpretation.
• Unconscious prejudices and stereotypes - If you or other panel members have any generic concerns and feelings ("gut feeling", "not sure they would fit in" etc), try to identify the evidence this is based on and the selection criteria it relates to. If you can't then this may indicate that some element of unconscious bias or stereotyping is creeping into your judgment.
• Avoid making assumptions about people based on personal appearance, name, how long ago they were at school or university, family or caring responsibilities etc. – focus on assessing each candidate objectively on how well they meet your selection criteria based on the evidence they provide to you.

(Back to top)