Recruitment and selection
Navigating the best course of action
A corruption resistance
resource: Guideline
Recruitment and selection
Navigating the best course of action
March
2002
Recruitment and selection
1
This publication is available in other formats for the vision impaired.
Please advise of format needed, for example large print or as an ASCII
file. It is also available in HTML format, at www.icac.nsw.gov.au
Thank you
This set of guidelines has been enriched with the assistance of the NSW Premier’s Department in
reviewing earlier drafts. The ICAC wishes to acknowledge this contribution and thank the people
involved. Any errors or omissions remain the responsibility of the ICAC.
This report is based on Best Practice, Best Person: Integrity in Public Sector Recruitment and Selection,
published by the ICAC in May 1999. The original ICAC project team sought and received comments
and advice about the publication from representatives of many NSW public sector agencies, unions and
associations.
ISBN 0 7310 7241 3
© March 2002 – Copyright in this work is held by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Part III, Division 3
of the Commonwealth Copyright Act 1968 recognises that limited further use of this material can occur for the
purposes of 'fair dealing', for example; study, research or criticism etc. However, if you wish to make use of this
material other than as permitted by the Copyright Act 1968, please write to the Commission at GPO Box 500,
Sydney NSW 2001.
Recruitment and selection
2
Contents
Foreword ................................................................................................ 4
Chapter 1: Navigating through recruitment and selection processes ............ 5
Chapter 2: Conflicts of Interest .................................................................7
Chapter 3: Maximising the field of applicants ............................................. 8
Chapter 4: The importance of good record keeping ...................................9
Chapter 5: Leading by example ..............................................................11
Chapter 6: Countering undue influence ..................................................12
Chapter 7: Avoiding perceptions of bias ..................................................14
Chapter 8: Selection panel members .......................................................16
Chapter 9: What to do if you are on a selection panel and have an ethical
dilemma ...............................................................................18
Recruitment and selection
3
Foreword
The Independent Commission Against Corruption receives many complaints about recruitment and
selection processes in the New South Wales public sector. Over the past two years, eighteen percent of
all the complaints received by the ICAC have been about these and related activities. Our research also
shows that there is confusion about these processes, with widely differing views among public officials
about what is corrupt behaviour in recruitment and selection.
The principle of merit selection has long been a part of NSW public sector recruitment. It ensures that
the community receives the best services from the most capable employees, and that everyone has a
practical opportunity to apply for public sector employment. High standards of integrity and probity
and a focus on transparent and accountable outcomes by all involved in recruitment and selection
processes are crucial to maintaining the merit principle.
We hope that by sharing our investigation experience of recruitment and selection matters we can help
you to navigate through some of the difficult issues that can arise. We aim to guide you towards the
best course of action in situations where your integrity or the integrity of a recruitment and selection
process may be compromised.
The NSW Government has developed a wealth of information on recruitment and selection for NSW
public officials – the main resources are outlined in Chapter One. This publication will supplement
these resources.
The case studies used in Recruitment and selection: Navigating the best course of action are based on
actual matters reported to the ICAC. They first appeared in Best person best practice: integrity in public
sector recruitment and selection, a 1999 ICAC report about dealing with the ethical dilemmas that can
occur in recruitment and selection. This publication updates and replaces that report.
The ICAC aims to keep its corruption resistance advice up to date and useful. I hope you find
Recruitment and selection: Navigating the best course of action serves that purpose.
Irene Moss AO
Commissioner
Recruitment and selection
4
Chapter 1: Navigating through recruitment and
selection processes
Recent ICAC surveys show that recruitment is an area of decision-making that needs attention to
minimise corruption risks. For example, about one-third of survey respondents considered that it was not
corrupt to use one’s public sector position to get a friend a job or to appoint a colleague without
following proper processes. Unravelling Corruption II: Exploring changes in the public sector perspective
1993 - 1999 (ICAC, 2001)
However, public officials navigating their way through recruitment and selection processes have a wide
range of material to guide their decision-making. There is a comprehensive framework of legislation,
policy and guidelines that explain and set the standards for recruitment and selection processes. The
framework is underpinned by a key set of values that guide public officials in carrying out their duties
with integrity. The case studies in the following chapters reinforce these key values.
The main elements of the recruitment and selection framework for the NSW public sector and the key
values endorsed by the ICAC are listed below. This document provides case studies and solutions to
address some of the ethical dilemmas that NSW public officials may experience with recruitment and
selection processes. The case studies used in the following chapters illustrate the key values in the context
of some of the most common areas of complaint to the ICAC about recruitment
The Framework
Guidelines, Circulars and Memoranda
• Personnel Handbook, Premier’s Department, 2000
• SES Guidelines, Premier’s Department, 2000
• Relevant Ministerial Memoranda and NSW Premier’s Department circulars
All the above are available on www.premiers.nsw.gov.au
NSW Legislation
• Public Sector Management Act 1988
• Public Sector Management (General) Regulation 1996
• Local Government Act 1993
• State Owned Corporations Act 1989
Training Material
• Merit Selection Training Materials Office of the Director of Equal Opportunity in Public
Employment (ODEOPE), 2002
• Merit Selection Techniques – A guide for selection committee members ODEOPE, 2002
Recruitment and selection
5
• Merit Selection Techniques – Electronic refresher training, ODEOPE, 2002
The ODEOPE resources listed above available via www.eeo.nsw.gov.au
Other relevant ICAC resources – investigation reports and other publications - are available on
www.icac.nsw.gov.au. Click on “Publications” and enter “recruitment” in the subject field.
The Values
The ICAC believes that the key values applying to recruitment and selection are:
o
Impartiality: all stages of the recruitment process must be conducted impartially and objectively
o
Accountability: those involved in the recruitment process must be accountable for all their
decisions and must ensure proper records are kept to support those decisions
o
Competition: the pool of potential applicants must be maximised to the extent practicable and
appropriate
o
Openness: the factors impacting on recruitment and selection decisions must be clear to those
involved. The process by which decisions are made must be transparent, while also maintaining
confidentiality in regard to individuals.
o
Integrity: recruitment and selection practices must be carried out in accordance with the relevant
guidelines, codes or rules.
Recruitment and selection
6
Chapter 2: Conflicts of Interest
A conflict of interest can arise in recruitment and selection processes when public officials are influenced,
or appear to be influenced, by personal interests or relationships. Policies and procedures that
encourage declaring and then openly dealing with conflicts of interest will help to protect agencies and
staff from the risk of corruption occurring.
The NSW Premier’s Department Personnel Handbook and the ODEOPE Training material both have
detailed advice on managing a conflict of interest situation, to help ensure that the outcome is fair and
open to scrutiny.
Case Study 1: Conflicts of interest—Being up front
A government authority began recruiting to fill several Research Assistant positions. The
unit manager, Daniel (a proposed member of the selection panel) told his supervisor
Claudia, that his partner would apply. He offered to withdraw from the selection panel.
Claudia wanted Daniel to remain on the panel. She believed his knowledge of technical
aspects of the job was important. In addition, the Research Assistants would be working
in Daniel’s unit and be reporting to him. Claudia decided that she would join the
selection panel, believing that a larger panel would ensure integrity.
Claudia discussed the issue with her Executive Director, who had no problem with the
panel’s composition. The Executive Director thought that there was potential for a
conflict of interest. However, because she was confident of the personal integrity of the
panel members, she thought there would be no problem. The independent on the
panel was not advised of the relationship.
Daniel’s partner successfully obtained one of the positions.
Comment
The ICAC received complaints that Daniel had influenced the decision to appoint his partner. Despite
the Executive Director’s confidence, the personal integrity of individuals is difficult to prove, and cannot
be relied on to allay complainants’ concerns. In addition, the independent member was not made
aware of the conflict of interest and did not have the opportunity to comment on the probity of the
process.
The ICAC advised the agency that there were better ways to manage the conflict of interest and thereby
enhance perceptions of the impartiality of the process. Options available to the agency include:
• Removing Daniel from the selection process completely.
• Limiting his role to advising on technical aspects of the job without being part of the decision
making process.
Recruitment and selection
7
Chapter 3: Maximising the field of applicants
Competition will be encouraged by taking steps to maximise the pool of potential applicants. This
means advertising jobs widely and framing advertisements to reflect the true requirements of the job.
Perceptions of favouritism or even corruption can result if a job is not widely advertised or has extremely
limiting selection criteria. Potential candidates, staff or the public could assume that competition is being
deliberately limited to help a favoured applicant.
Case Study 2: Maximising the field
Christo had been acting as the Manager, Information Technology for 18 months when
it was decided to advertise the job. His Director prepared the advertisement, without
specifying any requirement for qualifications or extensive experience in information
technology, which had previously been part of the selection criteria. The Director decided
to advertise the job internally. Christo was the sole applicant and was appointed to the
position permanently without an interview.
Comment
Receiving only one application does not mean that the applicant is necessarily the best person for the
job. It could indicate that the job has not been advertised widely enough to maximise the potential field
of applicants.
Perceptions of favouritism may result if a job that requires technical skills, tertiary qualifications or
industry knowledge is advertised without requiring such knowledge. It could be perceived that the job is
being advertised to suit a specific individual if a previously necessary selection criterion is not
mentioned. For example, in the above case study it could have appeared that the Director took out
selection criteria that appeared previously, but that might have precluded Christo from getting the job.
The ICAC advised the agency of the importance of maximising the pool of applicants. Specifying the
qualities sought from applicants rather than the specific knowledge required will generally give a wider
field. For example, candidates could be asked to show they have the ability to interpret legislation as
opposed to knowledge of a specific Act.
Ensure that potential applicants are not discouraged from applying for a job for reasons other than the
content of the position description or job advertisement, for example:
• recruitment advertisements unjustifiably placed in journals to which few people have access; or
• managers or supervisors making statements about the competitiveness, or lack of competitiveness,
of applicants.
Recruitment and selection
8
Chapter 4: The importance of good record keeping
Conducting transparent recruitment and selection processes and clearly documenting the process and
results sends a strong message to staff and the community about the integrity of an agency. Staff are
more likely to act according to the established policies and practices if they can clearly see that the way
agency recruitment and selection processes are carried out is above board.
Keeping good records of recruitment and selection decisions and the reasons for making them also
demonstrates the accountability of the decision-makers.
Case Study 3: Putting it all on paper
A large State Government department advertised to fill the position of Director, Corporate
Services, reclassified in a recent evaluation of its Senior Executive Service structure.
Three short-listed applicants were interviewed and the selection panel offered Kim the
job.
Shortly afterwards, the ICAC received a complaint alleging that Kim knew he had
been appointed to the position before the interviews were held and got the job because
he had worked for the department before. The ICAC asked the department to report
on the matter.
The department wanted to prove the recruitment process was above board so its Internal
Auditor reviewed the files. He was surprised that the cull checklist did not show how
applicants met the selection criteria and that there were no notes from the interviews.
He also found that the selection panel report contained only the recommended
applicant’s name and the convenor’s signature (no date or title of the position, no
recommended salary, no reasons for recommendations and no eligibility list).
The selection panel claimed that Kim was not appointed to the position before interview
and was clearly the best person for the job. However, the Auditor found no evidence to
support this claim, making it difficult to assess the matter. Consequently, the department
could not satisfy the ICAC that the recruitment process was fair.
Comment
Better record keeping would have supported the department’s claim that the process had been all
above board.
Selection processes for public sector agencies need to be able to withstand public scrutiny, particularly
for positions at the SES level. SES positions are often high profile and other staff and the community
may closely observe the process outcomes. The way SES staff are recruited sets the standard and
provides a model for the rest of the agency.
Recruitment and selection
9
The ICAC advised the agency that as part of good record keeping, a selection report should:
•
include the assessment methods
•
state why applicants are considered unsuitable and culled before interview
•
contain comments on each applicant interviewed with reference to each selection criterion
•
establish why the successful applicant was chosen over the others
•
include names of referees who were contacted and the notes taken from the referee checks.
Additionally, interviewing notes made by each member of the selection panel should be retained on the
recruitment file with the selection report. The Personnel Handbook outlines all the information that should
be recorded during a recruitment and selection process.
Recruitment and selection
10
Chapter 5: Leading by example
The biggest impact on ethical behaviour in any agency is not what its stated policies are, but what
managers actually do.
The strong links between ethical leadership and effective, corruption resistant organisations are
described in The first four steps – building organisational integrity (ICAC 2001), a quick guide to help
leaders build organisational integrity.
Case Study 4: Temporary turmoil
The Corporate Services Director of an agency needed administrative support when his
Executive Officer suddenly left. To save time, the Director temporarily appointed his
next-door neighbour, Graham. Graham had just done an advanced office skills course
and had relevant experience. The Director did not notify agency staff about why he
had decided to appoint Graham directly. The Director believed he had the discretion
to appoint Graham and did not have to explain his decision.
Soon after, the receptionist’s position in the agency became available temporarily. The
responsible supervisor decided to appoint her sister Heather. Heather had reception
experience in government. The supervisor did not confirm the appointment with the
Director.
She presumed from the Director’s actions that management supported the employment
of friends or relatives in temporary positions as long as they had the right skills.
Comment
By not explaining why he employed Graham without a competitive selection process, the Director set the
precedent for the supervisor to appoint her sister in the same manner.
Clear agency policies and procedures help to prevent favouritism and nepotism. Managers set the
example for the agency by applying those policies and procedures in an open, fair and consistent
manner. Policies should outline the acceptable methods of hiring temporary staff, for example through
an agency or by advertising and compiling a short list of staff for temporary positions. Such policies
should also make staff aware of the need to disclose any potential or actual conflict of interests and to
resolve them.
The ICAC recognises that circumstances, on occasion, may require that competitive processes be
bypassed, but this should be the exception not the rule. As the previous chapter set out, it is important to
record the reasons for making a particular decision (such as why competitive processes were not used),
and make record available for scrutiny when required.
Recruitment and selection
11
Chapter 6: Countering undue influence
Undue influence is occasionally applied to decision-makers or others involved in a selection and
recruitment process, such as selection panel members.
To ensure integrity, recruitment and selection practices must be carried out in accordance with the
relevant guidelines or policies. In the following case study, having the right policies in place and using
them, combined with strong leadership, successfully countered an attempt to subvert the recruitment
process.
Case Study 5: Countering undue influence
A Council began recruiting for a community worker. Some Councillors wanted the job
to go to a local identity who had spent years doing voluntary work, and was respected
in the community. The Councillors approached the General Manager to influence the
process, either by directly appointing the person or by having the final decision referred
to the full Council for approval.
The General Manager was authorised by legislation to make the decision to recruit
and select for the community worker position. He was accountable for ensuring the
Council followed proper recruitment and selection processes. He gave each Councillor
a copy of the Council’s Recruitment Policy, which spelt out who was responsible for key
recruitment decisions, the appropriate processes and the values that the Council applied
in its recruitment and selection decisions.
The General Manager emphasised to the Councillors that the recruitment and selection
decision would be made by staff in accordance with the Council’s policy, processes
and values. When the General Manager endorsed the selection panel’s
recommendation to appoint someone from outside the region, many Councillors were
angry and complained to the ICAC.
Comment
The ICAC found no problems in this case because Council officers acted in accordance with their
authority and the Councils’ established processes and values. Councillors should not have any part in
recruitment processes or decisions that are the responsibility of the General Manager under the Local
Government Act 1993. The Councillors had no right to attempt to influence the General Manager’s
decision-making. Interference or undue influence can result in a substantial waste of time and resources,
as well as compromise the integrity of the selection and recruitment process.
Recruitment and selection
12
The General Manager accepted his accountability for ensuring that the processes were faithfully
applied. He made a strong statement about his accountability and the values that would be applied by
council staff to the recruitment decision. Strong statements from leaders about values help guide people
through choices that make ethical decisions the path of least resistance. Such statements set the ground
rules for decision-makers and other parties interested in the decision.
What if the undue influence is coming from a person in a position of authority over you? In very difficult
situations such as this, the ICAC advises public officials to be guided by considering what is in the public
interest, and by honestly following your agency’s recruitment and selection procedures. Without
compromising the confidentiality of the recruitment process, you could also seek advice from others not
directly involved, such as a trusted senior officer or the ICAC. You can contact the ICAC anonymously.
Recruitment and selection
13
Chapter 7: Avoiding perceptions of bias
Perceptions of bias or corruption can be as damaging as the real thing and may give rise to complaints
within the agency or to the ICAC. Ensuring that the recruitment process is conducted impartially,
objectively and transparently will help to avoid perceptions of bias.
For example, potential applicants shouldn’t be directly involved in any part of the recruitment process,
such as acting as the contact person for potential candidates or framing advertisements.
Case Study 6: Looks like a set-up
Julie’s supervisor, Samantha decided to re-evaluate the duties of Julie’s position. The
job was re-graded from a Grade 3 to a Grade 5 and was subsequently advertised
externally.
Samantha told Julie that her experience would make her hard to beat. Julie took this to
mean that the job was hers, especially as Samantha was the convenor. On the day of
the interviews, Julie ran into an old colleague, Simon, in the foyer. Not realising that he
was also a candidate, Julie told Simon that she was a certainty for a new job “as the
boss wants her to get it”.
In his interview, Simon related what Julie had said. Samantha reassured Simon that the
successful applicant would be selected on merit. Simon was relieved, believing that he
had a strong claim to the job. When Julie got the job, Simon was upset and complained
to the ICAC.
Case Study 7: Avoiding perceptions of bias
Minh was a permanent employee acting in a higher graded position as a section
Manager . The Director to whom she reported decided he would now fill the position
on a permanent basis.
The Director asked Minh to prepare the position description and advertisement for the
job. Minh was also asked to act as the contact officer for prospective candidates. It
was well known that Minh would apply for the job.
Comment
Samantha’s actions in Case Study 6 created doubt about the integrity of the process and created the
impression that Julie had an unfair advantage over other applicants.
Recruitment and selection
14
Most people have been in a recruitment process where the panel members or applicants know each
other (for example, internal applicants being interviewed by their boss). This situation is often
unavoidable, but can be managed to ensure integrity is maintained and there is not the perception of
bias.
Decision makers need to be careful to ensure that potential applicants are not deterred because of any
perceived partiality to internal applicants. Agencies can ensure fairness and impartiality by:
• keeping all material confidential before the interview
• not giving internal applicants any preferential treatment such as coaching or advice not available
to other applicants
• not giving internal applicants any expectation of success or failure
• not deterring potential applicants because of perceived partiality to internal applicants
• clearly documenting all decisions to show why the recommended applicant is the best person for
the job.
Again, it is important to avoid perceptions of favouritism by clearly documenting all decisions to show
why the recommended applicant is the best for the job.
In Case Study 7 the Director’s request to Minh was inappropriate. It created the impression that Minh
could have tailored the position to suit herself, giving her an unfair advantage over other applicants. As
contact officer, Minh could have dissuaded other candidates. Potential applicants who believed that the
Director was biased would also be deterred from applying. Consequently, the recruitment process
would probably not be a fair and objective appraisal of the job market. Agencies can avoid
perceptions of bias by ensuring that a potential applicant has no direct involvement in any part of the
recruitment process for a job for which they may be a candidate. This includes acting as the contact
person for potential candidates, framing advertisements or preparing position descriptions.
Recruitment and selection
15
Chapter 8: Selection panel members
All selection panel members have equivalent rights and responsibilities, and all are accountable for the
recommendations made. Information and training for selection panel members needs to cover the
sanctions for acting against recruitment policies, as well as advice on what to do if there are problems.
Case Study 8: Dealing with unethical recruitment decisions
A selection panel of four people was established to recruit a senior accountant. They
chose Bill and wrote a glowing report about his superiority over the other candidates.
The selection panel’s report was submitted to the Director-General who approved the
appointment.
Fiona, another interviewee, appealed the decision. At the appeal it became clear that
Fiona was far better qualified for the job because of her experience and her actual
performance at the interview. Fiona was awarded the job following the appeal.
The Director-General was concerned about losing the appeal as the selection panel’s
report was quite emphatic that Bill was the best candidate. A departmental investigation
revealed that the selection panel convenor was a close friend of Bill. Two other
departmental representatives on the selection panel were also good friends of Bill’s.
These three members persuaded the independent to endorse the selection report. The
investigation found the report was a fabrication, as the selection panel members knew
Bill did not exhibit superior skills to Fiona.
When the Director-General received the investigator’s report she could not understand
how her department could produce such a bad result. They had devoted time and
resources to ethics and selection techniques training, had a comprehensive Code of
Conduct which all staff were required to sign and had an independent on the selection
panel.
The Director-General contacted the ICAC.
Comment
Group dynamics in selection panels can overcome Codes of Conduct and ethics training. Individuals,
such as the independent in this scenario, may behave according to group norms even though they may
not act this way outside the group setting.
To help prevent unethical decisions in the selection panel setting, people need to know there are
consequences of acting dishonestly. In this scenario, the ICAC advised the Director-General to take the
Recruitment and selection
16
necessary disciplinary action against the departmental panel members. The Director-General
complained to the independent’s agency about his behaviour and he was also disciplined.
Stories about such decisive action quickly find their way into the organisation and help consolidate a
positive ethical culture.
Recruitment and selection
17
Chapter 9: What to do if you are on a selection panel
and have an ethical dilemma
It can be very difficult if you are in a situation where you need to challenge other members of a
selection panel (particularly if one is in a position of authority over you). However, as a public official,
you are bound by requirements to always act in the public interest.
Following are some steps you can take if you need to challenge any selection panel decision as a
member of that panel. Remember that the guidelines and policies should be consulted before sitting on
a panel, and that there are many sources of advice and guidance to consult in a difficult situation.
Suggested Actions
1. Discuss your ethical dilemma with the rest of the selection panel if possible.
2. If you can’t or don’t want to do this, consider the following sources of advice:
• Read your Code of Conduct or other relevant guides or policies. If you are an independent,
ask to see the relevant agency’s recruitment policies or seek advice from your own agency.
• Consult other people not directly involved, for example, a trusted senior officer or the ICAC
(this can be done anonymously). Phone 8281 5999 and ask to speak to a Corruption
Prevention Officer. Union members may contact their Union. It is important to maintain
confidentiality if consulting other people.
3. Record the issues and the basis on which the dilemma was resolved.
4. If you can’t resolve the dilemma and you are still interviewing candidates, advise the convenor
you cannot proceed. It is more important that the recruitment and selection outcome is soundly
based than to rigidly follow the process to conclusion. Interviews can be called again.
5. If your dilemma occurs after the interviews, ask to delay the final decision so you can give it
more thought. This will give you a chance to consult with other people. You do not have to
decide on the same day, although it is often preferable and cost effective to do so.
6. Don’t sign a recruitment report you do not agree with or you know is untrue.
7. If you feel comfortable doing so, indicate you are prepared to submit a minority report. Often
this will be enough for the other panel members to revisit their decision and take into account
your ethical concerns.
8. If you later feel you have signed a recruitment report you do not agree with, lodge a complaint
or letter of concern with the agency or the ICAC as soon as possible. State your concerns and
the reasons you signed the recruitment report.
Recruitment and selection
18
ICAC contact details for advice on recruitment and selection issues:
Phone (02) 8281 5999 and ask to speak to a Corruption Prevention Officer
Related publications are available on www.icac.nsw.gov.au
Recruitment and selection
19
Recruitment and selection
20