Commissioner for Ethical Standards
in Public Life in Scotland
APPLICANT RESEARCH
19 November 2012 – 30 September 2013
March 2014
1
Commissioner for Ethical Standards
in Public Life in Scotland
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 3
Common themes and Key Findings ........................................................................ 3
The following suggestions for change are made: ................................................... 6
Survey objectives ....................................................................................................... 7
Survey methodology................................................................................................... 7
The survey results in detail: ........................................................................................ 9
The Global results................................................................................................... 9
The Application Process ....................................................................................... 14
Responses from those NOT invited to interview ................................................... 19
Responses from those invited to interview ........................................................... 25
The Interview Experience ..................................................................................... 28
The experience of individuals NOT successful after interview .............................. 34
The experience of successful applicants offered a public appointment ................ 38
Suggested improvements from interviewed applicants ......................................... 39
In conclusion: ........................................................................................................... 40
Appendix 1 – Additional Comments ......................................................................... 41
Executive Summary
35% response rate – similar
to 2012
The 2013 survey has shown significant
improvements in the views of applicants about
36.7% respondents first time
almost all aspects of the process. Feedback has
applicants
improved and the general overall experience
appears to have improved for applicants. There
are some exceptions and the constructive comments made by those who took the
time to complete the survey provide several areas for further consideration and
improvement.
The applicants who were surveyed this year applied while the 2011 Code of Practice
for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies in Scotland was in force. That Code
was superseded by a revised Code in October 2013. Applicant views generated by
this survey have been and will continue to be taken into account in the development
of the Code and in the improvement of public appointments practices.
Common themes and Key Findings
Awareness
In general opinions about the process were more
favourable across the survey in comparison to the 2012
results. There was an increase of 4% first time
applicants and a slight increase in those who heard of
appointment
10% more applicants under the
opportunities
age of 55 answered positively to
(particularly for first time
the question “What motivated
applicants) through the
you to apply? - Opportunities
use of social media.
for Personal Development”
compared to the overall
applicant pool.
45.3% applicants heard about
opportunity through appointed
for Scotland website or
Scottish Government email
alert, compared with 25.7% of
first time applicants
Application
At application stage there was an increase in approximately 8% of respondents who
found the pack helpful and easy to understand. There was also an overall drop of
10.4% respondents who took more than 4 hours to complete the application. This
was complemented with an agreement of the majority of respondents who felt that
they had spent an appropriate amount of time on their
application.
The pack was easy to
understand and helpful
98.8% of respondents completed an equal opportunities
– agree or strongly
monitoring form.
agree:
17.5% applicants not
2012 – 68.4%
invited
to interview do
2013 – 76.3%
Whilst the overall survey results
NOT intend to apply again
are an improvement on the 2012
3
survey, when considering the breakdown of results by specific groups, it is
interesting to see that there are some differences.
At the application stage (based on the statistics and comments provided by
applicants detailed in the “survey results in
In comparison to the overall group:
detail” section):
5.6% less women believed that the skills,
 Women in general were not keen on
knowledge
and experience described were
the written part of the application
relevant to the role and 6.2% less women
process, would prefer face-to-face
believed that they had all the skills,
discussions and support and training
knowledge and experience essential to
to understand the position including
undertake the role.
what skills and experience are
required.
 Disabled applicants seemed to have
In comparison to the overall group:
less confidence in the process in
7.5% less disabled applicants thought
comparison to the overall applicant
that the information pack gave a clear
group.
understanding of what would be
 First time applicants found the process
expected in the role and 5.3% less
particularly complicated (for many in
disabled applicants thought that the
comparison to
skills, knowledge and experience
“The application pack was
similar
described were relevant to the role.
very clear about the sort of
experiences in
skills, knowledge and
other sectors)
experience that I would
and the lengthiness and complication involved in the
need in order to succeed in
process has put some off from applying again in
this role” – agree or
future.
strongly agree:
 A significantly higher percent of younger applicants
st
1 time applicants – 72.2%
were motivated to apply due to the perceived
All applicants - 77.5%
opportunities for personal development than the
overall group.
Feedback
Overall, fewer applicants requested feedback on their application. However, from
those who did request feedback, significantly more applicants found the feedback
useful and constructive.
Following Interview:
Of those not shortlisted for Interview:
Requested feedback:
Requested feedback:
2012 – 38.4%
2012 – 34.6%
2013 – 34.9%
2013 – 25.1%
Found it useful and constructive
Found it useful and constructive
(of those who requested it):
(of those who requested it):
2012 – 50%
2012 – 36.17%
2013 – 72.4%
2013 – 46.7%
The overall results regarding feedback were improved from
2012, but a large percentage of applicants still believe that
feedback is only offered as required as part of the process.
This could be improved.
Feedback is provided “as a
required part of the process”:
Applicants not invited for
interview – 61.1%
Applicants invited for
interview – 53.2%
4
In encouraging future applications, an unrealistic time commitment is the aspect
most likely to put people off applying again and this is the same as in 2012. The top
aspect for encouraging future applications is now a direct
approach to encourage an application. This continues to
A direct approach would
be among the top 3 aspects alongside “provision of good
encourage a future
quality constructive feedback” and “welcoming interview
application from 91.1% of
panel”.
interviewees and 84% of
applicants who did not
The Interview Experience
reach interview stage
The interview experience also seems to have been a
positive experience for most applicants with only 5.5% of applicants stating that they
were not made to feel welcome in comparison with 11.8% in 2012. There was an
increase in applicants agreeing that the questions asked
87.4% of all interviewees
at interview corresponded to the role that they had
felt that the questions
applied for and NO candidates stated that they did not
asked reflected the skills,
know the role of everyone present in the interview. This
knowledge and experience
had been raised as a specific concern in 2012.
that had been detailed in
the application
When moving to the interview experience, there were
information
also fewer differences between the specific groups and
the overall results. The one area that did show a
difference related to the question:
Would you say that the questions
you were asked reflected the skills,
knowledge and experience details
in the information you received
when applying. Agree or Strongly
Agree:
All applicants 2013 – 87.4%
Disabled applicants 2013 – 78.5%
1st time applicants 2013 – 82.8%
Female applicants 2013 – 84.8%
“It is important that the interview relates to the role
described to you when you applied. Would you say
that the questions you were asked reflected the
skills, knowledge and experience detailed in the
information you had received when applying?”
In particular disabled candidates, first time
applicants and women felt that this was less the
case than others. This follows on from the concerns
about the lack of clarity in the application about the
required skills, knowledge and experience and how
best to demonstrate these.
The timescales for letting applicants know about the outcome of their application is
one area which has NOT improved significantly in 2013. This applies to both the
group of applicants who were not successful at interview stage and those whose
initial application was unsuccessful.
Agreed or strongly agreed that “I
received notice in a reasonable
timeframe that my application had
been unsuccessful”
2012: 67.6%
2013: 63.6%
Answered YES to the
questions “Did you find out
about the outcome of your
interview within the time
frame you expected to?”
2012: 54.9%
2013: 45.7%
5
The following suggestions for change are made:
1. Changes to the application process that would improve the experience for
groups that Ministers are particularly keen to attract (e.g. women, first time
applicants, younger applicants and disabled applicants). This could include
changing the application process to a C.V.-based application, expression of
interest, a face-to-face discussion or video application for example.
2. Continue to support these groups by undertaking a range of positive action
initiatives including training in skills, knowledge and experience required and
how to demonstrate these at interview, shadowing board opportunities and /
or advertising upcoming board meetings etc. to improve the confidence of
these groups in applying.
3. Different ways of advertising vacancies, including widened use of social
media.
4. Improving the way that feedback is offered, so that it sounds less “required as
part of the process” and people are more encouraged to request it.
5. Consider the motivation for younger applicants to “improve opportunities for
personal development” and utilise this in advertising the positions available
and in considering outreach possibilities such as outreach to private
organisations and networks.
6
Survey objectives
The main aims of the survey are to:
 identify barriers and enablers present within the appointments process
applicable to the applicants at the time.
 establish any common factor that impacts on the progression of an applicant
 identify aspects of an appointments process that should be revised or
introduced to enhance the applicant experience.
Survey methodology
The survey was conducted on-line using the accessible survey tool
SurveyMonkey™.
An on-line approach was considered to be preferable for a number of reasons.
1. The cost of printing and posting paper based survey forms would be
prohibitive. However, a paper based copy of the survey was available for
anyone who preferred to complete it this way. 2 respondents took up this
offer.
2. The public appointments application process is predominantly on-line and
therefore applicants in the main have internet access.
3. The Scottish Government held an email address list of applicants who had
indicated that they would be willing to participate in such research.
The questioning areas for this survey mirrored those previously used in the 2012
applicant research survey. However, this 2013 survey also incorporated new
questions including:
 What aspect of remuneration might encourage you to apply in the future? E.g.
for a Board member role, undertaking approximately 8 hours per week........
 What level of time commitment might encourage you to apply in the future?
 What Geographic aspects of the role might encourage you to apply in the
future?
 Are there any other aspects related to the role of Board member / chair that
might encourage you to apply in the future?
Sample size
The Scottish Government undertook to provide a list of email addresses for
applicants who met the following criteria:
1. Had applied for a position (between mid November 2012 and up to 30th
September 2013) to which the 2011 Code of Practice applied.
2. Had indicated a willingness to take part in research to inform the
appointments process.
The Scottish Government supplied a list of email addresses; this contained 1149
unique email addresses. The survey was distributed by email on 12 November 2013.
A reminder email was sent to 1112 individuals on 5 December 2013.
A total of 414 people accessed the survey with 352 completing it. If we extrapolate
from these figures and assume individuals not eligible to complete the survey
7
accounted for 15% of total email distribution list and if we deduct the number of
returned email addresses due to address errors, this provides us with an
approximate target list of 995 people and an indicative response rate of 35% based
on the 352 people who were able to fully access the survey. This is an encouraging
response rate and on a par with the percentage response rate from 2012.
It is also important to note that responders opted out of the survey at different stages
depending on the outcome of their application. In addition, responders were provided
with the opportunity to leave the survey after the questions relating to their own
application experience or to continue on to provide demographic information.
In this report, demographic information is presented in relation to the global results
and where possible, results are shown for females, candidates describing
themselves as having a disability, those under 55 and first time applicants. It was
not possible to analyse any of the results based on minority ethnic grouping or
sexual orientation due to the very low participant rates by these groups.
In the 2013 survey, participants were offered the opportunity to choose the round
they had applied for or to specify ‘other’. This led to 56.4% respondents choosing
the ‘other’ category and therefore made any comparison between different rounds /
bodies impossible.
8
The survey results in detail:
The Global results
All respondents (414) were asked how many public appointments they had applied
for.
The 269 respondents who had applied for only 1 position in the last 12 months were
asked if it was their first application for a ministerial appointment.
9
Overall 36.7% of responders to the survey were first time applicants compared with
32.7% of respondents in 2012. Of the females who applied, 47.1% were first time
applicants.
10
We asked responders how they had first heard about the opportunity. The majority
referred either to the Appointed for Scotland webpage or an email alert issued by the
Scottish Government. This is similar to the 2012 survey.
In the 2012 survey, the responses from first time applicants highlighted a far larger
awareness of appointment opportunities through National Press and direct referrals,
rather than Scottish Government routes. In 2013, this is similar, although local press
also features strongly. It is interesting that for both categories, Social Media
channels (Twitter and Linkedin) have increased in popularity (albeit by a small
percentage – 0.5% in 2012 to 1.1% in 2013, and 0% to 2.8% among first time
applicants.) In addition, social media and web referrals prove to be particularly
attractive to disabled candidates (3.8% disabled candidates first found out about the
appointment via Twitter in comparison to 0.8% of the total candidate population.)
11
12
The main drivers leading to an application for a public appointment relate to an
individual’s
 perception that they have the skills required
 desire to contribute to public life and
 attraction to the type of the role.
This is the same as was highlighted in 2012.
These 3 key drivers were reflected in the comments by the responders to the survey
who selected ‘other’. A selection of comments are noted below:
“I wanted to give something back using my wide experience, knowledge and
skills”
“My business is closely involved in tourism in Scotland and therefore I have
compelling reasons for seeing the 'offer' to visitors designed, presented and
evaluated to best effect”
“My Wife having undergone major surgery for cancer in England, followed by
significant oncology appointments after our move to Scotland gave me insight
into the workings of NHS. I believed that I could make a contribution, having
witnessed much of her treatment.”
When comparing results by different groups, it was interesting to note that those in
the under 55 age group had a significantly higher result for the opportunity for
personal development (28.3%) than the group as a whole (18.3%). This is obviously
a strong motivator for younger candidates and this finding therefore highlights an
opportunity to increase applications from people in this currently underrepresented
group.
13
The Application Process
Survey responders were asked a series of questions regarding the information
supplied to them as part of the application process. For the vast majority of
applicants this would be an application form and associated papers including
guidance notes, a role description and person specification.
14
Significant difference (5% points + in green and – in red) are shown in the table
below:
All
6. Would you say that the
information pack described the
public body you applied to in an
engaging way? (Agree or Strongly
Agree)
7. Would you say that the
information pack gave you a clear
understanding of what would be
expected of you in the role both in
terms of time and contribution?
(Agree or Strongly Agree)
8. The application pack was very
clear about the sort of skills,
knowledge and experience that I
would need in order to succeed in
this role (Agree or Strongly Agree)
9. I thought the skills, knowledge
and experience described were
entirely relevant to the role (Agree
or Strongly Agree)
10. I believe I had ALL the skills,
knowledge and experience
specified as essential criteria in the
application pack (Agree or Strongly
Agree)
11. I thought that the information in
the application pack was easy to
understand and helpful (Agree or
Strongly Agree)
12. From the information provided
to me I understood what each
stage of the application process
would entail (Agree or Strongly
Agree)
13. I felt that the application pack
contained all the information I
needed to make a good application
(Agree or Strongly Agree)
Female
Disabled Under First
55
Time
Applica
nt
Invite
d to
Intervi
ew
58.9%
54.7%
55.8% 54.9%
54.2%
71.8%
78.6%
77.3%
71.1% 77.0%
80.5%
87.8%
77.5%
78.3%
78.8% 75.2%
72.2%
92.3%
74.5%
68.9%
69.2% 70.8%
72.2%
85.5%
88.3%
82.1%
90.4% 88.5%
85.4%
89.3%
76.3%
76.4%
71.2% 77.0%
75.4%
85.4%
82.7%
87.8%
84.6% 80.5%
76.1%
85.5%
68.8%
62.2%
65.4% 63.7%
62.0%
77.9%
15
Overall results compared with the 2012 survey are as follows:
6. Would you say that the information pack described the
public body you applied to in an engaging way? (Agree or
Strongly Agree)
7. Would you say that the information pack gave you a clear
understanding of what would be expected of you in the role
both in terms of time and contribution? (Agree or Strongly
Agree)
8. The application pack was very clear about the sort of skills,
knowledge and experience that I would need in order to
succeed in this role (Agree or Strongly Agree)
9. I thought the skills, knowledge and experience described
were entirely relevant to the role (Agree or Strongly Agree)
10. I believe I had ALL the skills, knowledge and experience
specified as essential criteria in the application pack (Agree or
Strongly Agree)
11. I thought that the information in the application pack was
easy to understand and helpful (Agree or Strongly Agree)
12. From the information provided to me I understood what
each stage of the application process would entail (Agree or
Strongly Agree)
13. I felt that the application pack contained all the information
I needed to make a good application (Agree or Strongly Agree)
2012
2013
61.2%
58.9%
77.2%
78.6%
70.9%
77.5%
67.3%
74.5%
84.4%
88.3%
68.4%
76.3%
81.4%
82.7%
69.4%
68.8%
Three of the questions from the 2013 survey have received significantly (5% or
more) increased scores compared to 2012. Comparatively more applicants
confirmed that the application pack was clear about the skills and knowledge
needed, that the skills and knowledge were relevant to the role and that the
information being provided to them was easy to understand and helpful. There was
a slight decrease from the previous year in response to questions 6 and 13, neither
of these is considered significant.
It is not surprising that those invited to interview show significantly improved scores
about questions relating to the application pack in comparison to the overall group,
given that they were successful in getting through this stage.
The comparatively lower results for female responses in this section relate to clarity
of skills and experience. Women in general were less convinced that the application
pack provided the information needed, that the knowledge and skills detailed were
not relevant to the role and that they did not have the knowledge and skills required.
They also spent significantly more time completing the application form than the
overall group – 64.1% of females spent 4 hours or more on their application
compared to 52.3% within the overall group.
Some comments made by women about the application process include:

“Relevant forms and the opportunity to discuss the role. I called the
person detailed on the application form (the chair of the board), who was
16




very short with me when I asked for more information and told me to read
the information sent with the application form. I had obviously already
done this and wanted an informal chat with him. Not very helpful!”
“This remains closed 'network' and is very inward facing. The competence
style of application is supposed to overcome this but is very time
consuming - a first sift assessment centre could help.”
“Interview everyone for ten minutes. Some people are great on paper but
wouldn't fit in. The person with some experience is not always best. New
blood brings new ideas. Stop using the old boys network take everyone on
their own merits.”
“Less emphasis on the application form and more use of objective and
robust methods such as assessment centres. Open days and ability to
"shadow" to assess my level of interest and if I have the skills required.”
Read more comments……
It would appear from these responses that women, in general,
 do not like the written part of the application process,
 would prefer face-to-face discussions
 would appreciate support and training to understand what the position would
actually be like, and what skills and experience are being requested.
Positive action in respect of these preferences could potentially make a difference to
this currently underrepresented group.
The responses provided by applicants who declared a disability also diverged from
the group overall in that a higher proportion:
 Did not believe that the skills and knowledge stated were relevant to the role
(this is despite the overall score increasing since 2012) and
 Felt that the pack was not being clear about the time and contribution that
would be required for the role.
Some comments made by disabled candidates about the application process
include:


“Having discussed this with several friends, some of whom have applied
and been successful (sometimes) for public body board roles, it is clear
the process is cumbersome and a bit of a lottery. There seems to be
inconsistency in the appointments process, with some dubiety over
whether the description of the skills and attributes from the information
pack is really as honest as it could be (e.g. I suspect people with strong
accounting backgrounds who would not challenge status quo were
considered more attractive for the post I applied for, but these features
were not identified at all). Also, the time it took to complete the form to
comply with the ludicrous requirement for character counts was
unacceptable and too difficult. Why would anybody do this again without
being pretty certain they were sure to get the job?! It took me over 8
hours to complete the form!”
“I found the process dispiriting and I had concerns about how open and
transparent the process really was. I was honest about having a disability
and I have been left with some concerns that this may have been
perceived negatively.”
17


“Ensure that if a candidate complies with the essential criteria and is
disabled is given an interview. Feedback stating there were many
applicants is very unhelpful.”
Read more comments……
From the comments made, it seems that disabled applicants have less confidence in
the process in comparison to the overall applicant group.
First time applicants found that the pack did not contain all the information needed to
make a good application, in particular the skills and knowledge that they would need,
and what would happen at each stage of the process.
Some comments made by first time applicants about the application process include:




“The questionnaire diminishes what should be a detailed search for the
most appropriate candidates. I would not waste my time filling in a form
like this again. By default the process excludes capable people who are
already busy being successful elsewhere. If the position has specific
success criteria attached to it, ethnicity, gender, etc these should be filters
at the start of the process. It is wholly unacceptable to have candidates
spending hours of valuable time completing detailed questionnaires when
there was never any chance of them getting to the interview stage. At the
level of seniority required for Board selection it would make more sense to
have a professional search carried out than the current application
process. I suspect a lot of very capable candidates have a similar
experience to my own and apply for a Board position only once.”
“That prior to issuing a rejection at the first hurdle, some form of
discussion takes place - especially with well qualified candidates - which
indicates a degree of respect for the time taken to submit an application.”
“Frankly the application process is lamentable. It is bureaucratic, time
consuming and I was left with the distinct impression that there was little
correlation between the job specification and the true nature of the
candidate being sought.”
Read more comments……
From these comments, it seems that a lot of first time applicants found the process
particularly complicated in comparison to similar experiences in other sectors and
the lengthiness and complication involved in the process has put a large number off
applying again in future.
It is interesting to note that first time applicants generally spent less time on their
application (47.9% spent more than 4 hours) and those invited for interview generally
spent more time on their application (59.5% spending more than 4 hours) compared
to 52.3% within the overall group.
Following on from questions about the application pack, responders to the survey
were asked questions relating to their success or otherwise and for the views
regarding communication, feedback and their thoughts on possible changes to the
process. At this stage the number of responders continuing with the survey dropped
from 414 to 371.
 64.7% of responders (240 people) were not invited to interview.
 35.3% of responders (131 people) were invited to interview.
18
Responses from those NOT invited to interview
The majority of this group, 63.6%, felt that they heard the outcome of their
application in a reasonable timescale. However 18.5% disagreed that the timescale
was reasonable. Some comments received include:



“I can't remember the time, but it was good to have a considerate reply”
“The refusal letter was one of the best that I have seen, which, although it
was a standard letter, would encourage me to try again.”
“It took so long that I had forgotten I had applied for the position.”
“I have never been informed of the outcome of the application.”
Responders were then asked questions related to feedback, 42.2% agreed that they
had received information that made it clear that they could request feedback on the
shortlisting decision. 35.1% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the offer had been
made clear.
Comments regarding the offer of feedback include:

“I presumed that the feedback was only available to shortlisted
candidates.”
“I was told nothing would be supplied in writing. I found this very strange
and concerning as if reason for not accepting my application was
legitimate in entirety why refuse to put it in writing.”
19
Further results relating to feedback from those not successful at application stage
include:
20
Some comments about feedback include:


“The feedback was not meaningful and felt like standard phrases applied
without supporting evidence”
“Feedback provided me with a clear picture of the area I need to develop
and improve”
Read more comments……
Respondents were asked for their opinion of the offer of feedback and 12% felt that
the offer of feedback was encouraging, 61.1% felt that it was offered merely as part
of the process, 5.4% felt that the offer was off-putting and were too intimidated to ask
for feedback a further 21.6% chose to describe the feedback invitation in their own
words.
Most describe not recollecting the offer of feedback, however some more detailed
comments are noted below:

“I gained the impression that as I was not selected for interview that I
was no longer valued either in terms of requesting feedback myself or
providing feedback about the process”
“There was a long delay in response to my request for feedback. Perhaps
the panel should routinely record their decisions in a format that can be
transalted into feedback by their administrative staff.”
Based on their experiences the next question of the survey sought to understand
attitudes to making future applications.
Comments included:

“Attempts to make the system fairer have in fact made it significantly
more cumbersome for applicants other than those already known to the
panel (and who may have been encouraged to apply) to establish their
credentials and aptitudes. Given that the majority of the positions are not
remunerated there is little sense for applicants that the Government
values their desire to contribute.”
21





“I felt that the fact that I do not live in Scotland was decisive.”
“I felt the outcome of the selection process had been predetermined. I am
aware of at least one other candidate who applied and more than met the
requirements of the job but was not even invited for interview. This is not
the first time I have been left with this impression but it has certainly
convinced me that it is pointless making an application if it is "jobs for
known faces" process.”
“I have applied on previous occasions, and unless the specified criteria
change substantially, there is no point in applying again.”
“Positions are still made within a small pool of people, with many holding
multiple public appointments.”
“I will not apply again as it became clear that my application was a
complete waste of time given that the appointment was given to a political
colleague of the Health Secretary. His constituency Chairman!! Given that
your office does not see any potential conflict of interest then a further
application that goes through your office would be a waste of time.”
The final questions asked of this group of responders related to improvements to the
appointments process and areas that would be most likely to encourage a future
response.
In 2012 the top three factors most likely to encourage a future application were
1. provision of good quality constructive feedback (81.1%)
2. a direct approach to encourage an application (80.5%)
3. welcoming interview panel (75.6%).
The factor most likely to put people off applying would be an unrealistic time
commitment.
In 2013 the top three factors were:
1. a direct approach to encourage an application (84%)
2. provision of good quality constructive feedback (78.7%)
3. welcoming interview panel (67.8%)
Unrealistic time commitment continues to be the factor most likely to put people off.
These factors varied only very slightly between female, disabled, under 55 and first
time applicant responses.
Additional questions for the 2013 survey probed how much some of the job aspects
of board membership motivate people to apply. Some of the results among the
group who were not invited for interview include:
22
23
Suggestions for changes to the role which would encourage future application
included:
 “Pension scheme”
 “Support for women at board level. It seems to be that the current system
is designed for retirees.”
 “There is clearly a difficulty getting applications from people who are
currently employed - employers are not likely to want to allow time off.
This leads to a lack of younger people and of people with current
experience. Older people though must not feel they are of no use - their
experience is valuable.”
Some additional suggestions for improving the process included:




“I'm not good with application forms as I do not feel I am able to express
myself well in them, yet I know I have much value to add I would like to
encourage alternative ways to recruit based on CV and conversation ... I
am rather taken with a values based conversation too.”
“Change the questions to always include a final question on why you have
applied and what you intend to do. Allow that to have a much higher word
count. Also allow cvs and allow the overall word count to be the key as
oppose to individual sections”
“A telephone call to clarify any area of uncertainty or ambiguity for
perhaps almost all applicants”
Read more comments……
The next section of the report looks at the experiences as reported by those who
were invited to interview.
24
Responses from those invited to interview
35.3% of those who responded to the survey reported that they had been successful
at the initial application stage and as a result had been invited to interview. Nearly a
third of the cohort (27%) were first time applicants.
As with other responders to the survey this group of responders were asked a series
of questions regarding their application experience with a particular emphasis on the
communications that they received.
In the 2012 survey nearly a fifth of respondents felt that they were not given
appropriate notice of their selection for interview. This figure has dropped
substantially. Respondents were able to provide comments regarding their
experiences.




“adequate time scales and interview was held on date stated in pack
which enabled me to plan”
“I received both written and verbal advice as to date, venue and those
carrying out the assessment/interview”
“Care was taken to avoid the interview date that was difficult for me, for
which I was most grateful”
“Unfortunately I was abroad and so not able to attend in person. I did
make myself available (at 0245 in the morning local time) for a Video
Conference call. Unfortunately Skype or Face Time where deemed
unusable on the basis of security. (I have been a security officer in the
past and know that a stand alone device discussing unclassified material is
perfectly acceptable). I was therefore more than a little disappointed. An
25

alternative date was offered however it was within only a few days of the
first and I was still unable to return in time.”
“The week of the interview was the week that my Mother died, after
weeks of illness. I informed the Scottish Government HR representative of
my circumstances, but did not receive a reply. I concluded that the
process would not accommodate an alternative interview date. I contacted
the Chairman and offered to withdraw. I was persuaded to persevere, but
am not convinced that my circumstances were taken into account. The
process seemed to focus on every bureaucratic requirement, while
overlooking common sense and sensitivity.”
Respondents were then asked about the information they received about the
interview format. The overwhelming majority received adequate information (90.6%)
which was approximately 10% higher than reported in the 2012 survey. Well briefed
applicants are likely to be more confident entering the process and therefore likely to
perform to the best of their ability.
Al
During the application stage, first time applicants had shown significantly less clarity
over what would happen at each stage of the process. Of the first time applicants
invited for interview, 91.4% believed that the information they received in advance of
the interview explained the assessment methods that would be used adequately.
26
Respondents were then asked if the interview date changed from that originally
published. The majority of respondents reported no change; however 9.4% (down
from 11.8% in 2012) of respondents did advise that they understood the date to have
been changed.
27
The Interview Experience
Respondents were also invited to provide comments regarding their perception of
the welcoming atmosphere. The comments provided highlight the need to ensure
that panel members are competent at the interview method chosen and are able to
create an environment where applicants are put at their ease.





“Welcoming - but the two panel members appeared to be competing with
each other for status.”
“I was given 5 minutes to provide my response to the board paper
provided immediately before the interview. Nowhere in the pre interview
information did it specify 5 minutes. Although I would have tried to be
concise, being given a time engendered some unnecessary anxiety.”
“I felt that one of the interviewers came across as if it was a bit of a chore
for them.”
“In one interview it was clear that a member of the panel was less than
interested and appeared to close their eyes at one point!”
“It would have been useful for the selection panel to explain more fully
what their interest in the process was and what they were looking for
from a candidate. Explained fully, it gives each candidate the opportunity
to express accurately what they can give to the role, rather than guess
what the individual selection panel members are looking for. At least one
of the selection panel hardly spoke, if at all.”
28
Six respondents made mention of observers being in the room, and that they were
not made aware in advance that they would be there.
Some positive comments included:


“The Chairman and both panel members were friendly, engaging, open,
and clearly anxious to ensure that I fully understood the questions put to
me. I felt that they were at pains to be certain that I had every
opportunity to present myself in the best way possible.”
“In previous interviews, I had been offered the opportunity to meet the
Board Chair prior to the formal interview and that had been very helpful.”
Respondents were also asked if they felt that the interview related to the role for
which they applied.
29
Again, this was an improvement on the previous year’s results:
2012
2013
Strongly Agree
29.4%
29.1%
Agree
49.0%
58.3%
Neutral / No opinion
5.9%
5.5%
Disagree
11.8%
6.3%
Strongly disagree
3.9%
0.8%
A selection of comments:




“The questions where scripted but left for little divergence based on the
responses that I made. As a result I felt that there was little exploration of
thoughts and ideas with the team.”
“The interview centred on the skills I would be expected to use as a
member of the board. It also centred on my application digging deeper
into the various examples I had used.”
“My only qualification is that some of the questions seemed to extend the
knowledge required for the position and were very difficult to answer on
the day. You were expected at interview stage to have a detailed
understanding of the way that the NHS works which went beyond what
seemed to be required of a governance role and which would prescribe the
ability of some applicants to respond in a confident manner.”
“Pertinent questions were asked by all panel members, and I felt that this
gave me a very fair chance of providing compelling and relevant
responses.”
In 2012, the role of the public appointments assessor (PAA) had changed as a result
of the introduction of the 2011 Code of Practice and it was important to understand
the role of all people present in the interview room. In 2013, NO respondents stated
that they did not know the roles of everyone present and only 0.8% said that they
weren’t sure. It therefore seems that the recommendation from the 2012 survey that
all panel members (and others present) introduce themselves and make their role
clear to the applicant has been effective.
The next question was to ascertain from applicants the level of information they were
provided with at interview regarding next steps and the decision making process. In
2012 just over three quarters of those interviewed received clear information
regarding next steps, and it was recommended that there was still room for
improvement.
30
Again there has been improvement in this area, with only 7.1% of respondents not
being aware of what would happen next.
31
Some aspects of the interview experience were also broken down into the various
demographic groups. This provided the following results:
At interview stage there were fewer differences between the responses of specific
groups and the responses overall, than could be seen in response to aspects of the
application process. The main difference appeared to be that disabled candidates,
first time applicants and women didn’t feel that the interview questions reflected the
skills, knowledge and experience that had been asked for at application stage to the
same extent as other groups. There may be a correlation between these views and
the lack of confidence disabled candidates, first time applicants and women
expressed about completing the application.
The table below shows the answer to the question “Did you find out about the
outcome of your interview within the time frame you expected to?” and highlights an
area in which the results have not improved in since the last survey.
YES
NO
2012
54.9%
45.1%
2013
45.7%
54.3%
The survey asked respondents for their comments on whether the time taken to find
out the result of their interview was, in their view, reasonable.

“The decision was delayed by almost a month from the given date.”
32




“The time scale was terrible, with candidates having to call appointed for
Scotland for information. Three dates were missed. By the time the
decision was announced , the result was an open discussion.”
“The whole process was extremely slow-especially the delay between the
interview and the notification of the outcome”
“The outcome was delayed by at least a month for no apparent reason.”
“the decision was made after considerable ( months ) delay and I received
very little information in the interim. I was offered the post 2 days after
the start of contract by phone.”
Delays do happen, and when they do it is important that applicants are provided with
regular updates with regard to progress. Applicants should not be in a position of
having to chase up for information and certainly should not be finding out the
outcome of a round via a press release. The Scottish Government should consider
what steps it can put in place to improve the turnaround of ministerial decisions and /
or those being fed back to applicants.
Similarly to 2012, 57.9% of those interviewed were considered suitable for
appointment. The next section looks at the experience of those who were not
considered suitable for appointment alongside those who, although identified as
suitable, were not selected by the Minister for appointment.
33
The experience of individuals NOT successful after interview
This group is comprised of fifty three people who did not pass the interview stage
and thirty who after interview had demonstrated that they had met the criteria for the
role but were not selected for appointment.
The group were asked if they could recall being offered the opportunity to request
feedback.
2012
2013
YES
65.4%
83.1%
NO
19.2%
4.8%
Other
15.4%
12.1%
Unsuccessful interviewees were then asked whether or not they had pursued
feedback and their opinion of any feedback provided. In general this group of
responders were more positive regarding feedback received compared to those who
had been unsuccessful at initial application stage.
Not shortlisted for
interview
2012
2013
Requested feedback
Feedback following
interview
2012
2013
34.60%
25.10%
38.4%
34.9%
Applicants who requested feedback - did not
receive any
10.64%
15.00%
10.00%
6.9%
Applicants who requested feedback received feedback but did not find it helpful
53.19%
38.30%
40.00%
20.7%
36.17%
46.70%
50.00%
72.4%
55.10%
61.10%
46.20%
53.2%
Applicants who requested feedback received feedback and found it helpful
Felt that the offer of feedback was offered
merely as part of the process
34
35
Some comments about feedback from those who received it following interview:




“Feed back didn't really give me insight into why I hadn't been appointed,
and what I might do to improve my application on a future occasion. I felt
I was just not the person they needed at that time, even though they
were positive about my skills.”
“The feedback seemed to be "you ticked all of the right boxes for us but
there was somebody who ticked them a little better". What I don't know is
what the person who did get the job did that elevated them above me and
therefore what I need to improve on if I were to apply for a position in the
future.”
“I requested feedback. I received a comprehensive report on my interview
which indicated a very strong performance in all respects with no negative
comments or reservations - and this mirrored my own impression of the
interview which was remitted to fill 2 Board posts. I did not receive any
explanation about why I had not been appointed to one of the 2 available
posts, which inevitably leaves a nagging doubt about the process given
the evident success of the interview. I do not feel that this process was as
transparent as it could and should have been.”
“I did not bother as I knew it would be a waste of time. I have done this
before and I knew from the "grapevine" that there would be no point.”
Whilst the opinion of applicants on feedback definitely seems to be improving, it still
seems to be regarded as a highly important element of the process in terms of both
transparency and the potential to apply successfully in future. It would appear that
unsuccessful applicants have an overall more disappointing experience if the
feedback they are provided with is not constructive. It should also be noted that
applicant considered suitable but not appointed should clearly be encouraged to
apply again and that transparent and constructive feedback is vital in doing so.
This group of respondents were also asked their thoughts on the offer of feedback
received. The majority of those responding again took the view that the offer
appeared to them to be a prescribed part of the process rather than an engaging
offer, and this is likely to account for the low take up of feedback from those
interviewed.
36
Again, respondents were invited to leave comments on this point:

“I felt no need for feedback. The narrowness of the skills required seemed
to dominate over the breadth of experience and wider knowledge that I
could bring to the role.”
“I did not ask for feedback although I would have if I had been
unsuccessful...”
This information highlights the opportunity available to Scottish Government to
improve communications with applicants with regard to the provision of feedback.
The next part of this report looks at the experience of those who were successful at
interview and were offered an appointment.
37
The experience of successful applicants offered a public appointment
The first question asked of the 43 individuals who were selected for appointment
related to the timescales for finding out the outcome of their interview.
The majority (60.5%) report that the heard the news when they expected to, 30.2%
report that they did not and 9.3% chose to describe their experience in their own
words. Some comments include:


“Yes but communication not good or timely. reasons for delays not
explained”
“I was left in the dark about when I would have to attend my first Board
meeting and had to chase for information.”
This group were then asked for their views on the feedback process. A higher
percentage of people (62.8%) selected the option that feedback was not offered.
With only 27.9% of respondents within this group recalling an offer of feedback and
9.3% receiving feedback as part of the offer process. Feedback is something that is
often associated with unsuccessful applications; however Scottish Government and
Board chairs should consider how feedback might be utilised as an early ‘onboarding’ tool for new appointees. Feedback to successful applicants that highlights
their strengths and reasons for selection as well as areas that they may wish to
develop is likely to improve confidence and performance upon entry to the
boardroom.
38
Suggested improvements from interviewed applicants
The following section of the report looks at the combined results of all respondents
reaching the interview stage and reflects the views of 123 people who had continued
with the survey.
The top three factors for those interviewed that would encourage a future application
were:91.1% a direct approach to encourage my application
79.7% a welcoming interview panel
74.4% good quality constructive feedback
These reflect the top three factors reported by those who were not invited to
interview and underline the importance of the Scottish Government seeking to use
active networks to cascade information about appointment opportunities, ensuring
that its selection panels are confident and capable of using the selection methods
chosen and finally that they have a coherent and consistent approach to the
provision of good quality constructive feedback to applicants.
Additional questions for the 2013 survey probed how much some of the aspects of
board membership motivate people to apply. Among the group who were invited to
interview:
 35.1% were attracted to a role with either no remuneration, or remuneration of
less than £8000 (for a board position with a time commitment of
approximately 8 hours per week)
 50.0% said that the nature of the role is more important to them than the time
required to undertake it and
 63.6% had no geographic preference as to where the role would be based.
Some aspects of the role that those interviewed considered important to encourage
future applications included:






“The feeling that you are appreciated to be contributing something useful
to society in Scotland”
“responsibility and fairness appeal to me”
“Training in the responsibilities of board membership.”
“Flexibility with the workplace.”
“contributing to issues that you believe are worthwhile”
“Learning, experience, exposure to enterprise, CPD, training”
Comments suggested to improve the process are noted below:


“Access to other, previously successful applicants both to discuss the
particular organisation that you wish to join and to talk about the actual
process of selection. In addition, a detailed Q and A pamphlet with the
most commonly raised issues from a survey such as this.”
“It would be encouraging to see trainee board member positions (12
month positions) that could shadow and research for the actual board,
with the aspiration for them to 'step up' to board member when a position
became vacant. That way they have already received the basic training
and are aware of the responsibilities expected of the post, maybe at 1/2
rate remuneration.”
Read more comments……
39
In conclusion:
The 2013 survey has shown significant improvements in the views of applicants
about almost all aspects of the process. Feedback has improved and the general
overall experience appears to have improved for applicants. There are some
exceptions and the constructive comments made by those who took the time to
complete the survey provide several areas for further consideration and
improvement.
When considering the breakdown of results by specific groups, the application
section of the process continues to cause concerns. It appears to be lengthy,
complicated and generally puts people off the process as a whole. This is
particularly the case for women, disabled applicants and first time applicants. This is
a requirement of the Code of Practice but progress in this area has been slow. It
would be worthwhile for the Scottish Government to continue investing time and
effort into considering alternative new and accessible application methods, in order
to improve the overall diversity of the applicant pool.
The survey results tell us that all categories of respondent would value direct
encouragement to make an application. We also know that new applicants are less
likely to find out about opportunities from the Scottish Government website or email
alert system. If Scottish Ministers wish to broaden the diversity of boards then raising
awareness of public appointments continues to be a high priority and it is apparent
that this must involve a broader mix of media channels than are currently used.
Feedback has improved for those who ask for it. When it is provided and found to be
useful, it helps to increase the general positive perception of public appointments
and encourages repeat applications. The opposite is also true and, for those who
meet the requirements of the role but are not appointed, the quality of feedback
appears to be particularly important if they are to be encouraged to maintain interest.
It would be useful to build on the successes seen this year and to find more ways of
encouraging applicants to request feedback.
A further applicant survey will be conducted in autumn 2014. This will be the first
survey to test the experience of applicants applying for vacancies run under the 2013
Code of Practice which came into effect on 1st October 2013. It will be interesting to
hear from people whether implementation of the 2013 Code, which requires a
simpler and more accessible approach to application to be taken, will make a
significant difference to the applicant experience.
- END -
40
Appendix 1 – Additional Comments
Comments made by women about the application process:








“Having significant relevant experience in connection with the post I
applied for, and having extensive experience in recruitment in the public
sector at a senior level, I considered that I would have satisfied all of the
relevant criteria to have been offered an interview (which I was not). In
light of this, and the amount of time involved in completing the application
form, I would not apply for a further post as clearly the shortleeting
process does not follow establish recruitment practice therefore making it
difficult for someone to obtain a public appointment post within their area
of expertise.”
“I was given no opportunity to detail my qualifications and experience, or
to state why I thought I might be suited to the role or why it interested
me. I am involved in a number of roles in the Borders which I felt could be
deemed to be relevant to the position. I was not impressed by the
application form as a means of determining one's skills and relevant
experience. Not a great advert for HR.”
“I am not sure if I would apply again. I find the format very difficult, and
not really as 'evidence based' as it claims or intends to be. The separation
of evidence into categories to 'prove' separate skills or experience in
strategy, team working, challenge etc. seems to me to be part of the' tick
box' approach that bedevils government. I am articulate, experienced,
and have skills in all the necessary areas, and I find the form clunky,
boring, and designed to pick the usual suspects for these posts. ie. those
who have ligged off public funds for most of their lives and hope to go on
doing so.”
“unlike any other applications where I thought I met the essential criteria,
I have never been offered an interview for a public appointment; it is in
complete contrast to my experience of other processes, which makes me
think the places are already filled”
“I am unable to fathom what is required in such applications. I feel that
there must be some "inside track" on how to complete them. I cannot
understand why I have not even made it to interview stage for posts
where I clearly had relevant experience. I'd suggest that those doing the
initial cut of applications have some flexibility which enables them to
include people who clearly have relevant experience but who perhaps
have not completed the form in the "correct" way.”
“I felt that I had the expertise in the role and spent days completing the
lengthy application form. I then saw in the press the persons appointed
were at Director level. The original covering letter from the Chairman
clearly stated that they required people from 'all walks of life'. This proved
rubbish and it appeared to me to be 'jobs for the boys! I was very
disappointed in the rejection and it has put me off applying again.”
“Clarity on the level of expertise which is absolutely required so that I can
work out which ones it is not worth applying for”
“If it is the case, it needs to be made clear that previous experience in the
specific field of the Board is not required if the skills on offer are relevant
41











and can be applied in various situations. If experience in that specific field
is required that needs to be stated.”
“Use of assessment centres or role playing.”
“Put some information on from current post holders, to really give a
flavour of the role.”
“A screening system so that a full application is not required if there is no
prospect of the application being successful. The time involved in filling in
unsuccessful applications cannot be justified. If the selectors have hidden
requirements for particular expertise, gender, age or geographical balance
this should be explicitly stated.”
“Make it easier. It requires a lot of work. I wonder if a shorter process
could be used to initially sift applications and if a more thorough process
could follow?”
“Yes I think I would have found as assessment centre approach useful.”
“I felt that the application form was terribly cumbersome for the role
involved. I thought that it was far too generic for all public bodies and I
struggled to find quantitative experiences to fit the wording within the
question that would make it applicable to the role involved.”
“Assessment centres maybe helpful but can also intimidate. If there is
true desire for diversity perhaps access to being coached through the
process could be helpful. Also recognising that skills beyond narrow
business skills are equally valuable.”
“Recently, I think the emphasis on demonstrating skills via experience in
senior positions is limiting the group of people you have to choose from
for public appointments. I know this was brought in because it was felt
that using referees was unfair, but I certainly feel the new system is
worse in this respect, particularly for women who may have been out of
the job market for a while due to bringing up families etc. If you want to
get more women in public positions, those with the time to do it are
probably those coming back to work after a career break. It would be
fairer to look for skills rather than experience, and I would favour going
back to referees as well.”
“I think that the requirements should be clearer. I do believe that the
pack is more accessible to those who have worked in government
positions before and therefore have a mind set to complete the forms in a
way that will tick the right boxes for the initial screening. I knew I had the
qualifications and experience required and yet I did not pass the initial
screening process.”
“I would like to see a course run for public appointment candidates. Going
over the basics which would be necessary on the induction courses I set
up for new board members. NOLAN, how to read a balance sheet, risk
assessment and mitigation. As when I look to see who has been
appointed, it appears always to be ex CEO's and very few ordinary people.
I would like to see the spread of candidates widen as I have worked with
community activists ad tenant led housing associations. They have a
passion and commitment.”
“People who meet the criteria for a variety of posts should be kept on filethere is tremendous duplication of effort in filling out the same details. Not
for this position but for others where I have been shortlisted- the
interviewers were not professional and had on more than one occasion
obviously not read fully my application form. They also asked exactly the
42

same questions as those on the application form and I cannot see how
this adds value.”
“Clearer application form or additional guidance in completion of
application form”
Return to main report
Comments made by disabled candidates about the application process:





“I have no plans to do so because, as I indicated earlier, I was so
unimpressed by the entire process. Significant aspects of the induction
half-day did not equate with the information in the information pack with
regards to the selection process. That left me having not confidence in the
process that resulted in an individual of my experience, skills and
background in the relevant sector not even being called for interview. Had
it been a case of exercising due humility and proportion at not been called
on the basis of what I offered I could of course accept that - but I was left
not understanding the process and having no confidence in it.”
“Going by the criteria set out for appointment indicating NHS Highland
was looking for people with a wider skills set and background to add to
the non-executive directors' experiences then I felt I had a lot to offer.
Given that I had worked my way from being a streetsweeper and
dustman; through university to achieve a masters degree (even though
initially refused as the view was taken that a dustman was only
timewasting in making application); owning and running a number of
small businesses; to working in a private legal business advising
companies and directors on duties and responsibilities. I achieved all of
the above whilst battling several chronic, severe illnesses. On obtaining
feedback and seeing the non-executive appointments it appears that NHS
Highland has only appointed those in the approved image i.e. public sector
background, safe pair of hands, etc. The usual anodyne "strong attributes
but others better in tough field" patronising nonsense. It is a waste of
time for anyone not in the above mould to apply for such a position. I'm
disappointed but not surprised.”
“I would like to be shown how to express my experience and life skills in
the manner to match the Star system used for assessment of candidates.”
“If you are seeking NON-executive members for a board, there should be
less emphasis on senior managerial experience, there is already enough of
that in situ --you are basically looking for the punter's perspective in
many cases--and you won't get that from 'suits'.”
“See comments above re either removing or at least increasing the
character count limitation in the application form. Without this changing I
would not apply again as filling out the form is too time consuming. The
opportunity to meet the existing board members (who you are applying to
join) would be good, if only to see whether you're likely to be able to get
on with them! Also, the chance to find out what is REALLY involved in the
job, not simply what's stated on the information pack, would be good, to
see if it's as attractive as it looks or if you've actually got the skills and
attributes that are REALLY required. Lastly, possibly meeting the interview
panel might be helpful, before applying, so you have a feel for how they
will view the candidates - effectively to judge whether you believe they
have already made up their minds, or are genuinely open-minded.”
43


“If an applicant comes from the standard background of public sector or
retired from large scale business then these applicants should have to
pass a higher threshold for acceptance. There is an admission that the
current appointees are institutionalized but to approve those outwith
those parameters seems to be a step too far for the committee and initial
screeners (where appropriate). Publish CVs of those appointed for
comparative purposes.”
“Yes - all applications and job adverts should be regulated by an NHS
legal team to ensure that they are up to date with our current laws and
uphold the equal opportunities principles that govern our society.”
Return to main report
Comments made by first time applicants about the application process:






“My experience is very broad, not motivated by a career plan or high
salary, but to be of use at a community level, advising and discussing
options the people face to face. I've never written a book and so my
writing skills could improve, but then do they need to? I don't know what
the "judges" are looking for, or even if what they are looking for is
appropriate.”
“Unless it is clearer that there is feedback and the rejection letter is more
encouraging I would not waste my time. i put a lot of time and effort into
this application and just to get a curt rejection was really horrible. I am
surprised people even think about volunteering their time on such boards.
I now think it is just for a certain class of person and if you are not born in
Britain you should just not bother. I have been rejected before for jobs
but I have been offered feedback in the letter and when I received it, the
feedback was really useful for the future. For me the feedback- lack of
was the awful thing.”
“If you are resident in Europe very very difficult to complete the
application and upload CV.”
“Despite being very well qualified for the role which I applied for, I did
not even receive an invitation for interview, and I therefore made the
assumption that those creating the shortlist already had candidates in
mind. I had been encouraged by the existing Chief Executive to apply as a
result of an impromptu email from myself regarding the position, and the
fact that the selectors had decided to discard my application at such an
early stage in the process, led me to believe that pursuing the matter
further might simply be wasting time.”
“I do not believe it is an "open" process. Too many people seem to make
mini careers out of it, e.g. many of the Care Inspectorate Board members
were previously Board members at the sister organisation the Scottish
Social Services Council. It would be interesting to know how many hold
more than one position or undertake consecutive appointments”
“My experience of reviewing opportunities tends me to the view that it is
unlikely that I will apply again, although I have an open mind on it. The
reason that I see it as unlikely is that the process is often quite closed in
the sense that the skills and experience definitions are fairly narrow, or
contain hurdles which may be 'jumped' only by a few. This may make the
44



process manageable to those conducting it but may also lead to an
'inbred' characteristic which is possibly not healthy.”
“I felt that I had the expertise in the role and spent days completing the
lengthy application form. I then saw in the press the persons appointed
were at Director level. The original covering letter from the Chairman
clearly stated that they required people from 'all walks of life'. This proved
rubbish and it appeared to me to be 'jobs for the boys! I was very
disappointed in the rejection and it has put me off applying again.”
“I felt mislead and would not have confidence in the process to apply
again.”
“As a public volunteer currently participating in NHS committees I would
have preferred to know realistically whether such experiences were
relevant.”
Return to main report
Comments about Feedback








“I was told there were too many applications to give feedback. My
assumption was that new candidates with no prior experience of public
office were at a disadvantage”
“I feel feedback should be given automatically. At the application stage, it
would only need some brief comment as to why the application was
unsuccessful, even comments taken from a database of comments.”
“I had to make contact a further three times to obtain feedback.”
“Feedback was helpful and honest but the panel's decision (as fed back)
included judgements and opinions on areas that were not advertised as
part of the skills required for the role. I felt as a result that shortlisting
(while likely getting excellent people) had also taken into consideration
wider factors that were unadvertised and unclear.”
“I requested feedback and received no response until I chased again.
When received the feedback was not helpful or useful”
“I waited several months for the feedback. I find this extraordinary. It was
very brief, so not as helpful as I would have liked, but did give some
useful pointers.”
“I have requested this in the past, but found it quite difficult to arrange,
requiring several phone calls which went to voicemail, various emails etc.
This was despite my being very flexible about when I was available. The
feedback when I got it was not particularly constructive, and gave the
impression of a series of statements being read from a ticksheet
completed when the application was considered.”
“good feedback from outgoing or current board members about their
experiences, good and bad, and what they think the challenges are”
Return to main report
Suggestions for improvement from those not invited to interview:
45








“I feel more women need to be encouraged to apply. At present the same
group of white male applicants seem to be selected because they have
more senior experience, but it is harder for women to gain much of this
experience because of the "glass ceiling". I feel that members of a board
should be 50% male and 50% female as this is probably the only way that
women like myself are going to have equal opportunities.”
“I found the experience quite 'detached'. An opportunity to meet with the
existing Chair would be helpful”
“The application process is excellent. In my opinion the selection process
should be more transparent with constructive feedback available. You
have to do that for procurements and staffing in the public sector so why
not for board members.”
“I think that the application form should seek genuine evidence of the
applicants' interest in the area, and take a systemic and not siloed
approach eg. instead of asking applicants to separate out strategic and
challenge and analytic examples, it would be better to list the necessary
skills an experiences and then to ask applicants to describe from a range
of examples from their lives and work who they demonstrate these in a
rounded way. Therefore one could actually use examples from real live of
deploying all the necessary skills and experience to achieve desired
outcomes and crucially of learning from failure.”
“Less repetition in the application documents. Some reinforcement is
helpful but I did feel that I was reading the same information several
times in different parts of the comprehensive application information”
“I would avoid Assessment Centres at all costs as, in my experience, they
do not sufficiently identify the best candidates for the role, but simply the
best candidates at Assessment Centre performance. I think it would be
fair to have a Corporate Governance type exercise which tests the
candidate's ability to scrutinise, analyse and provide feedback on a Board
paper for example. A traditional interview to explore competence for the
role and past experiences would also be preferable.”
“More diverse and in-depth / thorough assessment that properly measures
the skills required. An application form followed by a 50 minute interview
(and possibly a ministerial face to face) seems very 'light' for significant
appointments with accountability for large amounts of public money and
profile. That very 'lightness' of current process can lead one to believe
that the real decision is made using other factors / influences.”
“1. The application form online would benefit from further work. I
mentioned above that I did not find it possible to use non-verbal, eg
diagrammatic ways of conveying information, although in my experience,
it is often more effective than a ream of words. I appreciate that the word
limit is designed to test the ability to be concise, which I admire, but think
it would be better to give a certain amount of space, eg 1 side of A4,
rather than a specific word limit, and allow the applicant to choose a
combination which would be effective. 2. There was too much information
about the kinds of answers that would be acceptable, so much that it
became confusing. I found myself constantly chopping and changing to try
to fit what I wanted to say into the brief, and felt confused myself by the
end of it. 3. Lack of notification of the result was in my opinion
discourteous, especially since we had been led to expect it. 4. Feedback, if
asked for, should be provided within a week or two of the request. The
46



fact that it took months, with no explanation of or apology for the delay,
was the worst aspect of the whole process.”
“Offer more training in getting the forms right - I know that there was
some training but when it was offered I was already in post. When I
needed it, it was not on offer. OR - change the forms. ALSO - consider
setting criteria that are more focussed on non-executive strengths. Being
an executive director often demands individual decision-making, being a
good non-executive director means being part of collective decisionmaking and team working.”
“It seems to me that those who vet the applications may not be able to
see beyond a "tick the box" scenario. If there are lots of applications,
what about having an initial cull of the written applications (eg the post
requires a medical background and the applicant does not have one) and
then invite the remainder to meet with members of the current Board in a
"speed dating" type scenario. Board members could then blackball those
who did not make a good impression. Those remaining could be invited to
a more formal meeting or interview. This approach would also give
applicants the chance to assess whether they felt they could work with the
existing Board members. I realize that this approach does rely on the
subjective views of Board members. However I don't think this would be
any worse than the current selection process which often results in misfits
in many Boards in Scotland.”
“I found the advert by chance. Felt the advert could have been placed on
national sites such as Guardian jobs”
Return to main report
Suggestions for improvement from those who were interviewed:





“An account of the decision making process by the Minister. Up to that
point, the process is reasonably open and transparent and fair. After that,
the black hole of a biased Government Minister......”
“The application pack and application form was too long and in some part
repetitive. Although the dates of potential interviews were given in the
application pack, there was little flexibility of other work commitments
could not be re arranged.”
“The communication to candidate prior to submitting an application is
excellent. After the application is submitted the follow up is poor.
Candidates should not have to make repeated calls to ascertain what
stage their application is at. A simple system where the candidate is kept
informed of the progress of an application right up the the final decision
would be a great comfort and create confidence in the system. I for one
feel great pride in hoping to be appointed to a public role, and therefore
take the progress of any application very seriously.”
“The Public Appointments Scotland Web site is hardly appealing - you
have to work through it, rather than being attracted to opportunities.
Make it look more like a job web site - plenty out there. If wishing to
encourage more applicants profile some post holders who show the
diversity of appointees - could even do uTube videos.”
“After having been through the application process but being
unsuccessful, I am unsure as to whether to apply to the same body if a
slot were to become available in the future. I also don't know if my skills
47





demonstrated in the interview and in the application may be suitable for a
different role that I may not initially think about. Keeping a "bank" of
suitable candidates who did not get the job and trying to match them up
with future opportunities might be worth considering.”
“I have found the process to be very variable and would suggest that
there is more standardisation. It would be helpful to create a bank of
applicants who have been screened as suitable for appointment and
automatically consider them for future appointments. The form is difficult
to complete and does not really seek evidence of what motivates an
applicant and what they can bring to the role.”
“Comment about my interview - I regret now not stopping the interview
when the chair of the interview panel - whilst I was talking - took out his
phone from his trouser pocket and proceeded to use it not very discretely
under the table - totally inappropriate and unprofessional.”
“Narrow the field by using recruitment consultants to talk to and screen
candidates ahead of interviews. This would be more efficient for both busy
candidates and the interview panel.”
“There would be a case for assessment centres followed by a holding
pattern pending future vacancies. Few people have time to keep checking
the SG website for new vacancies, so such an arrangement could be
linked with the terms of office of current incumbents. In other words my
scheme would result in a matching service between above-the-line first
stage applicants and upcoming vacancies, so that short lists for interview
become easier. Applicants under this scheme would all go through an
assessment centre in the first instance rather than apply for vacancies
direct.”
“The use of assessment centres is an excellent idea. Additionally, I would
personally have appreciated an informal discussion with a serving Board
Member about the specific responsibilities and tasks which THEY had
undertaken and experienced during their term of appointment. Perhaps a
volunteer panel of experienced serving Board members could be
established to undertake this responsibility? While there would clearly be
an additional cost involved to the taxpayer from the payment of expenses,
the benefit in terms of well informed applicants, with the confidence that
they had relevant skills to offer might prove to be cost effective.”
Return to main report
48
39 Drumsheugh Gardens
Edinburgh EH3 7SW
T: 0300 011 0550
E: [email protected]
W: www.ethicalstandards.org.uk
49