Selection decisions are based on a consideration of the full set of assessment results for candidates who have progressed through the process.

When doing a comparative assessment under GSE rule 17 you are assessing candidates against the pre-established standards for the role as well as against any other candidates.

When doing a suitability assessment under GSE rule 18 you are assessing against the pre-established standards for a role and not against other persons.

Using multiple assessments allows candidates to demonstrate their capabilities, knowledge and experience in a range of contexts. The consolidated results of these assessments help provide a solid evidence base for selection decisions.

It is a good idea to document strengths and development needs for all candidates to help you give meaningful feedback to unsuccessful candidates and for inclusion in the new hire’s individual performance development plan.

Whether you are assessing one candidate or many, it is good practice to be systematic when reviewing assessment results. You can combine each candidates’ results on the capability-based assessments using a template such as the one in this example.

If one of your assessments is a personality questionnaire, you may decide to consider the results after you have consolidated the results from the other assessments. This allows you to use the results from personality tests to help you to make your selection decision based on the right fit for the role.

One way to combine results is to calculate an average rating for each capability (if you have used the same numerical rating scale for all assessments).

The scores are helpful in showing how a candidate demonstrated their capabilities in the various assessments. They can be used to compare candidates to help determine who is best suited to the requirements of the role and the needs of the agency.

Some recruiters like to add up the capability ratings to give an overall score for each candidate. Where there are multiple candidates, overall scores can help you identify the stronger candidates. You can also consider each candidates’ fit for the role to ensure they are the person best suited to the needs of the agency.
 

Sometimes there will be conflicting or inconsistent information obtained from various assessments. Inconsistent information is not necessarily a problem and can provide useful clues into the contexts in which a candidate is likely to perform better and where they may need to develop. Here are some examples:

• Communicate effectively – a candidate may communicate effectively in writing but not when presenting ideas in a case interview.
• Commit to customer service – a candidate may perform well in one task when responding to a general inquiry from a pleasant customer, but may not perform well when dealing with a difficult customer in another activity.
• Display resilience and courage – a candidate may misunderstand the requirements of a work sample task and not demonstrate the behaviours required; yet a personality questionnaire indicates that this capability is likely to be a strength for the candidate.
• Project management – a candidate with limited work experience might find it difficult to demonstrate this capability in a behavioural interview despite having sound theoretical knowledge of project management frameworks.

Inconsistencies can be explored further when reference checking. See: Referee checks

Selection decisions are not just about which candidate has the highest score on the capability assessments. It is important to consider capability assessment results together with other information you have gathered through the process to decide who is best suited to the requirements of the role and the needs of the agency. Consider:

• does the role meet the candidate’s expectations?
• is the candidate motivated to perform the tasks required in the role?
• does the role allow the candidate to display their preferred work style?
• will the candidate work well in the team?
• is there alignment between the candidate’s values and the agency and public sector values?

When you are doing a suitability assessment or if only one candidate is being considered, it is still important to consider other information that relates to the candidate’s fit for the role, team and agency. If you have concerns about whether the candidate is likely to be suited to the role, team or agency you can follow this up in a second interview or through referee checks.

If you and your assessors have decided on a preferred candidate you can go directly to the next step of doing the referee checks. If you are unable to differentiate between two or more strong candidates, you can consider doing a second interview or complete referee checks to help you make your decision.

You should not do referee checks on candidates you are not seriously considering for the role.

Making the final selection decision is an opportunity to bring someone into your team who will be happy and productive in the role you are filling.

Selection decisions should be made on balance taking into account all the information from the assessments and referee checks.

Ask your HR advisor for your agency’s template to record and seek approval on your selection decisions.

If you have a number of strong candidates who meet the standards, you may decide to offer the role to the candidate most suited to the role (after conducting referee checks) and include the rest in a talent pool. You may also include a person who was offered the role and who declined it. You should ask their permission to include them in a talent pool.

If the purpose of your recruitment and selection process is to establish a talent pool, you can include all candidates that meet the pre-established standards for the role.

The PSC’s Talent pools guide for HR and hiring managers has information about how to set up and use talent pools.