🔍 Recruitment as investigation but not interrogation: A public sector guide to evidence-based hiring

Recruitment in the public sector is more than just filling a vacancy—it’s about making a fair, defensible, and evidence-based recommendation. And while the process may resemble an investigation, it should never feel like an interrogation. Candidates aren’t suspects—they’re contributors-in-waiting. Every piece of information should be treated like evidence, gathered respectfully and ethically, to support sound decision-making.

Let’s explore how shortlisting, referee checks, interviews, and document verification can be approached with investigative precision—without crossing the line into bias or discrimination.

📄 Written applications: The first witness statement

Applications are the candidate’s opening testimony. They’re structured, self-reported, and designed to present strengths. Like any witness account, they should be read critically—but with fairness.

• Seek verifiable claims: Look for outcomes, metrics, and specific achievements.

• Watch for vague language: “Supported project delivery” is less useful than “Coordinated logistics for a $1M infrastructure rollout” or “Led a team” is not as good as “Led a team of 6 and managed a $1.5M budget”.

• Avoid assumptions: Don’t infer personality or cultural fit from writing style or name or country of origin alone.

Treat the application as a foundation for further inquiry—not a final judgment.

But also, if the evidence isn’t there, and the panel’s knowledge doesn’t suggest it will be after referee checks, don’t be afraid not to shortlist.

📞 Referee checks: Corroborating the evidence early

In many public sector contexts—including the NT Government—referee checks can be conducted before interviews, especially when assessing soft skills, team fit, and contextual knowledge. If the written application and referee feedback provide sufficient evidence, interviews may not be necessary.

Referees are like secondary witnesses. They offer external perspectives that can confirm, challenge, or expand on the candidate’s claims.

• Ask consistent, behavior-based questions to reduce bias.

• Focus on observable actions: “How did they respond to feedback?” is better than “Were they easy to work with?”

• Be alert to tone and nuance: Subtle hesitations, body language or overly generic praise may signal areas worth exploring.

This early evidence helps determine whether further inquiry—like an interview or another referee—is needed, or whether the case is already strong enough to recommend.

Also, follow a line of information until you have enough. Probe and ask follow up questions of referees if their answers are insufficient.

🎙️ Interviews: Mutual fact-finding, not cross-exams

If interviews are conducted, they should be approached as respectful conversations—not high-pressure tests. Candidates are not on trial. In fact, they may be interviewing you just as much as you’re interviewing them.

Especially in the NT Government and similar organisations, interviews are sometimes optional. If a candidate demonstrates strong alignment with the role, understands the team and organisational context, and has validated soft skills through referees, the panel may already have enough evidence.

When interviews do occur:

• Create psychological safety: Candidates reveal more when they feel respected.

• Use open-ended, behavior-based questions: “Tell us about a time…” invites insight, not rehearsed answers.

• Send some questions in advance: Candidates that are introverted or junior or have a lot riding on the interview will perform better when they can prepare. You can always ask some questions on the spot if you want unrehearsed answers.

• Allow time for candidate questions: Explicitly offer space for them to “interrogate” you about the role, team dynamics, challenges, and expectations. Their decision-making deserves just as much clarity as yours.

This mutual exchange strengthens transparency and helps both parties make informed choices.

📑 Document verification: strengthening the evidence base

Beyond interviews and referee checks, robust recruitment also requires verifying key documents and declarations. These are the hard facts that support the integrity of the process.

• Criminal history checks: Ensure the candidate meets legal and ethical standards relevant to the role.

• Conflict of interest declarations: Identify any relationships or interests that could compromise impartiality or public trust.

• Qualification verification: Confirm that claimed degrees, certifications, or licenses are legitimate and current.

These checks aren’t just procedural—they’re part of building a complete and accurate evidence base. They help protect the organisation, uphold public sector standards, and ensure that every recommendation is grounded in truth.

⚖️ Beware of “facts” that aren’t: Avoiding assumptions and discrimination

In evidence-based recruitment, only verifiable, job-relevant information should inform your decision. Introducing assumptions—especially about personal circumstances—can lead to biased, unethical, and unlawful outcomes.

For example:

• Assuming an older applicant will retire soon

• Assuming a pregnant or recently married applicant will take parental leave

• Assuming someone with a disability won’t cope with the role’s demands

• Assuming cultural background affects team fit

Unless a candidate voluntarily offers information that is relevant to the role, you must not ask for it, and you must not use it in your deliberations. These assumptions are not facts—they’re biases. And when they influence hiring decisions, it’s called discrimination.

Recruitment panels must:

• Stick to job-related criteria: Focus on capabilities, experience, and alignment with the role.

• Document decisions based on evidence: Applications, referee feedback, interviews, and verified documents.

• Challenge internal biases: If a thought enters your mind that you wouldn’t write in a selection report, it probably doesn’t belong there.

In the public sector, fairness isn’t optional—it’s foundational.

🧪 Evidence-based recruitment: Building a case, not a gut feeling

An evidence-based approach means assembling facts from multiple sources to support a recommendation. It’s about clarity, consistency, and fairness—not intuition or bias.

Table of sources of information, evidence and the usefulness of each

Avoid common biases like:

• Affinity bias: Preferring candidates who feel familiar.

• Halo effect: Letting one strong trait overshadow others.

• Confirmation bias: Seeking evidence that supports your first impression.

Instead, document your rationale clearly. Treat your recommendation like a report to a review panel—because in the public sector, it often is.

🧭 Final thoughts: From facts to fairness

Recruitment isn’t about catching people out—it’s about uncovering the truth of their potential. By treating applications, referee checks, interviews, and document verification as parts of a respectful investigation, we ensure fairness, transparency, and better outcomes.

So next time you're assessing a candidate, ask yourself:

• Am I building a case based on facts?

• Am I treating each person like a valued witness, not a suspect?

• Am I giving them the chance to gather the facts they need too?

Because the best recruitment decisions aren’t made in the heat of interrogation—they’re made in the calm pursuit of truth.

🧩 Why you need an independent scribe or recruitment coordinator: Speed, integrity, and insight

Recruitment in the public sector demands precision, fairness, and defensibility. But even the most well-intentioned panels can struggle with time pressures, documentation overload, and unconscious bias. That’s where an experienced, independent scribe or recruitment coordinator becomes not just helpful—but essential.

✅ Accelerate the process without sacrificing quality

A skilled scribe or recruitment coordinator keeps the process moving by:

• Coordinating meetings and bookings with referees and applicants - something busy chairs and panel members find hard to fit in

• Capturing accurate, real-time notes during interviews and panel discussions

• Documenting evidence-based rationale for shortlisting and selection

• Ensuring compliance with policy and procedural standards

This frees up panel members to focus on assessing candidates—without getting bogged down in admin.

🧠 A critical friend to the panel

Beyond logistics, a good scribe is a critical friend—someone who can:

• Gently challenge assumptions and flag potential bias

• Prompt panels to clarify vague reasoning or unsupported conclusions

• Ensure consistency in how candidates are evaluated and recorded

Their independence allows them to see the process from a broader lens, helping panels stay aligned with merit-based principles.

🧍‍♀️ The role of the independent panel member

In many cases, the independent panel member may also be well-positioned to take on this role—provided they are:

• Truly independent of the team, workplace culture, and candidate pool

• Experienced in recruitment processes and public sector standards

• Confident enough to speak up when something needs clarification or correction

When the independent panel member doubles as a scribe or coordinator, they bring both procedural oversight and documentary rigour—a powerful combination for ensuring integrity.

🛡️ Why it matters

In environments like the NT Government, where transparency and accountability are paramount, having an independent scribe or coordinator:

• Speeds up the recruitment to meet deadlines such as the 6 week turnaround required by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment

• Strengthens the defensibility of decisions

• Reduces the risk of procedural error or bias

• Improves the candidate experience through smoother, more respectful engagement

It’s not just about ticking boxes—it’s about making better, fairer, faster decisions.