In 2015, the Northern Territory Government changed the process they use for recruitment of new employees. You can read all the reasons why here.

They stopped doing the traditional process of: attract applications -> shortlist applicants -> conduct interviews -> conduct referee checks -> get approval -> offer job

And started doing it as: attract applications -> shortlist applicants -> conduct referee checks -> conduct interviews (if necessary) -> get approval -> offer job

It seems like a minor change but it wasn’t until recently when one of my scribing clients did it the old way that I realised the benefits of the newer process.

In the simplified recruitment process, the panel, usually of three people with an external included, can save time and effort.

Here’s how:

• Applicants provide their written applications putting forward their career story, a list of skills and attributes and examples of the work they have done- ie roles, projects and assignments.

• If they have done it well, they will have convinced the panel to shortlist them.

• If they haven’t, and there is no other reason to ask more questions, they won’t get shortlisted.

• The contents of written applications, for those that are shortlisted, are then fact checked or verified by references and then maybe interviewed.

In the old process, the panel would go straight to the applicant for an interview.

Whilst the panel can be very skilled at preparing interview questions, they are likely to get a lot of the same content as what was in the written application.

However, with the new process, they contact two referees who can verify the experience and examples, provide other examples of skills, knowledge and abilities, and speak as a third party who knows the applicants work about how they would meet the requirements of the job.

This means that often, by now, the panel has verified the content of the application.

It is actually possible for the panel to decide at this point that they will find one or more applicants suitable for the job.

All without an interview.

Ultimately, there are multiple reasons why this works better.

1. Referees are more independent and objective

2. Referee checks take 15-30 minutes each instead of up to one hour for each interview

3. Referees can say things about the applicant that the person would never say themselves - good and bad

4. Interviews may not be required

5. The whole process can be finished quicker - in less than 2 weeks when done well.

 In some cases, even though there is enough information from the application and references, a panel will want to meet the applicant to make sure there is good fit for the team, ie that the person would work well with the others in the team, understands the role, or other things.

The process does not prevent the use of an interview - it just doesn’t require or rely on it the same way.

I have made a bit of a study of the conversion numbers for recruitments. This might illustrate the situation a bit.

For the average generic job that doesn’t need specialist skills or experience there are between 10-25 and sometimes up to 40 applications. Usually between 10-25.

Of those applications, usually 3-6 will be shortlisted.

Of the 3-6, often 1/2 will get through referee checks to be found capable of operating at the level, in the role in the context of the team and maybe the industry.

By the last step, 1-2 will usually be found suitable and they may or may not need to be interviewed.

If you think about the time that all of this takes, reducing the numbers as early as possible with shorter appointments with the referees is smart.

Overall, I genuinely think that this process is really smart and could be used to make good decisions in the private sector too.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.

Please feel free to message me.

Ciao

Conni