Thought Leadership
The problem with panels
Hamish Davidson discusses the merits of panels in the interview process in an article published in the MJ.
There used to be a day, when I was young and naive – long, long ago – when I believed in the power of ownership, buy‐in and consensus that panels brought to an interview process. I believed (and to a limited extent, still do) in the notion of accountability and democratic process. A group of people, testing and challenging candidates – and coming to a common view about which one they most preferred.
Yeah, right.
More likely least disliked! Oh the horror of the bad old days. Giant panels. Candidates brought into the room as if being put on trial. A lone exposed seat (no table or desk) in the midst of a horseshoe setting like Harry Potter facing charges of ‘performing under‐age witchcraft in the presence of a Muggle’. Sometimes one person in the midst of 70 plus councilors in the council chamber! No water. No introductions. Equal opps rules, OK! A sea of glowering faces (to smile at one candidate is to potentially advantage that candidate over others). Set and formulaic questions. No follow ups. Asked at the end of the interview if you “are a serious candidate and would accept if offered” Woe betide you if you had any questions other than the trivial or the technical. References (all done by letter) only opened after all interviews completed. Required to hang around all day with the other candidates until the panel has made up its mind. Preferred candidate hauled back into the ‘pit’ to be offered the job and ‘required’ to accept – no time to reflect to negotiate. Rest of the candidates then told they can go home. Feedback? Hah! That you should be so lucky. “It was close”. As our American cousins are wont to say… BS.