Structured Interviews, Not Gut Feeling: Competency-Based Staff Selection in Public Administration

Interviewers who rely on gut feeling make the right call less often than a selection panel working from a clear set of questions.

In many public authorities, the job interview still follows the same pattern: a friendly exchange, a few questions about the CV, and at the end a gut feeling the selection panel agrees on. The problem is not the goodwill of those involved, it is the method itself. Unstructured interviews have been shown to lead to subjective and biased judgements. Anyone taking the principle of merit-based selection under Article 33(2) of the Basic Law seriously needs a process that genuinely makes suitability, competence and professional achievement comparable, rather than one that measures likeability.

How to actually recognise competencies

The first step in any competency-based selection process sounds unremarkable, yet it is decisive: translating the requirements of a post into concrete, observable competencies. Only once it is clear which professional, personal and social abilities genuinely matter for a position can selection instruments be targeted towards them. One well-established method for this is the Critical Incident Technique, or CIT. Real situations from the day-to-day work of the post are collected and then analysed to establish which behaviour led to success or failure in those situations. These critical incidents form the basis for the assessment dimensions on which a selection process is later built.

DIN 33430 can serve as a point of reference for such a methodical approach. The standard aims to ensure that a selection process actually measures the relevant requirements of the post, rather than the random impressions of individual panel members. Among other things, it recommends applying the CIT and defining three to five core assessment dimensions to reduce rating errors.

The structured interview as the core instrument

The job interview remains the most widely used selection instrument, and for good reason: it allows a direct assessment of communication skills, motivation and professional fit. What matters is the form it takes. Conducting it as a structured interview considerably increases comparability and objectivity. Validity data from selection research shows just how much difference this makes: structured interviews reach a validity of .58, the same figure as unstructured interviews, but unstructured interviews gain markedly less additional validity when combined with an intelligence test. Structured interviews deliver the highest incremental validity of all the instruments examined, at .117, ahead of integrity tests and assessment centres.

In practice, this means preparation begins with clarifying which competencies, experience and personality traits the interview is meant to assess. Reviewing the application documents produces a structured set of questions that applies equally to every candidate. At the start of the interview, a brief introduction of the panel members and an overview of the process help create a relaxed atmosphere. The actual assessment then follows the agreed questions, so that the outcome is genuinely comparable rather than a collection of differing impressions.

Assessment centres for demanding positions

For management positions and complex job profiles, a more extensive process often pays off: the assessment centre. It combines several selection instruments such as classic interviews, role plays, group discussions and presentations, allowing a broad observation of behaviour in realistic situations. This approach reaches a high validity particularly when assessing leadership and social competencies. The effort involved is considerable, though: assessment centres are costly and time-intensive, and they require professional organisation, since long waiting times between exercises or an unclear process for candidates can quickly cause frustration.

Anyone planning an assessment centre first defines its purpose: is it meant to select new staff, identify leadership potential, or support staff development. Building on this, the abilities to be assessed are determined and a detailed requirements profile for the post is drawn up. A combination of group and individual exercises, written tests and interviews ultimately produces a comprehensive picture of the candidates, provided a clear assessment grid is in place for every part of the process.

What pays off in practice

A professionally designed selection process has an effect at several levels. It leads to better staffing decisions, higher productivity and satisfaction among employees, and therefore to lower staff turnover. It also increases acceptance among candidates and staff representative bodies and reduces the likelihood of legal challenges against a selection decision. Whether this effort has been worthwhile can be checked afterwards: through staff turnover rates in the first twelve to twenty-four months after appointment, through exit interviews, or through the success rate of selected candidates at the end of their probationary period. Organisations that evaluate these figures can develop their selection process in a targeted way, rather than relying indefinitely on a procedure established once and never revisited.

Competency-based staff selection is therefore not an end in itself. It is an investment in the quality of every individual hiring decision. Given the competition for skilled staff, public authorities can increasingly less afford a poor appointment, and this is precisely where structured processes make the difference.