- Site Tools
- Print page
- Email page
- Page alert
Annex B - Essential Techniques in Selection
Chambers must be concerned that their selection procedures:
· ensure equal, accurate and fair assessment of all applicants.
· ensure as far as possible that offers are made to those applicants who best meet the requirements of the post.
· use the time available for selection as effectively as possible.
· build selectors’, candidates’ and public confidence in the quality of assessment.
The Importance of Objective Criteria
Objective selection depends upon determining the abilities required to carry out the job. Equally, it involves eliminating from consideration all those qualities that may be individual personal preferences of a selector but which are, in terms of job performance and the needs of Chambers, irrelevant. Once determined, the criteria should infuse all aspects of the selection procedure. They should be:
· manifest in chambers promotional literature and job advertisements.
· fully covered in chambers’ application forms.
· used in pre-selection.
· determinant in choice of selection procedures.
· the focus of selectors’ questioning in interview
· the basis for collecting supplementary information from sources such as simulation exercises and referees.
· paramount in candidate assessment.
They should be written down and agreed by all engaged in the selection procedure. Written criteria bring the following benefits:
1. They help control selector’s bias. They provide a checklist for ensuring that all selection procedures, all questioning and all assessment are relevant. They enable selectors to assess their own contribution. They challenge selection via the Old Boys (Girls) Network.
2. They promote equality in treatment of candidates, since all must be assessed against the same requirements. (N.B. They do not imply standard questions, to be asked of all regardless of background.)
3. They build confidence between panels in each other’s judgement.
4. They provide a rational basis to justify any decisions which may be challenged and so help to promote public confidence that assessments are fair.
5. They help in ranking the middle block of candidates who are neither obviously high fliers nor obviously unsuitable.
6. They provide a basis for reviewing and revising selection procedures.
7. Most importantly, they can be revised. All criteria need regular revision, to keep up with changes in job requirements and changes in type and range of applicant.
Determining the Criteria
This begins with drawing up a Job Description. It is advisable to identify:
· the principal types of work that the pupil would be expected to do;
· how the pupil’s time would be divided between the different activities;
· the principal areas of law which the pupil will be expected to undertake.
Job Descriptions list the requirements of the job (or group of jobs) and are usually in the following format:
1. Purpose of the Job
2. Primary Responsibilities
3. Key Activities relating to Primary Responsibilities
4. Subsidiary, Special or Occasional Responsibilities
5. Activities associated with Subsidiary Responsibilities
6. Obligatory or required Working Conditions.
For many jobs, the description will run from 3-5 pages. This description is the basis from which selectors establish the criteria by which candidates are to be judged, often incorporated in a Person Specification. The document, however titled, will need to identify the knowledge, skills and other abilities required by a particular chambers of a competent pupil/barrister under the following headings:
· qualifications
· knowledge (of area of the law)
· ability to Apply Specialist Areas of Law and Procedure
· analytical Ability
· communication skills, oral and written.
To categorize abilities, many Chambers use some variation on the following:
· intellectual Abilities
· motivation
· relationships
· temperament
One example of how a legal post has been approached by this method can be found on the Department for Constitutional Affairs web site where job descriptions for judicial posts have been set out. These can be easily adapted for use in chambers.
Information included under each of these categories can be divided into Essential and Desirable. Thus under Temperament, an ability to remain calm and confident whilst working for long hours with complex material might be seen as essential. An ability to work in an hierarchical environment, or when not under pressure might be regarded as Desirable but not essential.
A number of issues arise in attempting to define criteria:
1. Career span
E.g. should the criteria relate only to pupillage? Or should they assume that the pupil will go on to tenancy and possible senior work? If so how senior? The qualities required for positions carrying major social responsibilities have been subject to much investigation. Most findings emphasise:
· Helicopter vision: the ability to see beyond the confines of the problem and set it in a broader context.
· High tolerance for ambiguity, paradox and confusing evidence, whilst staying focussed.
· Ability to handle daily issues with minimum waste or disruption.
This seems a tall order for a first six pupil, but chambers might think it reasonable to ensure that their defined criteria indicated potential for tenancy.
2. Word Definition
Much confusion between selectors can be caused by using abstract, umbrella words such as integrity, sense of humour, flair and maturity.
The solution, which benefits candidates, selectors and the selection process, is to define the abilities required as much as possible in behavioural terms. What actions would indicate that the candidate possessed the wanted ability? For instance, in tackling some problem, did s/he remain on friendly co-operative terms with the people concerned? Did s/he produce a practical and/or creative solution?
3. Weighting
Whilst all the essential items within each category should be important in assessing a candidate, chambers may need to consider whether all categories are of equal importance. Some chambers may conclude that intellectual demands are such that candidates with exceptional intellectual ability must be taken on, even if somewhat deficient in, say, impact or relationships. Others may decide that, given the level of academic achievement of all candidates seen, greater weight must be given to the relationships they establish with others. Ideally, selectors should agree both the criteria and the weighting before seeing the candidates.
Criteria weighting may also be affected by chambers’ expectations. Are pupils being selected for pupillage only? Or with a view to their becoming tenants? Or ultimately to taking a senior position in the profession? These questions have to be agreed before criteria and weighting are finalised.
The criteria which selectors intend to employ can usefully be published and issued to candidates in advance of selection. This helps all potential candidates to decide whether to continue with the application and if so, how to prepare for the interviews. The OLPAS Handbook gives useful general advice in this respect, advising applicants to prepare by reviewing the range of their experiences, and selecting those where they have demonstrated the abilities required. They should include in the review:
· achievements outside academia
· experience in business transactions and marketing
· work in presentations (including mooting and public appearances
· pro bono work
· opinions on current issues
Agreed criteria both impose a discipline upon the selectors and also free them to consider all aspects of the candidate’s career. Discipline comes from the requirement to abide by the criteria, and the criteria alone, in assessing the candidate.
Advance Information
The first piece of information selectors receive regarding an applicant is likely to be provided by a complete Application Form or CV.
Some chambers prefer CVs, on the grounds that they demonstrate how the applicant chooses to present him or herself. The CV does indeed hand over to the candidate the task of organising material, but it also provides considerable license to omit or embellish data.
OLPAS recommends the use of an Application Form, which can be designed to ensure that:
Essential information such as name and address and academic experience and achievements are collected, the latter with dates, subject matter and exam results.
Work experience is systematically recorded with precise dates, employer’s name and address, and job responsibilities.
These requirements are met by the OLPAS form, which also gives the candidate freedom to express him/herself, within the constraints of half a page, on matters such as choice of career and challenges and achievements. There is also a freehand section for additional information.
Candidates will, of course, continue to present a more or less optimistic view of themselves even within the confines of an Application Form. But omissions are more easily spotted and dates and results are more easily checked than they are in an inventive CV. The structure imposed by the Application Form also greatly helps in comparing the experiences of different candidates.
Short-listing
Short-listing is usually by means of a paper sift, assessing the information on the Application Form against the criteria, so as to eliminate those least likely to meet requirements. Other possibilities are written paper or test.
Short-listing
Short-listing from reading the applications should be done by experienced selectors, using the agreed criteria. Each application should be read by at least two selectors who mark independently before meeting to discuss their conclusions. The selectors should differ, if possible, in gender, age and background, so that the form is studied from different points of view. Selectors should record the basis of their judgement, on a standard form related to agreed criteria and indicate their reasons. This record can either go forward to the next selectors, or be retained to justify not calling the candidate to interview. A note from the paper sifters can help selectors by highlighting points for discussion such as unevenness in examination results, ambiguities in dates, or phrases needing exploration (‘in charge of the office’, ‘member of the club’, ‘attended the course’).
An effective paper sift has many benefits if properly carried out, predominantly in reducing the pressure upon later stage selectors and so enabling them to devote more time to short-listed applicants. Where numbers warrant it, additional sifts can be introduced. These may include written/oral tests, requiring, for example, analysis of a recent case.
The Range of Selection Procedures
Assuming chambers now have a useful short-list of suitable candidates, what are their options for the next stage?
The interview is a valuable method of selection provided it is conducted systematically and objectively. It may usefully be supplemented by exercises, however, particularly simulation exercises which require candidates to demonstrate particular abilities required in the post. Assessed mini-pupillages can be seen as simulation exercises, since they require the candidate to carry out many of the tasks required in pupillage.
Some Chambers supplement their interviews with presentation exercises. For example, candidates may be given 15 minutes in which to prepare a short presentation on a relevant topical subject. They deliver their presentation individually to the selectors and respond to subsequent questioning. Such an exercise gives selectors an opportunity to assess the candidate’s presentation skill, ability to analyse and prioritise information and quickness of response. Other Chambers conduct an interview purely in terms of the candidate’s reply to set questions on predetermined topics. This type of interview has the merit of standardising treatment, since all candidates are asked about the same topics. It may, however, omit some of the evidence that can be gathered in the biographical interview.
Invitation to Interview
Having determined the ingredients of the selection procedure, chambers need a procedure for inviting candidates to interview and a timetable for the total process. The letter of invitation can set the tone for the interview. Thus chambers might invite candidates in a friendly letter giving the date, time and venue of the interview together with a map. It might state how long the interview will last and explain whether the procedure includes tests or exercises. It could advise on dress (court dress suitable for wearing with robes or casual
Purpose of the Interview
The purpose of the selection interview is primarily to make as accurate an assessment as possible of those of the candidate’s abilities which are relevant to the post. It must also enable the selectors to exclude any whose abilities could militate against appropriate performance. It should serve to reassure all concerned that these aims are being effectively pursued.
A variety of skills are involved in conducting a selection interview so as to achieve maximum grounds for reaching a fair assessment.
Composition of the Interview Panel
Most chambers use a panel of interviewers when selecting pupils or tenants. The value of a panel is that it ensures the candidate is questioned and assessed by more than one person, and so is assessed from more than one point of view. Chambers may also need reassurance that more representatives than one have seen the candidates.
If a panel is used, there are good reasons for keeping it to three people. In a panel of three, there is usually one cautious or dissenting voice. Increasing the size of the panel does not improve the accuracy of assessment and has the disadvantage that it reduces the amount of time each panellist has for questioning. Very large panels virtually become an audience for the candidate’s presentation skills, since no panellist has time for detailed probing. A further reason for keeping to panels of three is chambers concern to keep demands on selectors to an effective minimum, in view of the time the procedure necessarily demands.
To maximise the value of different viewpoints, panels should be as varied as possible. Thus a senior member should be matched by a junior, both genders should be represented and members of different ethnic backgrounds should be called upon where possible.
The availability of senior people to sit on panels can pose a problem. Selection is certainly time consuming and time is at a premium for the self-employed. On the other hand, it is an important and skilled task that cannot be left entirely to juniors. Chambers may need to establish a policy regarding how the task is distributed (e.g., by agreed rota or by short secondments).
There is some evidence that gender of panellist and candidate can affect the interview. Women candidates, for example, may respond better to women panellists – even though women panellists may challenge them more than do their male colleagues. Such influences are controlled if all panellists are trained to treat all candidates in similar fashion and to ask them all a range of questions which similarly explore their experiences.
To avoid any risk or appearance of bias, no panellists should interview a candidate to whom s/he is related or with whom s/he has some other important relationship. Pupil Supervisors, for example, should not be included on panels where their own pupils are being assessed for tenancy. Any interest in the advancement of a particular candidate, in fact, should be declared and the panellist stood down for the interview.
Training of Panellists
Training of panellists is important to prevent poorly conducted interviews and to make best use of the time being spent. Training can be dealt with in house but it should cover:
The purpose of the interview
· The importance of appropriate support (essential documents, received in advance; systematic procedures for inviting candidates and for following up; monitoring of results)
· The importance of an appropriate venue and time table (the latter to allow for panel preparation before the interview and for subsequent discussion, in addition to the interview itself)
· The value of an interview structure with agreed roles for the Chair and each panellist
· The skills of questioning (avoiding illegal or wasteful questions, gathering information as accurately and efficiently as possible)
· The non-verbal management of the interview.
Purpose
Panellists need to be clear, and agreed, on the purpose of the interview. It is not to stress the candidate or pursue him/her in adversarial style. It is not to counsel the candidate on the career s/he should pursue. It is not to demonstrate the panellists’ knowledge or skills. It is to obtain as much information as possible in the time available, about the candidate’s abilities, relative to the job. The information has to be gathered with minimum distortion so that the Panel can reach a fair decision on whether or not to offer a position. This purpose determines the conduct of proceedings. For example, an important reason for treating candidates courteously is that this is the treatment most likely to encourage them to respond fully and frankly.
Structure of the Interview
The candidate is helped to respond if it is clear who is managing proceedings and s/he can attend to one panellist at a time. Panellists are helped if they can to some extent define their task in advance and can rely on having sufficient time to explore the matter with each candidate.
A recommended structure, as already followed by many chambers, divides the Panel’s work as follows:
Role of the Chair
Before the Interview
Convenes the Panel in advance.
Agrees with them the procedure and areas of questioning and time they will take.
During the Interview
Welcomes the candidate.
Introduces the Panel members.
Explains how the interview will be conducted.
Opens discussion with one or two general questions, keeping to easy topics such as the candidate’s interest in the Bar or his/her recent successes. These questions should be open, encouraging sufficient response to provide leads which Panellists may find useful.
Once a rapport is established, the Chair invites a Panellist to follow on, listens to the exchange and seeks clarification or further information if necessary and repeats the procedure with the second Panellist.
In Conclusion: the Chair
Invites the candidate to add any information s/he wishes.
Asks the candidate if s/he has any questions regarding the job.
Explains the next stage (e.g., when the candidate will hear the Panel’s decision).
Thanks the candidate and closes the interview.
After each Interview
Allows Panellists time to record their ratings.
If time, conducts a brief discussion.
On completion of all Interviews
Conducts the review of all candidates seen.
Aims to achieve an agreed decision about each candidate.
Records the panel’s decisions, with supporting reasons.
Ensures that all candidates are informed of the decisions as promptly as possible.
The Chairperson’s job extends to checking on the interviewing venue. It should be arranged to reflect both the importance of the meeting to everyone, and also the environment needed to encourage a frank exchange. Panellists should avoid sitting squarely behind a vast desk, with the candidate a couple of metres away on the other side. They should similarly avoid armchairs with everyone reclining as though in a London club. A table or desk (since panellists will have papers and need to take notes) around which six or eight might sit comfortably is advisable. Panellists and candidate should be seated on identical chairs. The Chairperson must occupy a central position but panellists need not be ranged beside him/her. Sitting at a slight angle to the candidate is less intimidating than sitting squarely opposite. Light should be evenly distributed, not focussed upon any one person. Name cards for panellists are helpful.
Most importantly, whilst all members of the Panel should accept the aims of questioning and the legal issues associated with some line of questioning, it is the Chair who carries the primary responsibility for checking that no questions are, or could be interpreted as, discriminatory. S/he must be ready to halt or help rephrase questions that are inappropriate, e.g. do you intend to get married?
Role of the Panellists
Before the Interview
Study the Application Forms and criteria.
Attend the pre-interview meeting.
During the Interview
Ask questions as invited by the Chair, keeping to allotted time.
Question and follow-up sufficiently to indicate the candidate’s qualities.
Remain attentive throughout.
Keep notes to assist in assessment.
After each Interview
Record their preliminary ratings.
On completion of all interviews
Join in panel discussion to seek a common decision about each candidate.
Timing
A reasonable amount of time must be allocated to the interview programme.
To interview five pupil or tenant candidates, this might approximately be:
Pre-interview discussion (to cover all candidates) - 20 minutes
1st Interview - 30 minutes
Rating - 10 minutes
Repeat for 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th, Total - 2hrs 40 minutes
Final discussion agreeing ratings - 30 minutes
This would mean an allocation of a little over 4 hours to see five people or ten in a day. Any timetable which is agreed should be adhered to as closely as possible. The prime responsibility for this rests with the Chair but Panellists also contribute, mainly by keeping to the amount of time allotted to them for questioning.
Half an hour per candidate, though longer than allowed by many chambers, is not a generous time in which to explore a candidate’s record. Chambers concerned about the demands on selectors’ time can consider strengthening pre-selection measures, to reduce the number of candidates called to interview, rather than shorten the time available to meet promising applicants.
Questioning, on the lines discussed in Section Three below can help to ensure that all time spent with the candidate is profitable.
Occasionally, despite pre-selection, a candidate may demonstrate early in the interview that s/he is not appropriate. Where the candidate appears simply unsuitable, s/he should be given reasonable time to present him/herself in the interests of fairness and in case the Panel’s decision is later challenged. Panellists also need to beware of the risk of making an early decision and thereafter ensuring, by questions and non-verbal behaviour, that their first impression is confirmed. In addition, selectors must bear in mind that every candidate is a source of information for colleagues. “Fair” or “unfair” treatment is sure to be reported to many potential applicants.
Prolonging a well-planned interview, on the other hand, however interesting the candidate, is seldom fruitful. It usually results in little significant extra information being gathered, whilst allowing the programme to run late is disturbing for those candidates who are still waiting.
Co-ordinated Questioning
An organised and systematic way of running the interview and questioning should be followed in respect of each candidate. This does not require panellists to keep rigidly to standard questions regardless of the candidate’s background and experiences, but does mean keeping to an agreed procedure which ensures that good use is made of each panellist’s skills.
The overwhelming majority of selection interviews are held to review the candidate’s past experiences, together with his/her ambitions, value and attitudes. The aim is to deduce from replies whether or not and to what degree the candidate has already demonstrated the qualities identified in the criteria. This is generally attempted by pursuing the biographical information supplied on the application, supplemented as necessary by questions on relevant contemporary issues. Whilst most candidates will have enough in their record to indicate abilities of intellect, sociability and so on, mature candidates have obviously had longer to achieve their potential than has the new graduate. Panellists have to weigh potential versus proven achievement carefully to reach a fair comparison.
Courteous and considerate treatment should be maintained throughout. This is not only to encourage frank replies. Panellists have to remain aware that the candidate is judging them, as well as the other way about, and how s/he is treated may influence a potentially valuable recruit in deciding whether to accept an offer.
Candidates treated with hostility, pomposity or an overbearing style can be expected to reply in a guarded or defensive manner and to limit the amount of useful information they provide. If a candidate is rendered nervous by a question (indicated perhaps by hesitation, stuttering or incomplete sentences) panellists must of course notice this but should aim to restore his/her confidence for the sake of the rest of the interview. If the subject is important, it may be possible to return to it later or to gain the information indirectly. The non-verbal behaviours which influence the exchange are discussed below.
A considerate approach does not, of course, preclude probing aspects of the candidate’s experiences and challenging his/her replies and views. Indeed, candidates usually express disappointment if an interview does not present some tough intellectual challenge. After all, most of them are highly able and are glad to demonstrate the fact.
Pre-interview discussions should have helped link each candidate’s experiences with the desired criteria. Panellists may also have been able to identify experiences which they particularly wish to explore. In a 30-minute interview, each can expect some 7 minutes in which to speak to the candidate, plus a highly active listening role whilst others are asking the questions. Seven minutes allows time to follow up on the candidate’s replies to any introductory general, open question. Panellists should take brief notes during the interview, to ensure they review all relevant information when it comes to assessment. A form may assist in questioning and recording.
In hearing about the candidate’s experiences, interviewers should look for recurring patterns of behaviour since these indicate the behaviours that may be repeated in future. A consistent pattern of success in academic work is an accepted indication of intellectual power (although the reverse is less certainly true). A consistent pattern of social roles (e.g., as leader, team member, adviser or loner) similarly indicates the roles s/he will seek to play in any future environment. How the candidate has handled crises and pressure in the past is a fair basis for judging how s/he will react in future.
Assessing the Candidates
Once all the information has been collected, selectors come to assessment. A good procedure for ensuring that the views of each panellist are properly considered is for the Chair to allow time after each interview for everyone individually to record their ratings and comments. This ensures that details are not forgotten. This individual work should precede any discussion and the Chair should open the review by calling for the individual ratings. In this way discrepancies are highlighted, indicating where discussion can usefully be focussed, and the chance that any one dominant voice will determine the outcome is reduced.
Panellists should use a standard form to record their ratings and should aim to keep to a standard rating scale. The following type of form may help:
| Criteria | Rating | Comments |
| Intellectual |
Low / Mid / High 10% / 20% / 40% |
|
| Motivation |
Low / Mid / High 10% / 20% / 40% |
|
| etc |
Each panellist considers each of the criteria in turn. How does the candidate compare, in intellectual ability, for example, with the population against which s/he is being judged? This population is generally the range of (successful) pupils known to the panellist, including present pupils and junior tenants. After some interviews (say 4 or 5) most panellists feel fairly confident that they are able to make this comparison and give the candidate a fair rating. Newcomers to the panel can “borrow” experience from discussion with their fellow panellists.
Selectors vary a good deal in their use of rating scales. It is therefore important to define the scale to be used and to remind them of its implications. The scale in the table above represents a bell-shaped curve, with the largest group of people coming in the middle, and an even tailing off either side. This is a scale with which we are familiar in measuring physical characteristics, such as men’s height. It serves to remind selectors that a candidate deserves a top rating if his/her intellectual ability is likely to be found in 1 in 10 of the graduate population. S/he does not have to be 1 in 1000 to be placed here.
Rating results is also a useful way of indicating assessors’ tendencies, for example, to rate generously or harshly, which can be taken into account when putting results together. Final assessments and discussions have to take place when all candidates have been seen and the range of abilities they represent has been established. It may well result in some modification of individual ratings when the full range of candidate performance is compared. A form on which ratings for a group of candidates can be recorded may be helpful at this stage.
In discussion, most Chairpersons should aim to reach a final rating by consensus. Ratings obtained by consensus enable panellists to take into account others’ views. Discussion also yields useful information on how criteria are being used and weighted or what population a panellist is using, against which is to judge the candidate. Differences on these issues should be noted and may need later discussion by the Pupillage or Recruitment Committee.
A common issue is that of choosing from the middle group of possible/profitable candidates. This may be facilitated by introducing Stars and Bars. Starred criteria are those which all agree are of paramount importance, so that the candidate rated highly on this ability may be accepted despite some weaknesses and vice versa. Bars are the levels of performance on any criteria below which no candidate can fall and still be accepted. Choice may also be helped by forcing selectors to put candidates in rank order, assuming they have to take only one. Finally, selectors can take into account the extent to which training could be expected to help a candidate overcome a weakness. A clumsy presentation, for example, can be improved by training, as can judgement. The candidate who lacks energy and drive, however, is unlikely to change whatever incentives chambers can offer. In addition, there are problem candidates. What is to be done with the candidate whose good qualities have not prevented him/her from irritating every panellist, for example? One possibility could be to invite him/her to a further interview, to discuss the situation.
A special issue relates to selection when internal candidates are in competition with those from outside chambers. This may happen in any selection but is most obvious in selection of tenants. The bias is always in favour of the internal candidate, who is known to selectors and to whom they may feel some loyalty. They will also be conscious of the repercussions if an internal candidate is not selected.
Informing the Candidate
There remains the task of informing the candidates about the selector’s decision. The Bar Council is concerned to ensure that candidates hear from chambers as expeditiously as possible, in the interests of all parties. Chambers should keep a record of decisions taken, with the reasons. Unsuccessful candidates should be given feedback on their assessment whenever this is asked for.
Pros and Cons of References
There is no doubt that the quality of references is highly variable. Some chambers do not take up references, on the grounds that they seldom yield anything useful. Referees with good knowledge of the candidate, however, have just the information selectors are seeking. On occasion, they provide crucial information which would be hard to obtain by other means. It is risky to ignore this potentially valuable source of evidence and chambers are advised to take references up and do what they can to encourage useful replies.
The OLPAS Form requires candidate to give the names of two referees both of whom can be approached once the completed form is received. Candidates can hardly be expected to choose referees who will fail to support them and some organisations do not ask for specific names, but simply warn that any name on the Application Form may be taken up. This procedure could guard against misrepresentation but could also, of course, ambiguously affect candidates’ entries.
When asking for a reference, selectors should ask about the connection between referee and candidate and how long they have known each other. Thereafter, the referee is helped if asked to comment in terms of the criteria being used in selection. S/he can be sent a one-page standard form, with space to comment on each of the qualities sought. An enclosed stamped addressed envelope is always an encouragement to reply.
Many selectors prefer to telephone the referee and seek information in a more informal conversation. To be fair to all candidates, the conversation should cover all the criteria and the selector should check that s/he has correctly understood the referee’s views. The selector should also immediately record the conversation with the name of the referee and date, using direct quotes where possible and otherwise keeping to neutral language and factual information.
An Appeals Procedure
Chambers should ensure that all candidates know how to appeal against the selectors’ decision. All candidates should be informed, preferably in chambers’ recruitment literature, of the complaints and grievance procedure and to whom they should write if they consider they have been treated unfairly. Whoever is responsible for handling such grievances needs copies of the Chair’s reports on all candidates. It is advisable to keep records of rejected candidates for at least a year.
Effective Questions
Agreed criteria and a structured interview provide the conditions for interviewers to work effectively. The quality of information they gather then depends on the quality of the questions they ask.
Destructive Questions
Some questions reduce or destroy the usefulness of an interview. Most obviously this happens with questions that appear discriminatory. Some may indicate the interviewer’s assumptions about gender roles:
Do you plan to continue work when you are married?
How will your relationship be affected if your work requires you to travel?
Are you confident that you can make arrangements for looking after the children while you are at work?
Some may indicate the interviewer’s assumptions about ethnicity:
So why did your parents move to Plymouth?
Do you plan to continue working in Britain?
Some may indicate the interviewer’s attitude towards disability:
How will you be able to maintain the level of effort this work demands?
The interviewer may find these questions reasonable. They could nevertheless indicate his/her assumptions about women’s roles, ethnic minorities’ circumstances or the capacities of the disabled. Even if they do not, but are perceived as prejudicial by the candidate, they can become grounds for appeal.
Many interviewers are concerned to know about childcare arrangements, when interviewing parents (especially mothers) of young children. Worries on this score can pre-occupy a panel and take up a good deal of interview time.
Where selectors need to ask questions in areas open to misconstruction, they should:
Ensure that the question is genuinely necessary to assess the candidate’s suitability (and be ready to justify it accordingly).
Check that the same question could be asked of men and women, those from all ethnic backgrounds, and the disabled.
Find alternative questions which would elicit the information required, e.g. instead of asking a woman about childcare, the question might be, “Would the amount of travel involved present you with any problems?” which could clearly be asked of any candidate.
Where necessary, preface a question which might appear discriminatory with a disclaimer (“I am asking everybody this…”)
Useless Questions
Some questions can give unnecessary offence, some can confuse and some can waste time when the interviewer has little time available.
Selectors should avoid:
Implying criticism of the candidate (“So you still live at home?” “You seem to have tried a lot of things out at random.”) These implied criticisms distort the interview by making the candidate defensive and wary.
On the other hand, whilst criticism is distorting, praise of real achievements generally helps by putting the candidate more at ease. Since most candidates will have achieved a good deal before they present themselves for interview, acknowledgement of their record may be no more than courtesy, but will still help communication.
Confusing the candidate with long, multiple questions (“Do you want to be a generalist or specialist? Have you thought about becoming a solicitor? Or about the employed sector?”) Such questions usually indicate that the interviewer has not thought out what s/he wants to say.
Asking hypothetical questions “What would you do if asked to represent a member of the National Front?” in lieu of probing the candidate’s own experience “How did you deal with (some situation requiring objectivity and the ability to separate judgement from feelings)?” may yield more authentic and helpful evidence.
Indicating what answer is expected (“The Independent is the best of the broadsheets, don’t you think?”)
Reminiscing (“I remember when I was up at Brasenose…”)
Spending much time on a mutual passion (“Did you watch Arsenal last night?”)
Requiring the candidate to comment on something outside his/her experience, just because it interests the questioner.
Repeating information on the form (“I see you live in Dartford.”) This is often an indication that the interviewer is gaining time, as s/h has not studied the Application Form beforehand.
An aggressive style (“That’s pretty vague, can’t you be more specific?”) Aggressive attacks on the candidate may show how s/he reacts to bullying, but there is no certainty that this demonstrates how s/he would react to aggression in other circumstances, and it markedly damages the rest of the interview. The skills of cross-examination, however valuable in eliciting the truth in court, are not helpful in the selection interview where interviewers are trying to gain an understanding of a range of aspects of personality.
Complex questions (“What did you consider to be the theory behind those events at the time?”)
Most useful questions are short and simple, indicating clearly what information is required and leaving as much time as possible for the candidate’s replies. The motto is KISS (Keep It Short and Simple).
Useful Questions
Useful questions in addition to being short and simple are also mostly based on the candidate’s experience, linking the information on the Application Form with the criteria, e.g.:
| Criteria | Possible Questions |
| Handling complex material | How did you research your thesis subject? |
| Awareness of relationships | How did you get to know the people on the VSO project when you first arrived in the village? |
| Established personal values | What were your reasons for joining the march? |
| Drive and ambition | What are your hopes for your future with the Bar? |
It follows that in the interview to explore the candidate’s experience, whilst all records should be explored equally systematically, few standard questions can usefully be asked of everyone.
Use of Standard Questions
Standard questions can be introduced where interviewers seek to gain an understanding of the candidate’s powers of analysis or values by asking about current issues. Such questions should be agreed by the panel beforehand and should be asked of all candidates seen that day (e.g., is the role of Lord Chancellor obsolete?). They should be confined to topics that anyone taking an interest in current affairs or the law could be expected to know about. They have to be changed regularly because they soon become known to candidates and also, of course, because circumstances change.
Instructions in the Question
Questions both tell the candidate what subject s/he should address and also what type of answer is required. Most obvious is the difference between the open (“Tell me about…”) question which invites an extensive answer and the closed (“What year did you leave University?”), which requires a short, precise reply. Most questions indicate the amount of information required:
· “tell me about your school days.”
· what did you do last week?”
· what time did you get up?”
Open-ended questions are useful in starting an exchange. Closed questions pin the candidate down to a short, precise reply. Both can be valuable and both should be included. Candidates generally respond to the instructions in the question. They will expand if asked to and usually answer closed questions precisely. If a candidate appears unduly verbose or reticent, the interviewer should ensure that his/her questions are not encouraging such replies. A candidate who listens to a lengthy question ending in “Do you agree?” may not be naturally reticent if s/he simply answers yes. Changing the instructions in the question “What is your view?” may be enough to reveal a more communicative person.
The choice of verb will also influence the candidate’s reply:
· “what do you think of the handling of the foot and mouth outbreak?” will encourage a reasoned reply.
· “how do you feel about the foot and mouth outbreak?” will promote a more emotional response.
Both verbs are valuable and both contribute to an effective interview. Again if the panel becomes concerned that the candidate displays either too little feeling or too much emotion, fairness requires them to begin by adjusting the questions.
It is easy for a panel inadvertently to “invent” a candidate in this way. If the impression grows that the candidate is uncommunicative or unduly verbose, emotional or cold or very narrow in his/her interests, interviewers should begin by considering the questions they are asking and what message their non-verbal behaviour is conveying (see below). Adjusting their questions and behaviour may be enough to reveal another side to the candidate.
An assured and sophisticated candidate may manage to give a good account of him/herself despite inept questioning, but this is a risky business. S/he has to do so without implying any criticism of the panel’s methods. Besides, candidates confident enough to sell themselves despite the quality of the interview are rare.
Question Sequence
The quality of the interview is also greatly affected by the sequence in which subjects are explored and questions are asked. The candidate needs to be taken systematically through the main aspects of his experiences, in a way which s/he will find logical and on which s/he can confidently elaborate. Darting from one subject to another apparently without connection is, by contrast, highly confusing and leads the candidate to make cautious, limited replies. Panellists should aim to link their questions to those asked by their predecessor, to prevent this effect.
The funnel is a classic sequence of questioning which can quickly lead to a good understanding of the candidate. It begins with an open question that encourages a lengthy reply. From the reply, the interviewer has a choice of subjects to follow up and can select one which links to one of the selection criteria. At this stage the interview begins to move from a question-and-answer exchange into something like a conversation. Prepared questions can be replaced by questions emerging from careful listening to the candidate’s replies. The interviewer still controls the direction of discussion, however, and is responsible for ensuring that s/he understands accurately the candidate’s experiences.
It is at this stage of careful checking that any undue claims made in the Application Form are likely to be picked up. This is also the stage, when the candidate is now speaking freely about particular events, where s/he is most likely to reveal important values and to give an accurate indication of the sort of relationships s/he establishes with others. Thus when a candidate has described a particular experience, the interviewer can ask “Who did you go to see, about this?”, “Can you remember what you said to them?” and gain from the replies to these simple questions a good insight into the candidate’s skill in handling relationships. The interviewer may decide to close the funnel with a summary, to check that s/he has understood the candidate correctly. A summary, when the panellist is concluding his/her questions can help to check understanding, e.g., “It seems to me that you’ve always enjoyed organising people, more than leading up front. Is that right?” The process of careful listening and summarising is an important element in making the interview useful to the selectors as well as agreeable for the candidate.
Choice of Topics
If a choice must be made regarding which parts of the candidate’s experiences to explore, preference should be given to the recent past and major events. Questioning on an interesting vacation trip, or early work experience in some remote territory should not curtail questions to understand how the candidate is managing today, regarding managing a heavy workload, balancing work and social life, coping with conflicts and so on. It is in such recent experiences that the candidate’s most developed abilities are manifest.
Concluding the Interview
Concluding the interview as a whole is a Chair’s job. As indicated earlier, s/he should include some variant on the two questions:
1. Is there anything more you would like to tell us?
2. Do you have any questions to ask us?
Reasonable time must be left in the interview to deal with both these areas.
An informative recruitment brochure should cover many of the general concerns of candidates, so those asked at interview may well be more personal (“Can I have time to complete my course on…?”, “Can I attend a special family celebration?”).
Whatever the candidate asks, the question should be treated seriously and courteously. If it cannot be answered from the Panel’s knowledge, the Chair should offer to obtain the information. Examples of how chambers’ policies are implemented (“Last year our second six pupils each appeared in court about four times”) are more convincing than abstract statements.
It is to everyone’s advantage that a candidate’s decision to join chambers is based on as much information as possible. Candidates who have already served a mini-pupillage or visited chambers will have additional information about chambers to add to their reading of the recruitment brochure and their interview experience. Where this is not the case, chambers may be able to offer a meeting with a present pupil, who can show them round and answer questions from his/her own experience.
Difficult Areas
An interviewer is required to question on any aspect of the candidate’s record that may indicate his/her suitability for the position. Many interviewers, however, find some topics difficult. They fear to be intrusive or to risk embarrassment over topics such as examination, or other, failures; some sorts of illness (in particular mental illness); family or financial problems. These may be indicated in the Application Form or may arise in the course of the interview. They should not be avoided but treated sympathetically, and discussed insofar as they affect the candidate’s application. Failures are best considered once the interview is established on a friendly basis and can be offset by reference to areas of achievement. On family difficulties, the interviewer may be led by the candidate. S/he can remember that anything the candidate writes down or mentions openly can be sympathetically discussed – indeed, failure to discuss could be interpreted as lack of interest regarding something important to the candidate.
A sympathetic acceptance of the candidate’s experiences should not, of course, extend to commentary which might indicate the interviewer’s own opinions. Even when these are supportive, the candidate may respond to what s/he perceives to be the interviewer’s point of view and may tailor replies accordingly.
A useful question when concluding an exploration of some aspect of the record, whether an area of difficulty or of triumph, is “What did you learn from that experience?” The answer can show the candidate’s capacity for analysis and also his/her level of insight.
Non-verbal Behaviour
Much of the information exchanged in the interview is, of course, non-verbal. The candidate is influenced immediately by the room layout, by the Chair’s greetings (does s/he stand up, come forward, shake hands?) and by the expression and posture of the panellists.
Asked about interviews they have experienced, candidates’ comments usually refer to the style of the interviewing. Typical favourable comments are:
· “the panel was friendly and informal.”
· “I was introduced to everyone and told when I would hear results.”
· “I felt they were open. They told me what chambers offered and didn’t dodge my questions.”
· they all seemed enthusiastic about their work.”
Disliked interviews are indicated in the comments:
· “they didn’t keep to time. It’s very unnerving, hanging about for forty minutes or so.”
· “it was very cold and formal. I certainly wouldn’t want to work there.”
· “it was quite bland. Quite friendly but I didn’t think they were interested in learning much about me.”
Panellists are similarly affected immediately. According to the candidate’s dress and deportment on entering the room, they may decide whether or not s/he is acceptable. This is such a prevalent response that interviewers should note any strong reactions and particularly ensure that their first impressions are checked against later evidence.
Panellists must above all be aware that, as far as the candidate is concerned, they are always on show. Whether questioning or observing, they have to remain evidently interested and attentive, without manifesting any strong reactions to the candidate’s statements. Eye contact is a case in point. Panellists may have little difficulty, when questioning the candidate, in maintaining the level of eye contact they would use in any conversation. As observers, however, they may need to ensure that they are not fixing the candidate with an unnerving glare or apparently entirely distracted by a spot on the carpet. The candidate is of course concerned to present him/herself as well as possible and will alter replies to meet any indications that some response is approved or disliked.
The candidate who responds inappropriately may be moderated by a change of questioning style, as described above, and also a change of non-verbal behaviour.
The overly talkative can be checked by dropping eye contact and looking down at papers as though finding the next question. The quiet can be drawn out by nodding encouragingly to responses given, and even waiting as though expecting more information. More formal posture (sitting up straight with shoulders squared) can help control the brash. Those who speak too softly or loudly will generally respond to the panellist who adopts the opposite level of voice.
Indeed, since candidates tend to copy the lead given by the panel, panellists should begin by considering whether anything in their own non-verbal, as well as verbal, behaviour is encouraging the candidate to behave as s/he does.
Difficulties may arise when interviewing candidates from overseas with limited experience of British conventions. What may appear to the panel to be unduly obsequious or over-modest or irritatingly brash may be expected and acceptable behaviour in the candidate’s own culture. Interviewers can reflect that required presentation at interview is a rapidly learned skill and should continue to explore the candidate’s record. If doubts remain, it may be possible subsequently to seek advice from someone with knowledge of the culture in question.
Selling in the Interview
This may seem an unnecessary task to chambers already receiving far more applications for pupillages and tenancies than they have on offer. Nevertheless, they are likely to be in competition for the most promising applicants and can bear in mind the message that all candidates will take back to their peers. Descriptions of chambers are probably best supplied in written form, but the interview provides an opportunity to “sell” to the individual. The Application Form and the interview itself will yield information of the candidate’s interests, whether in his/her career or private life. The panellist can then mention any relevant opportunities that chambers can offer. The Chair may be given such an opportunity from the reply to an opening question such as “What made you decide to apply to this chambers?” or when the candidate responds to the closing question “Is there anything you would like to ask us?”
Candidates may be more concerned about the training they will receive than they are about funding. A panellist can usefully include in a question a reference to chambers’ use of information technology, or what guarantees are offered regarding court appearance in the second six. Chambers’ appraisal system, policies regarding time off for external study or family obligations, dress requirements or current aims can be mentioned (“We are now much more generalist than we were a few years ago and we expect this trend to continue.”) Candidates can also be reminded about chambers’ policy regarding tenancy or equality of opportunity, preferably by giving factual evidence (“Last year three of our four pupillages went to women.” “A third of our tenants are now women.” “Seventy per cent of our tenancies are filled by our own pupils.” “All chambers Pupil Supervisors are trained to ensure that pupils get a proper range of experience.”) While all opportunities should be taken to point out chambers’ strengths, any knocking of other chambers is likely to create an unfavourable impression.
For updating of information, panels may be able to refer candidates to chamber’s website.
Bias: Causes and Cures
Essential Assumptions
Assumptions about our experiences are needed to cope with everyday life and indeed intelligent behaviour is not possible without attempted prediction. From early childhood we learn assumptions about the uses and dangers of fire and water, and the dangers of wandering on the roads. Our assumptions are not limited to matters of physical survival. By adulthood, the brain is crammed with assumptions that promote quick and appropriate responses to incoming information. Patterns are the more difficult to dislodge the more severely they are imprinted, whether by traumatic events early in life or by prolonged, strongly reinforcing experiences, and the more strongly they are shared by other members of the community.
The Challenge of Selection
Discipline is required of selectors if they are to overcome their own established convictions about who is acceptable to them personally and what is needed for chambers or for the profession as a whole. It can be difficult indeed to reject the candidate who seems to be ‘one of us’ and ‘whose face fits’, and to choose a candidate who may actually meet the criteria better.
Candidates risk being judged in terms of the selector’s own successes or preferences, even when criteria are established. Selectors are at risk of preferring candidates with life experiences similar to their own, and to seeking in the candidate a more or less approximation to their own youth. With the glow of hindsight, moreover, the approximation will be shorn of blemishes. Candidates of the opposite gender or different racial background are obviously handicapped in this situation. Moreover, however appropriate the selector him/herself was at the time, s/he may no longer be the model which modern chambers require.
Meeting the candidate at interview alerts many biases, e.g. how does the panel react to:
· the overweight candidate?
· the bearded candidate?
· the candidate with a strong accent?
Most reactions are negative. But is the opposite (trim figure, clean shaven, etc.) included in the criteria? How about a broad smile? Is this a sign of ‘leadership, optimism and reliability,’ as a recent opinion poll has suggested? Physique is a strong influence. It is well established that tall, good-looking men are at advantage in selection, promotion and pay. So are good-looking women, although not the great beauties, who may indeed be unfairly marked down. An attractive appearance and interview charm can beguile a Panel and can be noted as assets, but must be set in the perspective of the whole record.
Gender remains a powerful source of bias. Does the candidate meet the Panel’s assumptions about gender appropriate views and behaviour, both in the record and in the interview? An interviewer who harbours strong opinions about desirable qualities in the opposite sex may well change his (mostly his) style of questioning to give the candidate a tougher or easier experience.
This is one important reason for ensuring that both men and women are represented on the panel. An additional reason is that each may contribute a more realistic assessment of their own gender’s achie
