Observations on Recruitment Cases

Recruiting new talents and injecting new blood to the Civil Service is vital in sustaining a stable and robust workforce to provide the community with effective, efficient and high quality service. To meet service needs and Government manpower requirements, regular recruitment exercises are conducted by B/Ds. The process of selection is rigorous and competition keen. The Commission supports the conduct of recruitment based on merit and fair opportunities. Apart from upholding impartiality and due regard to the process of selection, we also attach great importance to promptness of action in order that the Government would not lag behind in competing with the market for talents.

During the year, the Commission was pleased to note the good efforts taken by B/Ds in maintaining compliance with the stipulated rules and procedures at a generally high level, even in face of the upsurge of recruitment exercises. In some cases, some aspects of the recruitment exercises have further scope for improvement. In this Chapter, we have highlighted some observations the Commission has made and conveyed to B/Ds for future reference.

In examining recruitment recommendations, the Commission not only looks for compliance with the required due process and procedural fairness, the quality of the submissions is also an aspect the Commission will not lose sight. As a measure of encouragement, the Commission will give recognition to B/Ds for good work done and commend them for their notable achievements. During the year, the Commission was particularly impressed by the work done by two departments. As reflected in the board reports, the Commission has found the assessments given to candidates interviewed were clear and informative. The boards also gave specific comments to account for how well the candidates had done and why they were selected. In the case of the other department, the department formulated a well thought-out marking scheme to facilitate the conduct of the interviews. Detailed descriptions were given under each assessment criterion as a basis for the given marks. In addition, the steps taken by the boards and the guidelines adopted to maintain consistency in assessment standard between different boards of the same exercise were re-assuring.

The work of a recruitment board of another department however had fallen short. In vetting its submission, the Commission noted that while a candidate was marked to have attained a passing mark in the attribute of “Professional Qualification and Knowledge”, the written assessment had recorded that the candidate’s exposure and professional knowledge did not meet the standard required of the recruiting rank. With such inconsistency, the Commission was unable to support the recommendation. While this might be a single and isolated slip, the Commission has urged the AA to scrutinize the recommendations of recruitment boards and be more vigilant in ensuring accuracy in their submissions.

The Commission has always encouraged B/Ds to conduct and complete recruitment exercises expeditiously and to make early offers of appointment to selected candidates promptly without undue delay. Delays in launching recruitment exercises not only undermine the Government’s advantage in competing with the private sector for good candidates, it will also affect the manpower supply of the B/Ds. In examining a recruitment submission in the year, the Commission noted that the department advertised the vacancy some ten months after the emergence of the vacant post. The department then took another four months to complete the recruitment exercise and submit its recruitment board report to the Commission for advice. In the interim, prolonged acting appointment was arranged. The Commission was concerned that the prolonged acting was not arranged through a proper selection process nor was it reviewed in that long period as required under CSR 166(6)¹⁴. The department explained that the delay was mainly due to preoccupations with other work commitments at the material time. The department accepted that this was not proper and undertook to fully comply with the CSR in the future. The Commission has reminded the department to make good planning well ahead and adequate resources should be deployed to conduct future recruitment exercises in a timely manner.

In another recruitment exercise involving some 100 qualified candidates, the department took about two months longer to submit the recommendations to the Commission than that of the last exercise with a similar number of applicants. The department explained that apart from an increase in the number of qualified candidates invited for interview, the longer time taken was due to the need to match the availability of all board members in two consecutive weeks in the interest of ensuring consistency of assessment. The Commission considered that the department should have taken a more flexible and pragmatic approach in planning the recruitment schedule. Insisting on finding two consecutive weeks for the sake of maintaining consistency was unnecessary as only one board was involved in this exercise.

Selection of candidates for appointment should be based on the character, ability, potential and performance as well as qualifications and experience prescribed for the recruiting rank. It is crucial to ensure that only candidates of the suitable calibre are appointed. To achieve this, assessment forms with appropriate and sufficiently comprehensive assessment criteria should be drawn up for the selection interviews to assess a candidate’s suitability for appointment.

During the year, the Commission observed that there was room for improvement in the design of assessment forms adopted by some recruitment boards. In two exercises of the same department, “Qualifications” and/or “Experience” were included as two separate assessment criteria for the selection interviews. On closer examination, the Commission found that a pre-determined score had been set for attainment of certain academic qualifications and for each additional year of post-qualification experience. Accordingly, a candidate’s score in these two aspects could have been established by reference to the information and supporting documents provided by candidates in vetting their applications. There was no need to make on-the-spot assessment at the selection interviews by the recruitment board. The inclusion of such a score in the assessment form is neither necessary nor is it in conformity with the provision in paragraph 2.28(b) of the Guidebook on Appointments which requires B/Ds to guard against inclusion of qualities that cannot be assessed reliably in the selection interviews. The Commission has advised the department to review the assessment forms for the two recruiting ranks before launching the next exercise.

According to paragraph 4(c) of CSB’s memo dated 14 November 2018 on “Assessment Standards and Efficiency in Conducting Recruitment Exercise”, recruitment boards should have due regard to the relative weight of an assessment criterion in determining the priority of appointment. When scrutinizing a number of recruitment submissions, the Commission noted that there was no passing mark set for each of the assessment criterion. Although an overall passing score was required before consideration would be given by the recruitment boards to offer appointment, the Commission was concerned that in the absence of a passing score for each of the attributes, the relevance and relative importance of the assessment criteria in meeting the requirements of the recruiting rank might be overlooked. Setting a passing mark for each assessment criterion and preferably with a pre-determined weighting will help to ensure that only those candidates who possess all the required qualities are selected. It will also assist recruitment boards to objectively determine the relative priorities of the selected candidates.

It is a long-established and accepted practice for B/Ds to adopt suitable shortlisting criteria in recruitment exercises in order to reduce the number of candidates to a reasonable and manageable size in face of large numbers of applications. Paragraph 2.12 of the Guidebook on Appointments provides that in recruitment exercises where scores in an examination are used as a shortlisting criterion, B/Ds are required to submit the proposed shortlisting criteria and shortlisting results to the Commission for advice if they are different from that used previously. This is so that consistency apart, the Commission will have the opportunity to consider and advise whether the newly adopted criteria were objective and fair. In examining a recruitment submission in the year, the Commission noted that the department concerned had proceeded to invite candidates to attend for the selection interviews after ascertaining that they had obtained a passing score of the written examination which was different from that adopted in the last recruitment exercise conducted in 2018. It transpired that the department had set a new passing mark with a view to optimising the number of candidates, thereby facilitating the arrangement for group interviews. As the passing mark was used to screen in candidates for the next stage of selection, it was in effect a shortlisting criterion for which the prior advice of the Commission had to be sought. As more rather than less numbers of candidates were screened in and having examined the proceedings of the selection interviews, the Commission was able to be satisfied that the integrity of the recruitment exercise had not been adversely affected. The Commission ultimately supported the board’s recommendations. Nevertheless, the Commission has strongly advised the department to observe the relevant guidelines in future exercises and consult CSB in case of doubt.