Interview panel members- confidential?

September 1, 2024 5:23 PM

When you convene an interview panel for a position, is membership of the panel confidential?

I've always assumed this is best practice, to stop people getting in the ear of the panel members, and to help there be fairness to candidates.

However, sourcing that this is best practice is difficult to google because confidential refers also to the interview itself.

posted by freethefeet to Work & Money (17 answers total)

I would think not, if only because in most cases, a position would come with at least one known supervisor/manager---what would the point be to obscure that?
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 5:25 PM on September 1

Response by poster: Ah, to add context,

This is for a church - panel is being made of two board members and two members of the congregation.

I understand there's different approaches here and keen to unpack my understanding.
posted by freethefeet at 5:36 PM on September 1

I work in a unionized environment for a public institution, and the rules around interview committees are pretty strict. For example, our collective agreement stipulates strict guidelines over the composition of interview panels (e.g. must have two administrators and two faculty members). However, it is silent about whether identity of committee members can be public, and I have never heard anyone raise it as a concern. We are expected to disclose any conflicts of interest—for example, I would recuse myself if a friend were one of the candidates.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 5:56 PM on September 1 [1 favorite]

Beforehand, or after? Same answer though. It can be, but doesn't have to be. It's nice if the candidates don't know beforehand because if they do, they try to game what questions and answers they "study" for, which almost always turns out to be a mistake. But a hiring panel is enough of a project where you don't want to tie your hands and have to throw the whole thing out and start over if for some reason the information leaks. (The "don't make rules unless you're going to stick to them" theory)

Afterwards, well obviously the candidates are going to know, and it can actually lend credibility to the process to let people know it was done fairly and by known trustworthy people, rather than some hidden back-room deal. If it's going to cause "how come you were invited and I wasn't" kind of drama though, maybe you'd want to keep it quiet. Unfortunately there's no such thing as a secret in a church, so I mean, again, what are you going to do if someone finds out? Nothing? Then don't bother keeping a secret.
posted by ctmf at 6:05 PM on September 1

I have not run into any situations where the identities of a hiring panel are confidential, in the corners of academia where I've been involved in hiring. And as a candidate I would have no expectation of that being confidential information. But I've also never been in a hiring situation where it wasn't pretty obvious who the interviewers would/should be.

I can imagine that in a situation where you're drawing from members of a congregation, the issues are a little different. This might be a case where you need to be looking very specifically at best practices for this sort of hiring. But I can imagine a strong argument for as much transparency as possible in that process, vs. secrecy
posted by Stacey at 6:08 PM on September 1 [2 favorites]

If you have external candidates, it could be considered by some to be an unfair advantage if some people know who the interviewers are going to be, while obviously the external ones don't. As long as you have ethical panel members who don't "horse up" the internal people with remarks like "oh I'd definitely be ready to talk about ____" than that's not really a substantial advantage though.
posted by ctmf at 6:09 PM on September 1

I've been on panels for nonprofits where we kept the "members of the congregation" folks' identities private. If they'd said something, it'd have been fine I guess, but we didn't want them to feel scrutinized by anyone. As far as I know, none of them disclosed their participation publicly.
posted by teremala at 7:23 PM on September 1

I’ve encountered certain academic hiring committees who are cagey about the committee composition because they don’t want the candidates to tailor their answers/pander to those particular individuals. But there are others that don’t think twice about telling you.
posted by umbú at 9:56 PM on September 1

I have been on the board of a religious organization (synagogue) when we were hiring senior staff. People have a very emotional connection with their church or synagogue which adds a level of complexity to hiring compared to other kinds of organizations.

The hiring situations that I have been involved with all had high visibility and so the board worked hared to be transparent about the process while being careful to protect the privacy of the candidates. So, the names of the people on the committee were made public and congregants were encouraged to share with the committee members what they thought should be the priorities for that position. At the same time, we took care to make sure the process was fair for all candidates which meant that we had a specific process that we asked applicants to follow so that everyone had the same opportunity to present themselves in the best light.

At the first meeting, we spent time making sure that everyone on the committee understood their role and what they need to know to make sure the process was fair, respectful of the candidates and complied with employment law. In our congregation, the hiring committee is charged with acting on behalf of the whole congregation, not their own preferences or interests. Recommendations were made the by committee as a whole but the final decision is made by a vote of the board and sometimes the entire congregation. Any significant conversations with candidates were done as a representative of the committee and a summary (or, in case of early round interviews, a video recording) was shared with the committee as a whole. So I think if the committee members understand their role, they can help keep the process in line by refusing to have conversations with applicants that might compromise the process.
posted by metahawk at 10:37 PM on September 1 [2 favorites]

In a public institution, the panel members names are likely public. They are certainly FOILable. I guess the public institution could slow walk the release of the names, but ultimately they are public.

As for the church or a similar private institution. they certainly have the right to keep the members of a committee private if they so choose. In the example you cited, two board members and two member of the congregation, presumably, the board membership is a limited number of known people. Let's say there are 5 members of the board. The three not chosen could certainly say they are not on the committee even if the two who are remain silent.

The privacy of the candidates should be protected regardless of the type of organization you have.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 12:34 AM on September 2

Any hiring process I was ever involved in was fully transparent in terms of interviewers or panels. Not least because the organisation is large and depending on the rank being hired for, there is often a scramble to find someone who has time.

Board members agreed to take on a role that may entail unpopular decision making. I can see that members of the congregation may feel a bit exposed but at the same time I assume they do this voluntarily so they can refuse to participate in hiring panels.

It is not as if anyone can guarantee that panel membership remains confidential, even if that is the intention. What is more important is to define clear process and criteria for hiring for the panel. That protects the church as employer, the panel members and the candidates.
posted by koahiatamadl at 2:19 AM on September 2 [2 favorites]

I am on the Select Vestry of an Anglican church which is in the process of appointing a new Rector. In our case, membership of the appointing panel is not confidential but everything to do with the process is.
posted by damsel with a dulcimer at 2:25 AM on September 2 [1 favorite]

I'm Presbyterian. Our system of government emphasizes democracy and transparency. Under our system of government, a nominating committee composed of elders (elected lay leaders) and congregation members nominates a search committee composed of elders and congregation members, and then the whole congregation votes to approve the committee. The work of the search committee is entirely confidential up to the moment when they reveal their nominated candidate. Then, the congregation has the opportunity to ask questions and vote on calling the candidate.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:00 AM on September 2 [2 favorites]

Having been a candidate in front of a panel, and having run panels, I think in almost every single case the names of the panelists were public, and often included in the job spec.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 4:47 AM on September 2 [2 favorites]

Contra to your idea, you want at least some panel members public, especially if candidates meet the community before being formally hired. That way congregants can talk to whatever hiring committee member they’re comfortable with to share information that would make that person a bad hire (e.g. they sexually harassed someone, they mishandled funds, etc.). The committee can then do a bit more research to interview appropriate folks from the candidate’s network to see if that information is substantiated. Of course, you also need to train your committee to know what’s actually relevant and what’s just gossip. I’m in academia, and protecting your org against “passing the trash” is sadly necessary, I suspect similar may be true in churches.
posted by momus_window at 7:17 AM on September 2 [2 favorites]

From an equity perspective, anyone sitting on an interview panel should be accountable as an individual for their decisions and recommendations. That means the interviewee knows who they are (and note the risk the interviewee is taking in disclosing far more information to the panelists than vice versa).
posted by Miko at 8:26 AM on September 2

The organization I used to work for went from one extreme to the other on this, ending in transparency. But the key thing was to tell candidates that, in the interest of fairness, they should not contact any individual panelists with questions as everyone should get the same information.

Panelists also had to sign a form stating that they would not have private conversations about the position, and, if a candidate does contact them, to tell them they they can't disclose anything, again, in the interest of fairness.
posted by jasper411 at 12:37 PM on September 2