Promoting Transparency in Public Service Examination Interview Assessment

• Promoting measures for publicly disclosing scores of the interview, which are subjective assessments

  ACRC “recommended institutional improvements to prevent hiring irregularities and promote the right to know”

(April 14^th 2023, ACRC)

Measures are being considered to publicly disclose the interview scores of the public service examination, which has been originally closed, while ensuring that such disclosure does not impact the examination process.

The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC, Chairperson Jeon Hyun-Heui) has implemented “measures to unveil interview scores of the public service examination” and recommended them to central administrative agencies, metropolitan and local governments in order to “establish a fair employment process,” which is a national policy task, and promote the right to know.

Public service examinations can be categorized into the following types: open competitive recruitment examinations and competitive recruitment examinations for career service, and the latter has limited application requirements. Applicants are required to pass a written assessment, a performance assessment, and an interview.

While the scores of written and performance assessments are objective indicators, the interview is a subjective assessment conducted by experts to evaluate the mental attitude and sincerity of applicants from their own perspectives.

For these reasons, providing applicants with only a pass or fail outcome for the interview raised concerns about fairness and has infringed upon the applicants’ right to know about the results of public service examinations.

Hiring irregularities occurred in public service examination interviews, leading to a public proposal about “revealing results of interview assessment transparently to prevent hiring irregularities.” The proposal was filed with the Office of the President, and a range of civil complaints was also submitted through e-People.

In addition, according to a survey conducted by the ACRC through “People’s Idea Box.” 37.3% of the respondents (950 out of 2,546) agreed with the idea of transparently disclosing interview scores to eliminate unfairness in interview.

According to a fact-finding research conducted by ACRC, agencies at all levels have employed interview methods for public service examinations, assessing 5 categories, including the mental attitude of public officials. These methods mostly relied on the ranking system, the good/fair/poor marking system, or grading system.

Regarding the ranking system, there are three ranks defined: “excellent” is assigned when a majority of interviewers assess every category as “good”; “inadequate” is given in the case of “bad” ratings for one or two categories; and the rest of the cases are labeled as “average.”

“Inadequate” is considered a failing grade, while “excellent” and “average” are regarded as passing grades. In cases where applicants receive the same rating, the pass will be determined based on the order of higher scores in the written assessment.

In the good/fair/poor marking system, applicants who received “inadequate” marks and failed the examinations are excluded, and the remaining applicants are considered for receiving a pass in the order of the number of “good” marks. If there is a tie in the number of “good” marks, priority is given to those with a higher number of “fair” marks in order to determine who passes. The grading system determines a pass based on the order of higher grades.

The ACRC recommended public disclosure of interview scores, while ensuring that it does not disrupt the examination process. This aims to promote applicants’ right to know and prevent hiring irregularities, while giving an opportunity to make a comeback to applicants who failed to pass the examinations by providing useful information.

First, regarding the rating system, ACRC recommended categories rated as “bad” should be unveiled to applicants who received “inadequate” rating, helping them to make a comeback. Moreover, with regard to the rating system and the good/fair/poor marking system, the Commission recommended disclosing applicants’ ratings as well as the number of good/fair/poor marks they received.

In relation to the grading system, the ACRC recommended standards for disclosure by revealing the average score of the applicant as well as the average score for each assessment category to allow applicants to identify available information of his or her weak points.

The Director General of the Institutional Improvement Bureau of the ACRC Yang Jong-Sam said, “Publicly disclosing the results of the interview would contribute to eliminating improper solicitation, enhancing the fairness of public service examinations and promoting the applicants’ right to know about their own information.”