Thank you for that question. The two things that come to mind—the two broad areas that come to mind—are, first, traditional interview, the traditional interview approach, and, secondly, the use of technology; for example, this experience that we're having right now is enabled by technology. So, I will start with the general approach, or the more traditional approach, to interviews, separate to the additional benefits or implications that technology might bring.
Going back to the earlier point around the art of the experience, the art of the public appointments process, it is important to make no assumptions about the extent to which individuals are familiar with the process that they're about to embark on. So, to the degree that is possible, providing as much advance notice, as much as clarity, in terms of expectations; to the degree that is possible, clarity in terms of the areas to be explored, perhaps even examples, to the degree that is possible, of what have been successful application approaches versus less successful application approaches; a number of flexible formats, to the degree, again, that that is possible. That's probably—just thinking about that—that's probably much more applicable when we think about the virtual options.
And when we are—. During the interview, there is mixed evidence on the role of diverse interview panels, but, generally speaking, I would sway towards the importance, or the value, of a mixed interview panel, so a diverse interview panel. I say that because, when we think about the disadvantages, the potential limitations, of a diverse interview panel—for example, the same people being pulled in, for example, then not really having a role to play, because it's a little bit of a tick-box exercise—and you weigh that against the advantage of the sense of safety, or belonging, or reduced stereotype threat that the candidate experiences, broadly, I would say let us continue, to the degree that we can, with diverse panels.
And then, lastly, I would add the importance of feedback. We are, I think, broadly speaking, very good at training interview panels, interview panellists, in being skilled and consistent and, not bias-free, but bias-less, or lower, in terms of the ways in which bias influences their interviewing. I don't think we're very good, generally, in terms of training people with giving feedback—so, this is what good feedback looks like, give feedback as soon as—and that just generally helps. It may not help the individual in that case—you know, in that particular process—but it will more broadly.
I'm going to pause, because I know I've spent a long time on that question, and I haven't necessarily touched on the technical strand of my question. But I'm very happy to unpack that if you want to.