Enabling Corporate Sustainability from a Talent Acquisition Perspective

The first three pillars of sustainability relating to economic, social and, environmental domains are being investigated extensively with regards to corporate sustainability with a focus on reporting methods and corporate responsibilities that contribute to the overall corporate strategy. However, there is a lack of research pertaining to the human domain which is the fourth pillar of sustainability, especially from a talent acquisition perspective in improving human capital. The objective of this paper is related to addressing this paucity in research by adopting an exploratory study on the existing employee selection processes in practice using a mixed-method approach. This paper focuses predominantly on the qualitative data from various key stakeholders and uses thematic analysis to study the interview processes. The objective is to present the findings that could contribute towards shared values related to corporate sustainability through reinforcement of the best practices in talent acquisition as well as the establishment of maximum transparency in the process. The findings from this paper are rooted on the grounds of a social initiative that provides a conceptual decision model called DSRVG approach to enhance transparency and improve structure and consistency during the employee selection interview which in turn can contribute towards enhancing corporate sustainability.

evidence that there are methodological limitations in existing research, namely limited representative work on the hiring decision process in a real-life scenario outside laboratory simulated events [9,10] and fictional applicants [11][12][13], specifically in the context of higher education TA. At a time when the TAFE sector is taken by storm with multiple changes and restructuring since 2012, this research would reflect on the experiences of interviewers and applicants during this transition, which can help identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current hiring processes.
This facilitates in bringing out the potential for the introduction of objective elements into the decision-making process for hiring employees.
Further, this research acts as a valuable resource for researchers, academics, and HR practitioners alike to benchmark their interview hiring decision practices against the proposed best approach identified in this study, to improve the transparency [14] and fairness [15] of a hiring decision. This is achieved in this study by providing a comprehensive and representative empirically-based portrait of the employee selection process and decision-making within the TAFE institutions operating in Victoria. In engaging with these research gaps, this study intends to make significant contributions to knowledge; namely: Conceptual-proposing a consistent selection decision-making process for TAFEs based on current industry practices; Empirical-providing the sketch to replicate this study in other sectors facing similar issues with organisational restructure and are interested in reviewing their talent acquisition and decision-making processes.
The research question for this study focuses on critical aspects such as transparency, fairness, validity and reliability in the interview process and hiring decisions made by the TAFE members of VTA present in Victoria. This research engages validation strategies such as data triangulation by obtaining data from multiple sources such as the interviewer, interview applicant and HR. The paper addresses the overarching research aim stated above by asking the following research question: "1A-How might more objective elements be introduced in the employee-selection process to reduce subjective decision-making? 1B-Can a consistent model of interview structure/employee-selection be introduced across a sector to achieve organisation sustainability?" This is structured around the recommended future research proposed by Macan [16], where the need for a consistent model of interview structure was listed for immediate research attention. With the focus on following a consistent selection decision process [17][18][19], this research investigates the potential of the TAFEs in adopting a consistent selection decision process across all its members to assist in establishing corporate sustainability. Through this empirical examination, this research makes a significant conceptual contribution to propose a model for a consistent selection decision process in order to achieve organisation sustainability.
A theoretical framework is used in the research study as a guide, which has an essential role in managing the literary and academic J Sustain Res. 2020;2(2):e200014. https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20200014 process of the study. This study rests on Applicant Attribution-Reaction Theory (AART). AART was created in 2004 by Ployhart and Harold [20] and has the central idea that the employee selection process is determined by an attributional process fundamentally driven by reactions originating from the applicant. In the context of this study, the relationship phenomena refer to the TA process and its impact and association with the organisation. With behaviour phenomena, this study attempts to understand the perspectives and behavioural outcomes of the interviewer and the applicant during the employee selection process.
With regards to the phenomena related to the event, the study focuses on the event/process of employee selection decision making methods to understand the potential to improve the process. Undertaking this study with the Applicant Attribution-Reaction Theory (AART) as a platform serves to be a directing outline for this investigation that underpins the research question of this study. This paper begins describing the background of the study from a broader perspective of covering the importance of an employee to an organisation followed by conceptualising the TA process which serves as the gateway for applicants to become an employee as a part of the organisation. This is further narrowed down to explore and identify the selection process adopted by the organisation in the TA of its workforce.
This paper then sets out to draw attention on the focus of this study, which pertains to the employee hiring decisions made during the recruitment selection process from the interview stage until the final decision made to offer the job to the successful applicant.

Conceptualising Talent Acquisition
It is essential to understand the meaning of talent in order to study the employee selection process, which is a TA component of HRM in an organisation. Researchers have continuously debated the exact meaning of talent. Some of the discussions involved people not being precise on the term talent in an organisation [21], while some others noted the inability of companies to define talent and manage it [22]. Finally, there was also the argument that there was not yet a standard, single contemporary, a commonly established definition for talent [23]. Despite the lack of a universal definition for talent, there has nonetheless been interesting research related to acquiring, managing and retaining this talent from an organisational perspective (e.g., succession planning).
Furthermore, narrowing the focus on talent acquisition, there is a rising awareness that each organisation formulates its perception and implication of talent instead of espousing a universal definition [24]. As a result of this, the myriad TA processes are evidenced in business and management literature, sharing diverse insight on the same objective of wanting to acquire the most talented employee for the organisation. J Sustain Res. 2020;2(2):e200014. https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20200014 Mohapatra and Sahu [19] have very categorically represented the dire need for and the growing shift from the traditional intuition-based employee selection process to a more factual and data-driven selection process. Figure 1 demonstrates the broadly categorised steps of the TA process from start to end and has sub-listed and numbered the employee selection process from 1 to 6. It also establishes an overall picture of how the employee selection process is nested in the TA process. The employee selection process is indicated with upward moving arrows that begin from the applicant screening in response to the job advertisement by the employer. Other stages before selection are indicated with the downward moving arrows. The stages that follow the upward direction are the employment testing and assessment, the selection interview, background verification, qualifications and physical examination, to the final stage of offering the job to the applicant, with the selection interview presented in red to denote the focus of this study. Some of these stages may appear before or after each other and not necessarily in the same order as depicted in Figure 1.
An organisation is best known for the elements that constitute it [25], and the foundation of any organisation is its employees, the human assets [26]. Given the correlation between an organisation and its employees, the TA process can be deemed as a necessary and fundamental process to any organisation [27]. Interviewing has historically been the most common and widely used form of assessment and selection tool used in the employee selection process [28].
Considerable research continues in the area of the interview process, starting from attempts to understand the perspective of its validity [29], reliability [30], transparency [14] and understanding the constructs of structured and unstructured interviews [31,32].

Conceptualising Selection Process in Talent Acquisition
The employee selection process is a subsystem of the TA process, which covers all activities from the job advertisement as the beginning of the onboarding activities. The selection process starts from the interview stage, which has been the most common method of selection for a job [33].
An employee is referred to as the most critical asset of an organisation and termed as 'human asset' due to its contribution to the successful operation of the organisation. Ensuring quality, consistency, reliability and validity of each subsystem in the overall system of TA would result in establishing a successful and prosperous organisation [34].
Organisations are capable of smooth operations only if they can ensure quality and sufficient quantity output from the human asset [35].
This human asset is known to be the heart of an organisation as it encompasses the ability, skills and the necessary talent to complete the organisation's commitments [36]. The movement of other enterprise resources depends on this asset. The very existence, prosperity and dynamic improvements are collectively affected by the quality of this human asset [37]. Most successful organisations are of the realisation that its employees (the human assets) are their most profitable capital investment [38]. Under this premise, employees have become one of the most expensive and critical factors of production in the organisation, where the organisation's existence and development are pivoted on its employees [39]. The identification and selection of such a talented human asset for any organisation remain a challenge to all HR professionals globally [40].

Conceptualising Employee Selection Decision Process
The ongoing debate in connection to the employee selection decision process is with regards to the inclusive vs exclusive understanding of the TA process [41]. According to the inclusive method, all individuals may be talented in their own way and possess the potential to add value to the organisation [42]. Under this method, each individual will have to be assessed uniquely to provide the opportunity for the individual to elaborate on their specific and different experiences, with the follow-up questions determined based on the responses from the applicant and are predominantly open-ended questions [43]. This method is very closely associated with the principles of the subjective approach of the selection decision. On the other hand, according to the exclusive method, some individuals may be more talented than the rest of the group. Under this method, a select individual's performance would stand out in comparison to the others. For this purpose of comparison, the same interview questions and assessment methods should be used to assist with evaluating each individual against one another [19]. Additionally, some organisations try to incorporate the operations of both methods depending on the position advertised, taking into consideration the J Sustain Res. 2020;2(2):e200014. https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20200014 criticality of the job requirements. This methodology contributes to the definition of differentiated workforce strategy, which assists with modelling the approach to be used in the TA, based on each job requirement for the organisation [44].
By and large, in light of the gap of these methodologies and approaches, the past and current literature from academic and industry leans towards the objective, exclusive and metric-driven processes [45,46]. However, taking into consideration the different theoretical perspectives on the methods and approaches of TA discussed above, there is a lack of the fundamental agreement and clarity with regards to the optimal employee selection decision process [13, 47,48]. Referring to the acquisition of talent and establishing a concrete employee selection decision, Boudreau and Ramstad [49] mention that it does not involve one single perspective that can be treated better than the others. Each organisation, driven by its Human Resources group, makes variations depending on the specific requirement of the position in an attempt to implement what seems the better alternative in practice for that organisation. This, according to Chuai, Preece [43] and Collings and Scullion [50], results in the lack of a universal consensus on the specific method or an explicit methodology associated with employee selection decision. Each organisation will determine what encompasses TA and what considerations should be given in the employee selection process by the leaders or executives running the organisation [33,51].
Notwithstanding that, as expressed by McDonnell and Collings [52], it is fundamentally indispensable for organisations to partake in a clear understanding on the mechanism of the employee selection decision, as this will decide and provide guidance in identifying and evaluating talent and thereby impacting the TA practices [45].

Subjective selection decisions
Kennedy-Luczak and Thompson [53] state that unstructured interviews are informal and use "tell me about yourself" type of open-ended questions, attempting to bring out much information from the applicant. Subjectivity occurs when information is open to individual interpretation. A selection decision is subjective if the interviewer's impression and intuition of the applicant take precedence over the realistic information obtained during the interview [54]. Swan [55] states that in most selection decisions, there are extensive subjective elements used for the assessment of the applicant requirement. He notes that it is the principal means of selection, especially for white-collar jobs.
The phrase "Halo Effect" and "Horn Effect" are psychological terms that are used in the selection context to describe the cognitive bias of the interviewer on the applicant [56]. The halo effect arises when the interviewer's perception of the applicant's positive behaviour overrides all other average behaviour qualities and the interviewer, under this favourable influence, gives the applicant a "halo" [57]. For example, when an applicant has obtained high scores in a knowledge test or is from a famous university, it would tend to influence the interviewer's impression of the applicant positively. The horn effect is the contrary of the halo effect [58], where the interviewer's perception of the applicant's negative behaviour overshadows all other qualities and the interviewer.
Under this unfavourable influence, the interviewer gives the applicant "horns" [53]. For example, when an applicant states that they were made redundant or laid off, it would tend to negatively influence the interviewer's impression of them even though there was no fault committed by the applicant.

Objective selection decisions
This study will use the term "Objective" decisions, but there are other terms that support the same outcome, such as "structured", "systematic", "standardised", "patterned" and "guided". Objective relates to the removal of subjective viewpoints and refers to a systematic process that is purely grounded on solid facts. An objective selection decision is using information or data that is founded in fact and is mostly statistical that can be confirmed by any autonomous moderator [16]. The possibility of measuring and obtaining the same result when repeated makes the information obtained via this method exceedingly useful and trustworthy.
Objective facts are indisputable if truthful, but training should be given to ensure the person applying this method could give the correct measurement and end up with a reliable result.
Research has reported that over 80 per cent of organisations from midsize to large companies have implemented the personality and ability assessments for applicants of entry and midlevel positions [59,60]. Fink [61] mention that these tests are predominantly aimed at helping the interviewer to identify a particular kind of individual with specific traits as per the job requirements, or to eliminate those applicants with traits that could lead to job performance failure. Research has demonstrated that the relationship between these tests and the performance of the applicants hired (based on the test scores) are robust and well recognised [62]. In the USA, most researchers and practitioners have acknowledged that applicant cognitive ability tests are effective predictors of future job performance across a wide range of jobs [63].

Mixed-method-Part subjective and part objective
While reviewing the ongoing discussions by researchers and supporters of structured and unstructured interviews, there was an emerging recommendation for a mixed method that incorporates the value from both types of selection procedures. While this method may not have been in use for long, it has caught the attention of researchers recently. Kuncel [64], converging attention on the weight of the indications from literature, coupled with the importance and seriousness of making the best selection decisions, suggests accommodating J Sustain Res. 2020;2(2):e200014. https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20200014 interviewer biases for unstructured interviews while simultaneously attempting to maintain the systematic integrity from the structured interview process. For example, organisations can start with pre-screening to shortlist a set of qualified finalists using objective methods and then forward it to decision-makers who can use subjective methods. These two methods should be brought together in a way that advocates transparency and fairness [65].
Gallupe, DeSanctis [66] have listed the significant findings from their study on group decisions making, stating that the objective approach demonstrated an enhanced quality of decision while the decision time was not affected. Slightly in contrast to this finding is the result from a more recent study related to decision making by In-Uck, Mike [67], where they state that if decision-makers are asked to be as objective as possible then they will have no room to use their prior knowledge and experience, which could be valuable to make judgements when providing their final suggestions. In addition, they recommend that a degree of subjectivity is allowed to enhance the final judgement of the decision-makers. Their results indicate that the best decisions were made when subjectivity was exercised to the halfway mark of the assessment process. However, it is essential to note that, their findings clearly state that higher levels of subjectivity boosted the risk for loss of factual information and lower levels, restricting valuable prior experience and knowledge application in decision making. Finding this half-way mark will be a pursuit in this research.
A close examination of the research literature designates that empirical findings have, to a great extent (although not entirely), substantiated benefits of using measures and ratings to quantify the decisions [68]. Methods such as training the interviewer may be useful in eliminating biases to an extent, but not entirely [65]. Favouring behavioural interviewing method to competency-based method, which rated the applicants on pre-defined competencies, Barclay [69] stated that of the 63% who claimed to score applicants during an interview, less than 33% were willing to share their analyses. Again, the result of these analyses was not a systematic rating but merely pages recording evidence, thereby leaving doubt about the nature of scoring practice used in organisations. This, thereby reinforces a need for a well-established, simple, and commonly used scoring process, as highlighted by Macan [16].
The principal contribution of this paper is the generation of a scoring process that follows a mixed method approach by incorporating both subjective and objective elements of the selection. This is the research gap this study intends on addressing.
The primary focus of this research will be associated explicitly to study the area related to the employee selection in terms of understanding the potential to improve the interview decision-making process of the employee selection in the TA process, such that it can contribute to an improved selection model with more objective measures. J Sustain Res. 2020;2(2):e200014. https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20200014 This research will attempt to understand the feasibility of these measures to serve as a framework to guide the interviewer's intuition in considering all the necessary aspects required for making an informed decision that can support the quantitative comparison of all the applicants, enhances applicant feedback and also serve as justification and a defence for making an evidenced-based hiring decision.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
A research method can be entirely qualitative method, fully quantitative method or a combination of both these methods called the mixed method. The mixed-method is identified as the appropriate research method for this study with more emphasis given to qualitative analysis while taking supportive evidence from the quantitative responses. The procedure for data collection and analysis is conducted rigorously for both forms of the data obtained [70]. There are multiple ways and techniques in the mixed method where the data is combined from sophisticated to concurrent and straightforward to sequential forms of data collection and data analysis.
For this study, internal reliability is obtained by ensuring the same questions are used for all participants of the study involved in the survey questions, for the quantitative data collection and the semi-structured open interview questions for the qualitative data collection. This research also entails external reliability where, if this study is repeated with a different sample set for the test of reliability, then similar results can be expected by using the existing highly structured online survey and semi-structured interviews, where the format and layout is set up to assist participants in responding coherently, consistently and in a correlated format. Regarding this study, internal validity was established by adapting questions after a pilot test is executed, and necessary changes are implemented. External validity is associated with generalisability where for this study, generalisability is targeted by ensuring sufficient participants are recruited from each Institute for the interviews and extensive attempts made to construct a comprehensive population consisting of applicants, Hiring Managers, HR representatives and interviewers across multiple levels of the organisation. Also, in this study, concurrent validity, which is a form of criterion validity, is utilised by implementing the practice of testing two groups such as the successful and unsuccessful applicants' perspectives concurrently using the same questions. More than one independent source of information, such as interviews, observations, surveys and public reports and records, are utilised as data collection methods. This is to enrich complex findings and add breadth and depth in reporting the findings.  What key elements will you be looking for in those resumes of interview applicants? 6 How do you evaluate candidacy against the requirements? 7 What key elements will you be looking for in the shortlisted interview applicants to hire? 8 What feedback do you provide to the candidates? 9 Can you describe the best interview you have had as an interviewer?
10 Can you describe the worst interview you have had as an interviewer?
Hiring Process Improvement/Suggestions 1 Do you think the hiring process should be improved from its current state? If yes, how?
2 What are your thoughts on having a standardised interview structure with a scoring measure that can be shared with applicants? 3 How do you think we can underpin fairness, equity and transparency in the hiring process? 4 Is there anything else you would like to note, regarding the hiring process?

RESULTS
This section presents the cross-section of the data collected from the survey to enhance the overall understanding of the findings presented.
All 74 participants of the qualitative interviews also participate in the survey. Therefore, the demographic information is representative of all participants involved in this study. As identified earlier current and previous employees of the 17 TAFE/Dual sector organisations participated in this study. These are broadly categorised as urban and regional members of the Victorian TAFE Association as illustrated in Figure 2.
J Sustain Res. 2020;2(2):e200014. https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20200014   The educational distribution of those participants who responded to this question is illustrated in Figure 4. This information helps in establishing that the participants of this study are from across various types of educational background. sector for most positions, except sessional employee hiring which uses a more informal and casual arrangement of interviewing applicants. In most cases, the position is advertised internally or externally requesting applicants to apply to ensure that they address all the key selection criteria along with submitting their resume. At least 50% of the organisations use some form of calculation based on metrics and scores to assess and shortlist the applicants for the interview. For regional institutes in both these instances, the participants mention that they were given the metrics and scoring sheets. However, in urban campuses, the participants note that they use scoring sheets that were devised by them and not given to them by the organisation in most instances. In summary, it appears from this evidence that it may be true that most applicants did not get feedback.

Possible variations to the existing selection process
The possible variations to the existing selection process are to the extent where some applicants believe that the entire selection interview process is a staged performance, where the decision is already made on the successful applicant even before the interview being conducted. In most instances, this was a case involving the internal applicants who were known to the hiring panel, which meant that the external applicants were likely at a significant disadvantage as noted by P01. There are, however, a few participants who share an opposite view to the above opinions, where they note the hearsay of such practises, though they have not experienced or witnessed it firsthand.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Existing Selection Processes
The previous section presented information on the existing selection

Pre-determined applicant selection
Having studied the present methods followed by the selection panel and to seek means of improving those methods for future benefits, a study is required to analyse the advantages and disadvantages to

Considerations for Improving the Selection Process
The TAFE/dual-sector, in particular, has been striving to improve through their repeat organisational restructures. However, it is essential for these changes to be advantageous to the conditions of the stakeholders, management, owners, clients and business viability.

Objective Elements
In the previous sections, extensive discussions related to the current Almost all participants agree to the benefits of having a consistent selection decision mechanism. However, they all firmly believe that bias will still be an inherent part of the process, although they believe attempts to establish such mechanisms may reduce such variations in the decision-making process. Significantly, almost all hiring members who favour consistency in the selection decision mechanism do not feel the need to share that information as part of the applicant feedback process.
However, there were a few hiring members who feel there is value in sharing the score as feedback that can assist in the improvement of the applicant during their future interviews.

Consistent interview performance scoring matrix-Based on KSC
In reference to having a consistent scoring sheet, P19 mentions, Overall, most participants are in favour of establishing a consistent hiring decision model that can be of assistance during the interview.
Based on the survey respondents for this study, which also includes all the participants of this qualitative interview, Figure 5 demonstrates the distribution of the responses on the use of a scoring matrix in some form or the other during their selection interview process. The survey question reads "Does your organisation provide you with a scoring or rating system in the interviews to assist in the hiring process?" Additionally, this detail is presented in association with the percentage of participants who are requesting an interview scoring sheet to be used to assist in the selection decisions. The survey question reads "Based on your overall personal hiring experiences, do you suggest an interview scoring sheet to be used to assist in hiring decisions?" It is interesting to note that 59% have noted the use of such aids. Furthermore, another interesting observation is that around 88% of the participants feel that there is value in using a scoring matrix and are therefore requesting an establishment of such a model. Likewise likening the gut feeling to an 'X' factor that needs to be present during the interview process, P14 mentions, "As long as there's room in that process for the x-factor or that additional information can be brought in, that could work." From the responses to the survey question "Should constructive interview performance feedback be provided?" Figure 6 demonstrates the increased need for applicants to obtain constructive interview feedback from their organisation. This collectively resulted in 93% of the participants requesting this step to be built into the selection process.
Additionally, this information is provided along with the information related to the survey question "Constructive interview feedback was provided after the interview". The figure depicts that close to 60% of the unsuccessful applicants and 28% of the successful applicants did not get any constructive feedback. 93% of participants requesting constructive J Sustain Res. 2020;2(2):e200014. https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20200014 feedback establishes the business need for this mechanism to be built-in to the selection process. Figure 6. Applicant interview performance feedback.

Ensuring fairness, equality and transparency in the selection process
The discussions with the interview participants concluded with their assessment and suggestion on the existing selection decision methods from the perspective of ensuring fairness, equality and transparency in the selection process. Participants share a variety of thoughts that can broadly be categorised into providing feedback to the applicant, retaining the panel interviews, using scoring mechanisms for making selection decisions and above all, ensuring a standard and consistent selection process is adhered to for all positions across the organisation without any (local) variation. In this regard, many participants feel that the existing process has catered for elements such as fairness, equality and transparency in the selection process as much as possible. While on the other hand referring to the importance of retaining the panel interviews as a way to ensure fairness and equality.
Overall, almost all participants are interested in enhancing the selection process in order to establish a more fair, equal and transparent process to the extent possible. Interestingly, some participants referred to these processes as a minefield and a cesspit of horror and state that they require a magic wand to identify the best applicant due to the complexities and difficulties inherent in the process. Using NVivo software and processing the responses in the semi-structured interviews (from all 74 participants) with Pearson's correlation for the word similarity results in three distinct clusters as illustrated in Figure 7 which is outlined below: J Sustain Res. 2020;2(2):e200014. https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20200014 • Ensuring the integrity of the interview selection process; • Enhancing applicant feedback process with enriched information; and • Contributory elements towards the overall satisfaction of the interview selection process.

DISCUSSION
The findings suggest progressive efforts in enhancing the workforce selection process. To obtain the best results possible, organisations have attempted to structure the selection process over a period of time, which is evident from: • consistent use of panel interviews across all organisations; • introduction of the key selection criteria (KSC) in the early 2000s; • current high dependency on addressing the KSC by the applicants; • reliance on the submitted KSC by the hiring members.
It is evident that both parties are well aware of the efforts taken by the organisations in establishing well-organised selection processes that can enhance the TA methods and process. This aligns with the thoughts shared by Whitacre [71], who has mentioned that both parties are currently involved in tackling the changing employment landscapes.
The analysis from this current research indicates that the focus of the TA process amongst all members in this sector is predominantly these practices are not adhered to-instead of using a more subjective approach, it was informal across all these organisations.
The analysis also finds one notable difference between the urban and regional settings when it comes to preferential treatment for existing employees to serve as a form of career progression and employee recognition. For example, almost 50% of the regional organisations had policies that required them to advertise positions internally for a certain period, to give the opportunity for the current employees to be given priority for the advertised position before the organisation advertised externally seeking successful applicant from this pool. Only if unsuccessful, it allows the organisations to advertise externally looking for applicants from the job market. On many levels, these processes are highly appreciated by the staff, which, according to the participants, in turn, increased their loyalty to the organisation. In complete contrast to this, the urban organisations mostly advertised externally directly soliciting applications from internal staff as well as external applicants.
However, there is a general belief among most participants from the urban sector that quite often an internal applicant was earmarked to be given the job even before the process was initiated. In such a scenario, the entire selection process becomes a wasted effort for an external applicant. The elements such as fairness, equality and transparency are so clouded (and disregarded) that most applicants requested for an immediate review of the policy requiring the position to be advertised externally directly.
These analyses are further supported by Schmidt and Zimmerman [72] that highlight structured interviews would provide better rationality for forecasting job performance, in comparison to unstructured interviews, due to the reliability of rating scales used in structured interviews.
However, while their findings showed mixed support for their hypothesis, most participants of this study are in support of this approach. This aligns with the literature on the related topic which states when testing with assessment tools that are effectively applied, it will assist identification of applicants with the true potential to spur improvements in the organisation and its services [61].
There are also instances when the organisations have policies around these selection procedures and methods; however, those organisations did not conduct formal training in this regard. This analysis finds that actively support the implementation of the decision-making matrix with a scoring measure for employee selection that can be consistently used by all members in this sector.

Proposal and Implementation of a Consistent Hiring Decision Model
With the supporting empirical evidence discussed above taken into consideration, this study proposes establishing a consistent selection decision model using a scoring matrix for rating applicants based on their responses and performance during the interview. It provides a framework for key elements such as fairness, equality, transparency, validity and reliability to be incorporated in the conceptual model as an enhancement to the current selection process. Based on this framework, the DSRVG Model is proposed as shown in Figure 9. It is to be noted that not all participants were entirely in favour of establishing a consistent selection decision model as they felt that with time, people would find ways to manipulate the system and force-fit the model to work in their favour. Nevertheless, the participants of this smaller group were willing to consider the establishment of such a model.
Additionally, most participants are firmly in favour of setting up and following the proposed model to strengthen the decision-making process.
In this regard, participants request for some allowances to be incorporated in the proposed scoring model, such as: • inclusion of a comments section to make notes; • flexibility for the panel to decide on the weight for each KSC; • a provision to incorporate additional questions, if necessary (apart from the KSC); and • support for the panel to apply discretion to override the outcome of the scoring tool, if there is a consensus that the best applicant as suggested by the model is not the best fit for the organisation.
This is an interesting finding as it suggests that despite incorporating objective and measurable elements in the selection decision process, hiring members still wanted some room for the subjective elements that

PROPOSED DSRVG MODEL
Taking support from the existing literature and empirical evidence obtained from participants of this study to establish a consistent scoring matrix to assist in the interview selection decision process, the following DSRVG (pronounced Deserving) model is proposed as illustrated in Figure   10. This model is designed to enhance the selection decision process in the context of a panel interview, which is predominantly utilised in the TAFE sector. Therefore, to implement this model, the panel should comprise of at least two hiring members. It is inspired by existing industry best practices in this sector. The process starts with "determining" key selection criteria for the position, followed by "setting" the scales and weights for each KSC as During the interview stage, each panel member "rates" the applicant individually with the use of a scoring sheet based on Table 2 to assess the performance of the applicant. This is followed by a short discussion among panellists to "validate" and moderate any variations in their assessment. The moderated score is then recorded in the same table along with reasons for a change. In the event of not arriving at a consensus, the individual scores are to be retained as a moderated score.
The average of moderated scores across all panellists is then recorded in the matrix table as depicted in Table 2 for the final "group" consensus to decide on the most suitable applicant to hire. The cumulative score and the comments from each interviewer can serve as guidance in the discussion among the panel members in identifying the most suitable candidate.
As requested by many participants, provision for writing additional comments for each question is provided in this conceptual model. While some participants suggest that the decision to share the applicant's score/rating as a form of feedback is left to the discretion of the chair/hiring manager of the panel, it is advisable not to allow a single member of the panel to override such an important policy decision.
Participants also highlight that, for the model to be successful, training must be provided for new hiring members on the usage of the tool as well as regular refresher training provided to all hiring members to reinforce the principles of the model. Table 3 provides a combined moderated selection using the scoring rating matric for each KSC against each candidate. It is also suggested that to assist the hiring members with J Sustain Res. 2020;2(2):e200014. https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20200014 applying the score consistently in filling Table 3, some guidance is included in the scoring matrix on the kind of responses expected for each level of the scale. This should ideally be incorporated in the scale at the time of determining the KSC for the position. This will, in turn, give all panel members and applicants more evidence-based, robust and a well-informed selection decision. Additionally, this can then serve as an evidence-based validation from which feedback can be provided to the applicants.  Overall, the analysis shows that the majority of the organisations are extensively looking for ways of ensuring and following a correct employee selection process. The need for such a process is confirmed by the various existing selection matrices in use in some organisations.
Furthermore, it has provided an insight into the potential of a consistent selection decision model for all organisations in this sector by implementing a uniform format as proposed in this conceptual model.
Besides, by also considering the incorporation of the weighting discussed above, this proposal can have a significant influence on the selection decision assistance available during the interviews to the hiring J Sustain Res. 2020;2(2):e200014. https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20200014 members and a good source of validated evidence-based feedback for applicants who desire it.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
This paper considered one of the least researched pillar of sustainability, namely human resource, in particular from TA perspective.
It presented the findings of an empirical study conducted to investigate the employee selection process adopted by the Victorian education sector in Australia. The study adopted g a mixed-method approach using quantitative analysis of the survey responses and qualitative thematic analysis of the participants' interviews covering various stakeholders.
The study identified the key objective elements to be introduced in the employee-selection process in order to reduce subjective decision-making.
The results of the study were valuable in proposing a consistent model (DSRVG model) and its implementation was presented. The structured employee-selection process of DSRVG model using a scoring matrix of KSC could be introduced across a sector in order to achieve organisation sustainability.
This paper identifies two significant contributions that also lead to

DATA AVAILABILITY
The dataset of the study is available from the authors upon reasonable request and only if it is compliant with the ethics approval granted.