In recent days, various opinions have emerged in the media regarding the selection process for the Director of LIAA. On one hand, it is pointed out that both the LIAA selection process and the selection of other executives in state-owned enterprises and institutions are happening too slowly and bureaucratically. On the other hand, it is argued that ending the competition “at the finish line” without providing additional explanations reduces professionals’ interest in applying for similar positions in public administration.

As the company I lead, Fontes, has extensive and long-standing experience in executive recruitment both in the private and public sectors, I decided to statistically examine whether indeed the selection processes for government executives are disproportionately lengthy, as well as whether there are opportunities to optimize and make the executive selection process more understandable.

Close-Up Statistics

To answer the question of whether the executive selection competitions organized by the state administration are not excessively long, I have compiled information on Fontes’ full-cycle projects for top-level executives (board members, executive directors, and equivalent positions) in both the public and private sectors over the past four years. Within such projects, market research is conducted first, reaching out to and often persuading suitable candidates to participate in the competition. This is followed by participation in interviews and competency assessment processes with the candidates shortlisted.

At the end of the competition, the organizer is supported in making decisions about the most suitable candidates. The information compiled includes 46 local and international private companies as well as 36 state and municipal enterprises for which Fontes has conducted top-level executive selection. It should be noted that Fontes has not selected top-level executives for any state institutions, but the methodology of the process for state institutions and state-owned enterprise executives is similar, allowing for a comparison of their duration with executive selections conducted in the private sector.

The analyzed data shows that the average duration of executive selection processes in Latvia is 4-5 months. In private sector companies, executive selection takes an average of four months and a few days, while in state and municipal enterprises it takes four months and two weeks. The difference is not significant, but delving into the data reveals several nuances. Specifically, in 26.1% of cases, the selection processes in private companies take place in less than 2 months, in 60.9% – in 3 to 5 months, in 8.7% – in 6 to 9 months, and 4.3% last more than a year. In contrast, in state and municipal selection processes, 13.9% take place within 2 months, 66.7% last from 3 to 5 months, and 19.4% last from 6 to 9 months.

These data suggest that in the majority of cases, selection processes in private companies take place slightly faster, but there are also selection processes that have taken significantly longer. Therefore, it cannot be asserted that executive selection processes for state and municipal enterprises take significantly longer than selection processes in the private sector.

It should be noted that the mentioned period refers to the active part of the selection process from the start of the project, which usually involves defining the needs and requirements of the companies, until the final selection of the candidate or, in the case of state-owned enterprises, the submission of proposed candidates to the shareholder. The subsequent process may take longer for various reasons. The main challenges are often related to the existing employment contract conditions of high-level professionals, which may delay the start of work several months after the conclusion of the selection process. Especially if a candidate works for a Western European company, a three-month notice period is not uncommon but rather a regularity. Similarly, obtaining security clearances from the state can take a certain period of time. Therefore, several more months should be added to the mentioned selection process deadlines.

Differences in Selection Procedures between the Public and Private Sectors

Despite the fact that the average duration of executive selection projects in private and state-owned enterprises is similar, the selection process itself is significantly different. In state and municipal enterprises, the process is carried out in a structured manner according to initially defined criteria, which are difficult to change during the process. Typically, these processes consist of three stages: in the first stage, a job advertisement is published, suitable candidates are attracted, and their experience and education are evaluated, as well as a check of their reputation. In the second stage, structured interviews are conducted, where questions are asked to the candidates about their knowledge and experience, as well as their strategic vision. In the third stage, the leadership competencies of the most suitable candidates are evaluated, and feedback from previous employers is obtained. The advantage of such a process is a structured, clear approach, but the main challenge is to change the criteria or add new candidates during the process.

In the case of private companies, the beginning of the selection process is usually similar – requirements are defined, an advertisement is published, and targeted candidates are actively approached. However, the candidate evaluation process itself is organized more flexibly. For example, if the response of suitable candidates is high, the desired qualification bar can be raised during the process by setting higher mandatory qualification requirements for advancement to the next stage. Conversely, if managers with a specific certificate or education are not available in the market, in such cases, there is a discussion about whether the missing requirements could be compensated with other skills or the ability to learn.

Similarly, if a qualified candidate has not applied within the deadline or is approached later, in the private sector, there will be no problem evaluating candidates during the ongoing process. Typically, private sector competitions also have a greater number of interview rounds – a potential employer may decide to meet with a candidate up to six times before making a decision on a job offer. In contrast, in selection competitions for state and municipal enterprises, there are usually two meetings – one in an interview with the nomination committee and the other with the shareholders. Differences can also be observed in the evaluation of candidates’ professional experience. In selection competitions for state and municipal enterprises, compliance with formal criteria, such as completing higher education (first-level professional education is not suitable), is more strictly observed.

Private sector employers take a more flexible approach to experience and education, placing greater emphasis on the candidate’s fit with the company culture and the potential for the candidate’s professional growth, as well as the “chemistry” with other members of the management team.

Recommendations for Improving the Executive Selection Process in Public Administration

It is humanly understandable for representatives of public administration who find it difficult to reconcile that after the conclusion of a four to five-month selection process, candidates who do not meet expectations are offered the position. Therefore, in my opinion, a best practice that could be adopted in selection processes for state and municipal enterprises is the involvement of a shareholder or political oversight in defining the job requirements and possibly also participating in the second round of interviews with candidates already shortlisted. This would allow for a more precise understanding of the situation in the labor market, timely evaluation of candidate responsiveness, and suitability for the specific position. However, to allow political decision-makers to assess in which processes their involvement is truly necessary, participation should not be mandatory (in the status of a competition nomination committee member), but rather voluntary depending on the political desire to participate in the process.

Private companies are often ahead of state and municipal enterprises in shaping the employer brand, which is a significant prerequisite for attracting candidates. While many private companies deliberately shape their public image, unafraid to highlight their achievements in various areas, unfortunately, the achievements of state and municipal enterprises disappear in the abyss

of wide criticism and scandals. It is only natural that talented leaders choose companies with a positive reputation. Therefore, it is recommended to adopt the practice of using mistakes as learning opportunities and to talk more widely about successfully implemented projects and achievements.

P.S. While writing the article, I also asked ChatGPT a question – how long are top-level executives selected for state-owned enterprises in Europe. The answer “from a few months to over a year” was not surprising. Quality decisions take time.

• The author is not associated with the LIAA Director’s selection procedure.