Home » Employment » Recruitment and promotion » Presentations in recruitment

Presentations in recruitment

Disclaimer – please read
This page does not apply outside Great Britain.
Last updated 7th April 2021.

This page deals with presentations which are part of the recruitment process. For presentations as part of a job, see Examples of reasonable adjustments: In the job>Presentations. 

Summary

  • Presentation skills should only be assessed so far as they are important enough for the job, after taking into account possible reasonable adjustments in the job. Below Are presentation skills really important for the job?
  • If it is not justified to assess presentation skills, but rather the subject matter is being tested, the employer should not assess presentation skills and extensive adjustments are likely to be reasonable, including submitting the presentation in writing if the individual wants that. Below Testing other skills (if presentation skills not important).
  • If presentation skills are important for the job and the employer is justified in assessing them (below If justified to test presentation skills), then:
    • The considerations discussed on my Oral assessments in recruitment page apply –
      • For example, it is likely to be the person’s communication skills (more specifically the particular communication skills which are important for the job) rather than his fluency which is important. A person who is stammering may have excellent communication skills.
    • An assessment of presentation skills should reflect any reasonable adjustments that ought to be made in the job itself. Also it is likely to be reasonable for the assessment to be as close as possible to the situation that would apply in the workplace. Below If justified to test presentation skills: Reasonable adjustments.
  • There is a separate page on Oral assessments in recruitment more generally, including remote assessments (Zoom etc).

The most important types of Equality Act claim as regards presentations in the recruitment process are the reasonable adjustment duty and ‘discrimination arising from disability’.

In summary, this means that an assessed presentation which disadvantages a disabled person potentially gives rise to two key legal issues, though tribunals may often see the issues as not very different from each other:

  • whether rejecting the person for the job based on or influenced by the results of the assessment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim – the ‘objective justification’ test, and
  • whether there were reasonable steps the employer could have taken to avoid the disadvantage caused to the disabled person by the employer’s assessment practices and criteria – the reasonable adjustment duty.

Roughly speaking, the effect of these provisions seems to be: any discriminatory effect should be as small as reasonably possible, consistent with the employer being able to assess skills that are sufficiently important for the job.

For more, see: Oral assessments in recruitment>Legal background.

Are presentation skills really important for the job?

Is it presentation skills being assessed, or rather the relevant subject?

Where an employer requires a presentation as part of the recruitment process, the aim is often to assess knowledge and skills on what is being talked about, rather than presentation skills.

Example: An employer requires job candidates for an HR post to give a presentation on how best to achieve equal opportunities in the workplace. The aim is often to test the applicant’s expertise and ideas on implementing equal opportunities, rather than to assess their presentation skills.

Is it justified to test presentation skills?

If the employer is – at least in part – assessing the candidates’ presentation skills (rather than the subject matter), is it justified for the employer to do so?

It is unlikely to be justified unless presentation skills are actually important in the job, after taking into account any reasonable adjustments in the job (see below Could reasonable adjustments be made?). Sometimes employers exaggerate the importance of presentation skills (below), so it may be worth challenging how important they really are.

There will inevitably be grey areas. Even if presentations may be required to some extent, how often, and how big a part of the job are they? A question under the objective justification test would be whether the importance of presentation skills in the job is such that it outweighs the discriminatory effect of turning the person down on this ground. See for example this example of prospective trainee solicitors being required to make a mock pitch to clients. What an employer is justified in assessing on recruitment is also discussed at Oral assessments in recruitment>What is being assessed? Should it be assessed?

From a legal perspective, as outlined above in Summary of legal background, an employer who bases their decision on a job applicant partly on an assessment of their presentation skills may be acting unlawfully:

  • if it would have been reasonable to adjust that assessment (that is likely to be reasonable if presentation skills are not important for the job), or
  • if the employer cannot show that rejecting the candidate was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, the ‘objective justification‘ test (it is unlikely to be proportionate to reject someone for not having skills they do not need for the job).

What adjustments (if any) should be made to a presentation during recruitment will very often depend on whether it is justified for the employer to assess presentation skills. See below:

Justification: Is the importance of presentation skills exaggerated?

Employers sometimes ‘overplay’ the degree to which skills are required to perform the duties of the job. One person who stammers writes:

“The arrangements for interview included giving a presentation. This was said to be an essential requirement of the job. However, since being in post, for more than two years now, there has been no work situation which has required, as an essential, formal presentations.”

Justification: Could reasonable adjustments be made?

If presentations in the job will be required to some extent, there may well be scope to do things in a different way in the job (reasonable adjustments). See Examples of reasonable adjustments: In the job>Presentations. For example the person might distribute written material in advance followed by oral questions and discussion. One person who stammers writes:

“Typically meetings are pre-arranged events, with agendas and responsible officers for items. For these situations I typically prepare written notes on my items which are emailed to attendees prior to the date. For example, last week I pre-prepared a ‘discussion paper’ on a topic, with background information and specific decisions to be made. This enabled a large amount of information to be made available in writing, including specific questions to address, which otherwise may have proven very difficult to deliver orally – simply by making a minor adjustment to arrangements.” (February 2009)

Another option – if the person who stammers wishes and it is reasonable in the circumstances – is to use text-to-speech (TTS) software to give a presentation, unless presentations in the workplace are liable to be short-notice so that there is not enough time to prepare it: see below Examples on text-to-speech (TTS).

Testing other skills (if presentation skills not important)

This heading deals with where it is not justified to assess the job candidate’s presentation skills: see above Are presentation skills really important for the job? The presentation aims to assess other skills such as the candidate’s grasp of a subject, or their ability to explain it which might be in writing.

Firstly, if the assessment still takes the form of a presentation, presentation skills (or other oral communication skills not important for the job) should not actually be assessed, for the candidate who stammers or probably anyone else. Certainly the candidate who stammers should not be disadvantaged by others being able to earn marks for presentation skills.

Secondly, if assessing the relevant skills by means of a presentation will put the person who stammers at a disadvantage, it is likely to be reasonable to make whatever adjustments are required to avoid the disadvantage:

  • If person does an oral presentation, adjustments could include:
  • It is likely to be reasonable, if the person who stammers wishes, for them to submit a written paper instead, having been allowed sufficient time (below) to write this. If the panel generally asks questions after the presentations:
    • the written paper might be followed by oral questions, with reasonable adjustments including extra time (compare the above example above of this happening in the workplace).
  • The individual who stammers should not be disadvantaged by other candidates being able to earn marks for oral presentation skills which she does not. The obvious way to do this is not to mark anyone on oral skills.

Example: A person who stammers, and who wishes this, is allowed to submit a written paper (or perhaps a Powerpoint presentation) of equivalent length to presentations given by other job candidates. Since presentation skills are not required for the job, these are not taken into account in the marking of any candidate. Her paper might be followed by oral questions, with any reasonable adjustments, or written questions and answers.

Example: A job candidate who stammers gives an oral presentation. Extra time is allowed so that she can include the same amount of content as others (eg there might be a guideline of a maximum number of words, rather than a time limit). Since presentation skills are not required for the job, those skills are not taken into account in the marking of any candidate.
Other adjustments to the oral presentation may also be required. For examples, see above and Examples of reasonable adjustments: In the job>Presentations.

The discussion of Oral assessments in education is relevant, though the detailed legal rules are different. A link on assessed presentations in context of education is Working with students who stammer (pdf on archive of De Montfort University website), which gives examples of adjustments for students who stammer.

The Employment Code specifically mentions reasonable adjustments to assessments in recruitment: see Oral assessments in recruitment>Employment Code.

Opportunity to supplement oral presentation afterwards in writing?

Even if a person who stammers is given more time, they may say less because they are trying to hide or reduce their stammer, or because of the time and effort it takes them to speak. See Examples of reasonable adjustments: Recruitment>Oral interview: Limited responses.

It may be reasonable to make adjustments to compensate for this, such as giving the person the opportunity after an oral presentation to write anything they were unable to say: Examples of reasonable adjustments: Recruitment>Limited responses: Chance to write extra after oral interview.

If an individual who stammers limits what they say in this way, they may have to tell the employer about the issue to get an adjustment, as (depending on the particular facts) the employer may otherwise not be expected to know about it:

Y v West Yorkshire Combined Authority, Employment Tribunal, 2020
A job applicant who stammers took twice the normal time for an oral presentation. He argued that the content he was able to communicate was affected by the stammer. However on his claim under s.15 EqA (discrimination arising from disability), the tribunal decided the content of his presentation did not arise from his disability. The reason he received a low score was because he did not meet the presentation brief. The tribunal said the claimant stated in his oral evidence that, broadly speaking, he was able to communicate the content of his presentation that he wanted to get across.

Also as regards the duty to make reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that the employer did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the claimant had any difficulties in expressing the oral content of his presentation, because the claimant had not raised concerns about the presentation other than requesting it be an informal discussion. The claimant did not request any alternative to the oral presentation such as providing a written report.

Note: The employer’s knowledge of the disadvantage may not matter on a s.15 claim if the employer knows of the disability. However it is likely to make sense to tell the employer anyway.

Sufficient time for written presentation

Broadly, it seems that a candidate doing their presentation in writing should be allowed

  • whatever preparation time other candidates are allowed, plus
  • the oral presentation time multiplied by whatever factor is required to compensate for the longer time it takes the applicant to write (based on their actual writing speed) compared with normal speaking time.

See Y v Bradford Council below, and also Examples of reasonable adjustments: Recruitment>Written answers: How much time to allow? along with sub-headings below it such as making clear to the candidate how much time he has.

Y v Bradford Council, Employment Tribunal, 2006
Candidates were asked to give a 10 minute presentation on a topic to be given to them when they arrived, with 30 minutes preparation time. The employer agreed the claimant could give his presentation in writing. He was given 45 minutes in total to submit his written presentation.

The tribunal held this was not a sufficient reasonable adjustment. The claimant should have been given the same 30 minutes preparation time as other candidates, plus 3 times 10 minutes (30 minutes) to write the presentation, applying the 3 to 1 ratio suggested by the claimant for writing versus speech (see next paragraph). So 60 minutes in total.

The claimant had suggested to the employer using a ratio of 3 to 1, based on an average person speaking around 150 words per minute and average typing speed being about 50 wpm. The tribunal noted that the claimant’s actual typing speed was 30 wpm, which would give a ratio of 5 to 1. However the employer did not know this (and could not be expected to know) so it was reasonable to use the 3 to 1 ratio.

For some other aspects of this case, see below Examples on text-to-speech (TTS).

If justified to test presentation skills

This heading deals with the situation where an ability to give presentations is required for the job, and assessing presentation skills is justified: see above Are presentation skills really important for the job?

The employer should be looking at how the person will perform in the job situation rather than necessarily in a recruitment situation, and taking account of any adjustments that it will be reasonable to make in the job (below If justified to test presentation skills: Reasonable adjustments).

The considerations discussed on Oral assessments in recruitment (separate page) apply. For example:

It is likely to be the communication skills other than their fluency which are important. A person who stammers may have excellent communication skills whether or not they are stammering. What particular communication skills are important and legitimate to assess is likely to depend on the job – assessment criteria should reflect this.
See Oral assessments in recruitment>What is being assessed?>Communication skills. and Oral assessments in recruitment>Are criteria for assessment justified?

If justified to test presentation skills: Reasonable adjustments

If oral presentations will be required in the job (after reasonable adjustments) and it is justified to assess presentation skills, it is likely to be reasonable to at least make any adjustments that it would be reasonable to make in the job itself: see Oral assessments in recruitment>Allowing for reasonable adjustments in the workplace. This will of course depend on the job:

Also it is likely to reasonable for the assessment to be as close as possible to the situation that would arise in the workplace: see Oral assessments in recruitment>Is the situation in which the skills are tested equivalent to the actual workplace situation?:

Example: The job requires explaining things orally to one or two people. The employer uses a presentation to a larger group to assess this. If the stammer is likely to have greater effects with the larger group, it will probably be reasonable to limit the audience to a smaller group as in the job situation.

Example: Effects of the person’s stammer in a presentation may be reduced if the person has adequate time to prepare. If a longer preparation time than the employer is allowing for the assessment would generally be available in the workplace (after reasonable adjustments), it may well be reasonable to similarly allow a longer preparation time before the assessment.

Example: It may not be reasonable/proportionate to use a mock pitch to a client to assess how presentation skills would be in other presentations on subjects with which the candidate is more familiar. See example on ‘Oral assessments in recruitment’.

It may well be a reasonable adjustment for the assessors to be aware that the relevant candidate has a stammer, and of its effects (so far as the candidate wants them to be told) – so that they can take this into account and are less likely to misinterpret things which are actually caused by the stammer. A similar adjustment was allowed for Asperger’s syndrome at an assessment centre in Lowe v Cabinet Office.

A link on assessed presentations (in context of education) is Working with students who stammer (pdf on archive of De Montfort University website), which gives examples of adjustments for students who stammer.

Examples on text-to-speech (TTS)

Most candidates who stammer will probably prefer to speak (with any reasonable adjustments), rather than use text-to-speech software. However the case and the case study below relate to someone who wanted to use TTS software.

Y v Bradford Council, Employment Tribunal, 2006
The tribunal discussed use of text-to-speech (TTS) software, and the fact that a presentation exercise for job applicants was ‘short-notice’, so that only 30 minutes preparation time was allowed.

The tribunal considered that presentation skills were necessary in the job, and the Council could reasonably have required the claimant to do an oral presentation exercise (in fact the Council allowed him to do a written one). However, if the claimant had been given advance notice of the question for the presentation, he could have prepared his presentation with TTS software and done an oral presentation in that way. Whether it would have been reasonable to drop the ‘short-notice’ element of the exercise would depend in part on whether presentations on short notice were in fact part of the job duties. The tribunal did not have evidence on that.
For some practical considerations around using TTS, see Examples of reasonable adjustments: Recruitment>Use of technology.

Case study: One person who stammers writes:

“The arrangements for interview included giving a presentation. This was said to be an essential requirement of the job. However, since being in post, for more than two years now, there has been no work situation which has required, as an essential, formal presentations.”

The post was newly created. Whilst saying that presentations were essential for it, the employer accepted the applicant’s argument that in the workplace the text could be read aloud using text-to-speech (TTS) technology. For the presentation in the recruitment process, the employer therefore allowed him to just prepare a PowerPoint presentation, without having to deliver it orally – since in the workplace delivery could be through TTS. The applicant got the job.

20th anniversary of stammeringlaw, 1999-2019