Selection criteria are one of the most misunderstood — and most risky — parts of any restructure or redundancy process. Across both New Zealand and Australia, poorly designed selection criteria are a major reason restructure decisions get challenged, overturned, or escalated into legal disputes.
The good news?
You can avoid 90% of the risk simply by designing criteria that are clear, objective, evidence-based and aligned to the future needs of the business.
This blog walks you through how to create fair, defensible selection criteria that uphold good faith, procedural fairness, and natural justice — without overcomplicating the process or turning it into a spreadsheet of doom.
First: When do you need selection criteria?
Selection criteria are used when:
- you have more than one person in the same or similar role, and
- after the restructure, there will be fewer roles than before.
For example:
- 5 administrators → restructure → 3 administrators
- 4 shift leaders → restructure → 2 shift leaders
You CANNOT simply pick the people you prefer.
You MUST have a fair, transparent and defensible way of determining who stays.
The biggest myth about selection criteria
Many leaders think selection criteria are about performance.
Not quite.
They are about:
- capability
- skills
- experience
- suitability for the future state
- documented performance history
- role requirements
This is forward-looking, not backwards-looking.
The 5 principles of fair selection criteria (NZ + Australia)
1. Objective
Avoid subjective language like “team player”, “good attitude”, or “best fit.”
These terms invite bias and create huge risk.
Use observable, measurable criteria.
2. Evidence-based
You must be able to justify each rating with actual evidence — not opinion.
3. Relevant to the role
Criteria must directly relate to:
- the job description
- future workplace needs
- technical or behavioural capabilities required
4. Applied consistently
Everyone in the selection pool must be assessed using the same criteria and weighting.
5. Transparent
Employees must be able to see:
- what the criteria are
- how they were assessed
- how evidence was used
- how the decision was reached
Transparency builds trust and reduces conflict.
What good selection criteria look like
Here are the types of criteria that are widely accepted across NZ and Australia:
1. Skills and technical capability
Examples:
- ability to operate specific systems
- required certifications
- technical knowledge
- demonstrated proficiency in key tasks
2. Experience relevant to the future role
Examples:
- experience leading teams
- industry experience
- customer service experience
- safety-critical experience
3. Performance (based on documented evidence)
Examples:
- performance reviews
- KPIs
- documented feedback
- attendance records (NOT medical absences)
- quality or accuracy measures
4. Behaviour and values alignment (evidence required)
Examples:
- collaboration (supported by examples)
- communication
- adherence to policies
5. Qualifications or training required
Examples:
- trade certifications
- professional registrations
- mandatory licences
What unsafe criteria look like (avoid these at all costs)
These are the types of criteria that often trigger personal grievances or unfair dismissal claims:
- loyalty
- attitude
- “cultural fit”
- who you “prefer” to keep
- future potential that can’t be evidenced
- medical absences
- parental leave
- union involvement
- age or seniority unless relevant
- personality
If a criterion feels vague, subjective or personal, it’s a red flag.
How many criteria should you use?
Most organisations use between 4–7 criteria.
Too few = unfair advantage to some employees.
Too many = overly complex, cumbersome, and stressful for employees and managers.
The goal is not volume — it’s clarity.
How to score selection criteria fairly
Across ANZ, the safest and simplest scoring method is:
- 1 = Limited
- 2 = Developing
- 3 = Fully Competent
- 4 = Highly Competent
The key to fairness is in the definition:
Each score must have clear descriptors, for example:
3 = Fully Competent:
Employee consistently demonstrates the required capability with evidence such as completed tasks, examples, or documented performance.
2 = Developing:
Employee occasionally demonstrates the required capability but has gaps or requires support.
A clear scoring rubric protects against unconscious bias.
Evidence matters — more than anything else
Every score should link to evidence like:
- performance reviews
- work samples
- audit results
- qualification records
- documented feedback
- KPIs
- training completion
- customer feedback
- coaching notes
If you cannot support a rating with evidence, you shouldn’t use it.
The consultation step is critical
Before applying criteria, you must consult employees. This means:
- giving them the criteria
- explaining why they were chosen
- allowing feedback
- considering suggestions
- being open to changing criteria if appropriate
Consultation must be genuine — not a tick-box exercise.
What to tell employees during consultation
Employees want to know:
- how decisions will be made
- what the criteria are
- how scoring works
- how evidence will be used
- how they can provide feedback
- how weighting will be applied
- what the timeline is
Clear communication reduces fear and builds trust.
Using weighting
Weighting is optional but helpful when some criteria matter more than others.
For example:
- technical capability: 40%
- performance: 30%
- qualifications: 20%
- behavioural capability: 10%
Weighting must be:
- documented
- explained
- justified
- linked to the future needs of the role
Be careful of “tie-breaker” criteria
Avoid tie-breakers like:
- tenure
- personality
- who the manager prefers
- who is “easier” to manage
If you need a tie-breaker, go back to:
- role requirements
- evidence
- future business needs
Common mistakes employers make (ANZ-wide)
- using vague criteria
- choosing criteria after the fact
- applying criteria inconsistently
- failing to consult
- not providing evidence
- using performance issues as a backdoor redundancy
- failing to consider redeployment
- weighting criteria inconsistently
These mistakes weaken even the strongest restructure.
The human side of selection
Employees deeply fear selection processes. They feel:
- judged
- compared
- insecure
- anxious
- powerless
A clear, transparent selection process reduces this fear significantly.
One HR Unlocked client recently shared:
“Once we explained the criteria and showed how scoring worked, the tension dropped overnight. Even people who missed out said they felt the process was fair.”
Fairness doesn’t eliminate disappointment — but it removes resentment.
The bottom line
Selection criteria are not just a spreadsheet exercise — they’re a fairness exercise.
Across both NZ and Australia, defensible selection criteria must be:
- objective
- transparent
- evidence-based
- relevant
- consulted on
- consistently applied
- clearly documented
When you get this part right, restructures become smoother, fairer and far less risky.
If you want ANZ-ready selection criteria templates, scoring tools, consultation packs and restructure documentation, HR Unlocked gives you everything you need to run a safe, fair and well-structured process — without the consulting fees or the legal jargon.
#HRUnlocked #SelectionCriteria #Restructure #Redundancy #EmploymentLaw #FairWork #EmploymentRelationsNZ #PeopleAndCulture #ANZHR #HRAdvice #OrganisationalChange #HRMadeSimple