NEW 2018 Assistant Principal Officer Competition

Monkey5

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

not like I'm ever gonna get to manage staff as an AO in this Department anyway, and it's so much fun being treated as lesser than the HEOs and paid far less.

/rant

Sounds like they were pretty tough. There are secondment opportunities open to HEO and AO grades so some of these may come with people management opportunities I suppose

Chimichangas

quad_red wrote:

Same. I’m really disappointed. Made it to interview last time. Not even sufficient to get to stage 2 this time. That’s with a better performance in the exams and more experience.

Same boat here.
How does that work? Last competition you get to interview, but in 2018 with more experience you don't even get to do the supervised test?
I'm not understanding how this process is so subjective. Was shortlisting mentioned in the competition specifications in the beginning?

HartsHat

Chimichangas wrote: »

Same boat here.
How does that work? Last competition you get to interview, but in 2018 with more experience you don't even get to do the supervised test?
I'm not understanding how this process is so subjective. Was shortlisting mentioned in the competition specifications in the beginning?

Your experience wasn’t considered pre-interview in the last competition, now it is being considered pre-interview.

This actually makes sense. By shortlisting, PAS are trying to remove people who were getting to interview on the basis of the previous system, but whose experience was not sufficient to get the job.

Therefore, you’d expect that individuals who got to interview in previous competitions, but didn’t get the job, to be more likely to be cut in the shortlisting than the average applicant.

Ravelleman

Chimichangas wrote: »

Was shortlisting mentioned in the competition specifications in the beginning?

Yes, somewhat cryptically, as is PAS' style.

Riskymove

This is the criteria

Have significant management experience at an appropriate level, including leading teams and managing stakeholders;

A problem for applicants is that "significant" and "appropriate" are subjective terms

PhoenixParker

Ravelleman wrote: »

Yes, somewhat cryptically, as is PAS' style.

There wasn't anything cryptic about the shortlisting.
They were crystal clear in the booklet that stage 2 of this comp was shortlisting.

For any job shortlisting will be a hidden process but considering the detaiked competency spec and the ability to appeal, this is more transparent then most similar job processes.

Note: Im not saying the shortlisting process itself has been carried out to a sufficiently high standard. The sound of the applications rejected isnt comforting, but they were crystal clear that there would be shortlisting.

Monkey5

AOs don't lead teams. HEOs often don't either. Seems like they're being too strict.

Sir Ophiuchus

Monkey5 wrote: »

AOs don't lead teams.

Most AOs don't manage staff at all, really.

Chimichangas

PhoenixParker wrote:

There wasn't anything cryptic about the shortlisting. They were crystal clear in the booklet that stage 2 of this comp was shortlisting.

Can you show me where our quote it they said shortlisting? I don't have access at moment.
From what I understand the shortlisting happened before stage 2, which is the supervised testing. If you think they were crystal clear we must have different understandings of crystal clear. #murkybogwater?

PhoenixParker

Its page 12.
Stage 2 is clearly stated to be shortlisting. Its the title of the section.

On my phone so I cant copy and paste but its explicit and clear. Ranking based on online tests then shortlisting based on an examination of application forms.

Supervised testing is not a stage, they simply state that supervised testing may be used at a later stage in the competition.

Sir Ophiuchus

Candidate Information Booklet wrote:

STAGE 2

Shortlisting

Candidates will be ranked on the outcome of their on-line assessment tests and will be shortlisted in accordance with their ranking. In this respect, the Public Appointments Service provide for the employment of a short listing process to select a group for interview who, based on an examination of the application forms, appear to be the most suitable for the position. This is not to suggest that other candidates are necessarily unsuitable, or incapable of undertaking the job, rather that there are some candidates who are, prima facie, better qualified and/or have more relevant experience.

During any short listing exercise that may be employed, the Public Appointments Service are guided by an assessment board(s) who examine the application forms and assess them against pre-determined criteria based on the requirements of the position. It is therefore in your own interests to provide a detailed and accurate account of your qualifications/ experience on the application form.

It's clear enough that it's happening, but not what standards they're applying.

Subutai

PhoenixParker wrote: »

There wasn't anything cryptic about the shortlisting.
They were crystal clear in the booklet that stage 2 of this comp was shortlisting.

For any job shortlisting will be a hidden process but considering the detaiked competency spec and the ability to appeal, this is more transparent then most similar job processes.

Note: Im not saying the shortlisting process itself has been carried out to a sufficiently high standard. The sound of the applications rejected isnt comforting, but they were crystal clear that there would be shortlisting.

Ya, it was very clear that there would be shortlisting, and the competency framework (if it is applied by the shortlisters) is relatively clear.

If all applicants are recieving back, however, is that their experience wasn't sufficient without reference to those criteria then I can see why they'd be frustrated. It is difficult for someone to remedy a deficiency in their experience if they aren't aware of where it actually lies. It's also difficult for them to have confidence in the process if senior managers feel they have experience but, on the same information, PAS don't. Interviews don't provoke the same feeling, as one can justify one's experience and have it interrogated in a way that isn't possible through shortlisting based on a form.

The criteria are sufficiently broad that a diverse range of experience could be viewed as satisfying them. Increasingly civil servant applicants bring experience from diverse private sector careers to bear. That makes it a good bit harder than it maybe once was when there were clearer lines of progression for junior management grades. Are the teams they managed not large enough? Were they not at a sufficiently high level as managers? Were they not managing for a long enough time?

PhoenixParker

Subutai wrote: »

Ya, it was very clear that there would be shortlisting, and the competency framework (if it is applied by the shortlisters) is relatively clear.

If all applicants are recieving back, however, is that their experience wasn't sufficient without reference to those criteria then I can see why they'd be frustrated. It is difficult for someone to remedy a deficiency in their experience if they aren't aware of where it actually lies. It's also difficult for them to have confidence in the process if senior managers feel they have experience but, on the same information, PAS don't.

The criteria are sufficiently broad that a diverse range of experience could be viewed as satisfying them. Increasingly civil servant applicants bring experience from diverse private sector careers to bear. That makes it a good bit harder than it maybe once was when there were clearer lines of progression for junior management grades. Are the teams they managed not large enough? Were they not at a sufficiently high level as managers? Were they not managing for a long enough time?

I kind of agree, but I've also never seen any job application where shortlisting criteria was explicitly detailed. I get peoples frustration. It's maddening but a certain part of that is all job applications not just the almighty PAS.

Separate from the review process theres an option to ask for feedback up to 6 months after a decision. That may also be worth pursuing.

Monkey5

If that is their idea of clear written communication then I understand why I was disappointed by my precis excercise marks in the 3rd sec competition.

I knew about the shortlisting though. It looks like they are trying to preference private sector people in this competition. In the civil service you only get AP level management experience once you've been an AP.

Sir Ophiuchus

Since people have been asking what exactly they give as feedback, I got the following in the message.

Candidates must have, at the level required for the Assistant Principal role, sufficient evidence of the following:

- Management / Leadership Experience

- Managing Projects/Operations

- Judgement, Analysis and Decision Making

The board’s comment in relation to your application was:

On their application form, candidate did not demonstrate, at the level required for the Assistant Principal role, sufficient evidence of Management / Leadership Experience and Managing Projects/Operations.

I would like to thank you for your participation in the selection process and wish you the best for the future.

So that's vaguely clear, but the issue I have is that I don't think that's a valid assessment of my actual experience/competencies in that area (which included 6 months of acting up in my AP's role), particularly since three APs were advising on the application and said I'd have a good chance. Not saying I deserve the job, but I'm surprised at not even having the chance to interview.

Subutai

PhoenixParker wrote: »

I kind of agree, but I've also never seen any job application where shortlisting criteria was explicitly detailed. I get peoples frustration. It's maddening but a certain part of that is all job applications not just the almighty PAS.

Separate from the review process theres an option to ask for feedback up to 6 months after a decision. That may also be worth pursuing.

For sure, it's a concern that applies to most job applications. The difference, and I suppose why people would be concerned, is that we have PAS as the associated hoops in order to ensure a high level of fairness. In the Private Sector you don't need that, you just apply to the next company and hope that they view you more favourably (and if they don't, it's easier to accept that you're the problem) - that's not something that's possible for aspiring/serving civil servants.

The one shot every couple of years nature of it makes the stakes a lot higher for people. Especially for those in graduate grades which were previously a path to management roles. If the process starts to be seen as arbitrary, or impossible for most AOs, you'll start to see retention issues.

People should definatly seek feedback. Tbh, it should be provided as a matter of course, but it's great that it's available.

gmisk

Monkey5 wrote: »

If that is their idea of clear written communication then I understand why I was disappointed by my precis excercise marks in the 3rd sec competition.

I knew about the shortlisting though. It looks like they are trying to preference private sector people in this competition. In the civil service you only get AP level management experience once you've been an AP.

I dont disagree with what your saying, but is that not partially why they have an interdepartmental as well as an open one?

HartsHat

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

It's clear enough that it's happening, but not what standards they're applying.

Same standards as any employer, I’d imagine i.e. reviewing applications in light of the competencies required and shortlisting the best candidates.

Ravelleman

PhoenixParker wrote: »

There wasn't anything cryptic about the shortlisting.
They were crystal clear in the booklet that stage 2 of this comp was shortlisting.

For any job shortlisting will be a hidden process but considering the detaiked competency spec and the ability to appeal, this is more transparent then most similar job processes.

Note: Im not saying the shortlisting process itself has been carried out to a sufficiently high standard. The sound of the applications rejected isnt comforting, but they were crystal clear that there would be shortlisting.

Noted. My erroneous recollection was of an altogether shorter explanation.

Subutai

gmisk wrote: »

I dont disagree with what your saying, but is that not partially why they have an interdepartmental as well as an open one?

That only works if you have a relative/comparison based standard rather than an objective/criteria based one.

It's not immediately clear which one PAS applies.

People are saying that the message they revived was that they:

"did not demonstrate, at the level required for the Assistant Principal role, sufficient evidence of Management / Leadership Experience and Managing Projects/Operations."


That suggests an objective standard. You meet the criteria, or you don't. In which case, candidates in the interdepartmental and open should be judged the same.


However, in the information booklet PAS seems to suggest the use of a relative standard. They set out that shortlisting will be used to select:

"a group for interview who, based on an examination of the application forms, appear to be the most suitable for the position. This is not to suggest that other candidates are necessarily unsuitable, or incapable of undertaking the job, rather that there are some candidates who are, prima facie, better qualified and/or have more relevant experience"


So which is it? Are candidates who failed shortlisting unsuitable, as the message returned suggests? In that case they will also be unsuitable on the interdepartmental. Or, are candidates merely losing out due to better qualified competition, in which case they may succeed in the other panel.

Of course, a relative standard raises other problems. As this panel will run for two years, it is likely further batches will be shortlisted from those who did not reach the qualifying standard in stage 1 tests. If those tests have any predictive validity at all, then one may be disadvantaged by doing well on them, as one could expect to be compared to better suited candidates than if one had done poorly.

quad_red

There is no clear line of progression for an AO now. Which wouldn’t be so bad if it the salary wasn’t so bad.

But I had this conversation with colleagues with whom it finished the AO development program with. We can’t afford to live on an AO salary in Dublin for the next 5 years with no reasonable chance of progression. None of us are managing staff. None of us have gotten through the stage 2 this time.

All the AOs in my division work more hours than EOs or HEOs. They do this because they’re focused on getting promoted.

Chimichangas

HartsHat wrote: »

Therefore, you’d expect that individuals who got to interview in previous competitions, but didn’t get the job, to be more likely to be cut in the shortlisting than the average applicant.

Now do please explain why people getting to interview in previous competitions and didnt get the job would make them more likely to be cut in shortlisting in later competitions than the average applicant??
That just doesnt make sense.

Subutai

Chimichangas wrote: »

Now do please explain why people getting to interview in previous competitions and didnt get the job would make them more likely to be cut in shortlisting in later competitions than the average applicant??
That just doesnt make sense.

If you didn't demonstrate the competency for the role at interview you are less likely to demonstrate it in an application form.

tigger123

Chimichangas wrote: »

Now do please explain why people getting to interview in previous competitions and didnt get the job would make them more likely to be cut in shortlisting in later competitions than the average applicant??
That just doesnt make sense.

It makes perfect sense when you consider there was no shortlisting in the last competiton. That's the difference.

prettyboy81

Interesting to see the number put through. Was it a major cull on numbers or moderate.

AGC

quad_red wrote: »

There is no clear line of progression for an AO now. Which wouldn’t be so bad if it the salary wasn’t so bad.

But I had this conversation with colleagues with whom it finished the AO development program with. We can’t afford to live on an AO salary in Dublin for the next 5 years with no reasonable chance of progression. None of us are managing staff. None of us have gotten through the stage 2 this time.

All the AOs in my division work more hours than EOs or HEOs. They do this because they’re focused on getting promoted.

I agree up to your last point. Working more hours doesn’t cut it anymore with how competitions are ran.

If you are a graduate going straight in as an AO you will need to start looking at secondments in relation to projects so you can be involved in a team.

I don’t like how they have shortlisted, for the amount of candidates that will have been eliminated they could have weeded them out in an interview as with most competitions. There are AO’s in my Department with no managerial experience who have been brought forward so to me it’s a practice that is open to complaints/issues.

AndrewJRenko

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

Since people have been asking what exactly they give as feedback, I got the following in the message.



So that's vaguely clear, but the issue I have is that I don't think that's a valid assessment of my actual experience/competencies in that area (which included 6 months of acting up in my AP's role), particularly since three APs were advising on the application and said I'd have a good chance. Not saying I deserve the job, but I'm surprised at not even having the chance to interview.

A couple of years ago, the PAS website had a commitment to:

"real commitment to offering meaningful feedback"


When I got fairly bland feedback for two posts in a row ("meets the requirements of the posts", "does not meet the requirements of the post"), I made a formal complaint that they weren't living up to their own commitments. I had seen a trend over a few competitions, some with PAS and some with other public bodies, that the qualitative feedback given was basically a rewriting of the quantitative feedback (interview scores broken down by competency area). It didn't add anything new or meaningful.


I got nowhere, though I see that they fixed the problem by removing that commitment from the website.

Chimichangas

Subutai wrote: »

If you didn't demonstrate the competency for the role at interview you are less likely to demonstrate it in an application form.

tigger123 wrote: »

It makes perfect sense when you consider there was no shortlisting in the last competiton. That's the difference.

No I dont agree. An interview is a differnt kettle of fish to an application form, and one doesnt necessarily follow the other. In fact its application form, then interview.
My understanding was that of course application forms were used to filter out applicants, as always...but this time it seems to be different. I will have to compare last and previous competitions specs with this one...

quad_red

AGC wrote: »

I agree up to your last point. Working more hours doesn’t cut it anymore with how competitions are ran.

If you are a graduate going straight in as an AO you will need to start looking at secondments in relation to projects so you can be involved in a team.

I don’t like how they have shortlisted, for the amount of candidates that will have been eliminated they could have weeded them out in an interview as with most competitions. There are AO’s in my Department with no managerial experience who have been brought forward so to me it’s a practice that is open to complaints/issues.

Maybe I didn’t articulate my point. It’s not about hours working but AOs in my Dept are clearly expected to work as long hours as APs and to put yourself forward relentlessly for training. The clear corollary of this is you’re expecting that the hard work is preparing you for promotion and a decent salary.

Not guaranteeing anything but demanding a lot in exchange for clear on the job training for AP. If that’s not the case then this isn’t viable (and it’s not what AOs are being sold).

Sir Ophiuchus

quad_red wrote: »

Maybe I didn’t articulate my point. It’s not about hours working but AOs in my Dept are clearly expected to work as long hours as APs and to put yourself forward relentlessly for training. The clear corollary of this is you’re expecting that the hard work is preparing you for promotion and a decent salary.

Not guaranteeing anything but demanding a lot in exchange for clear on the job training for AP. If that’s not the case then this isn’t viable (and it’s not what AOs are being sold).

Whereas I got told repeatedly I was doing a lot of training and had my application for a secondment blocked because I'd "done so much training" (mostly mandatory).