Civil Service - EO exams

notlongleft wrote: »

for those of you who did well in the job simulation - can i ask a quick question - did you go with answers of not getting help from people and doing stuff on your own or what it a management style where you could approach people? Just trying to figure out what kind of style of management/person they are looking for in the job simulation. I did really well on it the first time I did it and then fell down the second time but cant put a finger on where i fell down or how i answered it differently. Any advice much appreciated.

Thanks

Play safe- if in doubt check for precedent- if something similar came up previously- how was it tackled? Was it a success? If not- is there anyone who is likely to be able to shed light on the situation?

Take responsibility for your actions- but don't do anything likely to be errrr- whats the best of putting it- controversial?

Take responsibility for your staff, but above all else be seen to be impartial and fair to them. If a problem is brought to your attention- try to address it in a non-confrontational manner, unless its obvious that this is a total non-runner- at which stage seek assistance from your immediate manager, but do not go over the head of your immediate manager.

Document everything.

Prioritise tasks and be able to recognise which tasks need immediate attention versus which can be delegated to more junior staff (which should still be examined by you before submitting).

Etc- hope you get the picture.

Supercell wrote: »

I'd guess the role as advertised is a mainly managerial role rather than anything else. Seeing the bigger picture and being good at handling real life situations is preferred, I really don't think its a gender bias thing tbh.

Well- EO is the most junior of the Management roles. Depending on which department you are assigned to- this can mean literally anything from photocopying duties to attending EU Council and Commission meetings (and everything in between).

The reason the maths isn't counted *is* a stated form of gender discrimination, in favour of women. It has been brought up at Council on a number of occasions, but has yet to be overturned (it was most recently brought up by the PSEU- who represent EOs, AOs and HEOs, to no avail).

A general EO role can involve dealing with figures even to a greater extent than some of the auditor roles- auditing claims, conducting financial analysis of research projects, spotchecking payments to the public, comparing entitlements if claimed under one scheme to another, working out people's pension entitlements etc- can all be the sort of thing that might be reasonable for an EO to do (of course you may have a small number of staff reporting to you who you could delegate some of the tasks to- but you are responsible for their work and will have to check it regardless).

Its complicated. The original marriage ban was lifted in early 1974, but remained in situ for those who had received gratuities previous to 1.02.74. Meanwhile women recruited prior to this date retained the right to eligibility for marriage gratuities (the compulsary aspect having been abolished, it was now voluntary). Any ladies recruited after 1.07.75 thereafter had a retained right to this marriage gratuity (calculated at a months gross pay, per year of service, with a minimum of 5 years service necessary). It was a very tempting offer for many- and in most cases was the lumpsum used to buy the marital home on marriage. Following the reforms of 1978 it was possible to rejoin the civil service, but your previous service would not count for either pensionable purposes or "death gratuities" unless the entire sum previously paid was repaid with interest within 12 calendar months of rejoining the service.

In the early 80s the 12 month rule was relaxed, and the marriage gratuity scheme abolished.

A continuing problem existed in that many of the women who availed of the marriage gratuity scheme (either compulsarily or in a voluntary capacity) had severly impaired pension rights. This rumbled on all the way until 1995- when a decision was made that going forward all new recruits would pay full PRSI and full superannuation contributions for all 4 main schemes (comes to ~13.5-14% of gross pay). The salary scales were bumped up- to reflect these new deductions, and schemes put into place to enable the purchase of additional notional service for superannuation purposes- so as to ensure 40 years service at age 65 for the maximum number of staff. The rules on the timescale necessary for purchasing these rights and the manner in which they can be purchased (along with the price of these notional years), has been subsequently revised many times since (most recently in 2005 to reflect updated actuarial tables which greatly increased pension costs).

You have to remember that the civil service was used as a glorified work scheme programme for years- in the 1970s and 1980s it was a brilliant political tool for manipulating unemployment figures. It wasn't seen as a "proper job" and those employed in the service were viewed as having landed a cushy number with few requirements. Its only since the Public Appointment Service cleaned up recruitment policies and the numbers were slimmed to reflect the actual needs of government departments that the true nature of the job became apparent.

Even to this day- there are big problems still as a result of the marriage gratuities, and the inability in a lot of cases, of people to repay them in the specified manner. Keep in mind the civil service is over 60% women, and has an average age of almost 50 (particularly given the embargoes on recruitment and the favourable policies towards women in particular).

Quite why the current maths scheme is still in existence is a bit beyond me though........