13 August 2010

APS Selection Criteria - Unnecessary Evil?

| CloudMonkey
Join the conversation
74

As an IT contractor to Government in Canberra for some 15 years, I’ve encountered all manner of selection criteria from our various federal departments and have found they share something in common, no-one really understands them. This begs the question; Are they complete waste of time?

Although an entry document aimed at low to mid level applicants, these verbose and often ambiguous criteria are so difficult to decipher and translate, that a book on how to tackle the criteria has become an acclaimed best seller (Dr Ann Villiers – How to Write and Talk to Selection Criteria).

If an instruction manual to address Selection Criteria has to be written by an academic with a doctorate, one might think alarm bells should be ringing in the APS.

My personal response to these increasingly ridiculous documents has been not to address them anymore and instead, opt for departments and more specifically, Government Agencies that have already dispensed with them.

I’m sure there are supporters of this outdated documents, however I’m equally sure that these are the same people that like to talk in acronyms and use words they picked up at a recent conference, but don’t really have a clue what they are saying.

I’m sure if a whole of government review was conducted on the effectiveness and cost of managing this aspect of recruitment. The tide would change overnight.

Join the conversation

74
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Referees can always ask the applicant to give them some written dot pots to help them write the referecne quickly. Or just write a sentence per criteria – you aren’t applying for the job, just verifying that the person would be able to do it.

I was shocked to find that when asked to write a reference for a past empolyer my reference also had to be written in the selection criteria format. As an Manager in my current empolyment i really struggled to find the time to write this.

Something needs to change!

those who can’t complain and those who can keep those who can’t out of the club

However, it is a test of your ability to write succinctly and well. If you can’t write well enough (and most people outside the PS cannot) then the first place it shows up is in the statement addressing the SC.

Sir Q. Mozart-Sprong7:02 pm 10 Sep 10

The trouble is, you have to lie. What if I were to answer truthfully to the inevitable “teamwork” question? That I’ve always found that the best and most efficient way to get anything done is to do it yourself?

My background is in the private sector and after moving to Canberra I’ve been applying for APS jobs over the past few months. It is a strange and bizarrely time consuming and inefficient system compared to what I’ve experienced in the private sector. My first three or four attempts all resulted in nada – it wasn’t until I got some new acquaintances who worked in the APS and had sat on selection panels to review my applications, explain the STAR system (not specified in the position description or SC) and give me some hints on key-words to use that I’ve had some success in being called for interviews.

My experience and capability for the job hasn’t changed – I’ve just become better at APS-speak.

So, I think the SC exclude good private sector people bringing their skills and experience to the APS.

My concern is it’s not the person who is most qualified who ends up with the job, it’s the person who can play the SC game better.

And it’s a game that takes months to learn.

lbruce401@hotmail.com9:33 pm 27 Aug 10

I have to agree that the selection criterias can either be an agony or a breeze depending on different Departments. i have come across where some is friendly in putting up a link to explain just what ‘strategic thinking’ means as compared to ‘results’. i used to get the two mixed up.

But i find that its not the SC thats ‘hard’ as they’re all the same (im applying for the Qld state govt job and surprise, surprise they are using the same.) so its all standardised, which is good in a ways in that once you understand just what each really means (STAR, and in that how did you use the star effect, eg; what was the situtiaon such as the type of work you came across or had to do. So you use your type of expertise in your work to describe it. They dont care if it’s exactly to their ‘role description’ but to show that you can do that work even if in a different role but that the effect is the same, once taught in that role. So if you plan ahead in trying to lessen the deadline that you know will come up; its the same to them in that you will apply that reasoning to the job you apply for. MOST IMPORTANT NOTE: use their role descripton to cross reference your experience. so if they say they want a certain experience and you dont have it, then try to put across some sort of similarity to it as they are aware that you will be taught that role but the fact you have an idea of how to ‘start’ is good. (not starting from scratch like a level entry person if applying for level 4 upwards…)

An example of a STAR that i did was:
what was the situation (last employee in my role, before i took over, had outstanding invoices of more than 12 months)
what was the task – to reduce the timelines to the minimal i can get and to find out the effective way to do this
what was the action – sent out new claim for payment invoices to all outstanding Departments and find out where to send it; could be phone calls, invoices etc
what was the result – My Dept got paid quickly; brought down timeline from >12 months to 2-3 months.
This is what they are after.. basically deadlines, use of initiatives, plain english speaking languages (they are encouraging ppl to use plain words and not big ones in less words possible; ive been to courses on this and its a vast improvement.).
its not ‘dumbing down’ but actually helping all sorts of ppl to understand us, and they especially say that SES and high band ppl are to use plain english!! yay. im a Uni grad but ive been a ‘blue collar’ worker in that ive spoken to lots of ppl with varied backgrounds and they all speak plainly; so why should papers be so different??

Regarding that person who said about a high level boss doing such a hardball writing; seems to me to be covering up that they dont know what the hell the’re talking/doing and thats a bad thing because that person may not be ‘training’ or teaching others how to better their job. I really really believe that ppl in high positions should check their egos at the door and realise that all of us is there to do our work and to do it the best way we can and to do that is to be taught the best/efficient way we can by utilising ppl with better experience than we have!

if i had an opportunity to create a better SC; it would be to find out if that person is a good team leader!!! Sadly, ive found this lacking in the higher level personnel and that in fact, if brought to their attention they rather believe it was the ‘lower level’ personnel causing the trouble rather than the high one just not giving a damn, being a bully (omission of teaching) or inapathy. That sadly has been my experience and gripe about the PS so far and the sad fact is that lots of ppl in the APS1-6 has the same problems….

It depends on the department and the job. I’m looking at a set of selection criteria right now for a ps agency not known for their plain speaking. Its first criterion asks for “Highly effective management and leadership skills”. That’s it. And specifies no more than half a page for the response.

Another one: “Highly developed analytical and conceptual skills”. A little bit more nebulous, but still not really a big ask to demonstrate if you have ’em.

A final one, “Ability to produce results under pressure”. Which should be easy enough to demonstrate for anyone that actually can.

Ok, I know there’s a pile of waffle out there masquerading as selection criteria in some departments, but they basically want to know the same things – the criteria above, plus how you work with people and how you communicate. And perhaps your familiarity with how the APS expects you to conduct yourself. No slapping the boss’ EA on the arse, for example.

And if you can’t decipher public service waffle, why in the hell would you think you could be useful in a public service job. If the private sector is so much more to your liking, then stay there. I promise we won’t miss you. Especially if you’re an IT contractor.

I find most selection criterias mind boggling, questions made up of more questions so I usually go for the jobs with easy selection criterias which limits my employment opportunities but doesn’t give me a headache after applying for an APS job.

I really don’t agree to everyone, it is not a waste of effort. Maybe, the person who thinks it is a complete waste is just too lazy to ‘sell’ him/herself. If you’re too lazy mate, do not even bother thinking to apply for the job cause you will be a complete waste of time in the service, too.

The ‘bullshit’, ‘waffle’ and ‘technobabble’ pile high in both the private and public sectors. There is no government monopoly. But people who do real work are interestingly free of it: paramedics, garbage collectors, cooks, teachers, cleaners, plumbers (to refer to one poster’s example profession).

Surely the terms of selection criteria have little or nothing to do with a person’s fitness to undertake any quiet job at a desk on which sit a computer and telephone. I think of the language of selection criteria – and of government and business generally – as an attempt to justify the glaring shortage of useful work to be done by anyone today, but especially anyone with a high level of education. This is a crisis which has been deepening for a century; ignoring it has made people crazy. The addled minds produce nonsensical rationalisations for the distress they suffer themselves and the distress they cause to others who fall beneath their dubious authority.

I think that wherever the bullshit and waffle flow free, people are having trouble understanding the meaning, or believing in the usefulness, of their work – perhaps because it really is meaningless and worthless. Or it may simply be that, regardless of the job to be done, there is underlying guilt and anxiety that it was me, not he or she, who was chosen to do it, and not for reasons of merit but those of chance.

I hate selection criteria but they do get easier in time, I’ve become much better with lots of practice. Some of them are so meaningless – “shapes strategic thinking”???? But others are actually relevant to the task. I’ve never worked in HR but they need some things to distinguish applicants on. Sometimes I find selection criteria easier than applications where I’m being judged on a lot less.

Icepoet said :

…apparently didn’t use the STAR method. Situation, Task, Action, Result – for those non PS people out there.

I am at my public service job right now, and I have never heard of this particular acronym before. Maybe that is why I am posting on Riotact instead of working?

Selection criteria perform a function just like any other application method a employer might choose to deploy. How well it performs depends entirely on how it is used. Same goes for interviews, phone interviews, written applications addressing questions asked in the job ad (but not called selection criteria), etc.

They have only become so popular in the PS so that people can explain why a specific person was picked, to avoid the old “they got the job because of their oral skills…” type accusation. Although as people have pointed out, if someone is wanted in the job, they will still get it, and the SC will back that up.

shadow boxer9:09 am 17 Aug 10

Dude, if someone doesn’t understand those concepts or the Public Serice or a career as a professional administrator is probably not for you, as I said it weeds out those that will find the complex business of government not for them.

My year 10 daughter had no trouble with them.

We’ll call in the same way we call a plumber when we neeed something done but the administration of Government and complicated program and project delivery requires a certain skill set and is really difficult work.

In this case the selction criteria will have done its job by ensuring everyone is compared against an even playing field with the most suited making it through.

my point exactly – “transaction-based metrics”??? “systematic programming of pre-identified strategies”???

and you want plain english and rekkun these things are self-explanatory? (not nec you, personally, shadow boxer) no wonder skilled folk, with excellent english language skills but no ps experience falter…

i want to read something about the candidate and have them tell me, in their words, why they should be considered for the gig – this orwellian context is cruel and unusual behaviour best left to abu graib and gitmo, for mine…

shadow boxer4:32 pm 16 Aug 10

Wikipedia is your friend.

A business outcome is defined as an observable result or change in business performance possibly supported by transaction-based metrics, resulting from an event or action, such as outsourcing.

Examples of higher/value business outcome might be increased speed to market, reduced defects or rework, and lower working capital requirements made possible by higher efficiencies.

Strategic thinking is defined as the systematic programming of pre-identified strategies

A good selection criteria response will demonstrate by example where you have achieved these outcomes and driven change.

blackberrystorm said :

Writing a selection criteria really isn’t that hard. You don’t need to be able to write in ‘SC’ talk, you just need to be able to determine what skills they are asking you to demonstrate.

People shouldn’t be scared about writing a SC, by doing a bit of research and putting in a bit of hard work then you’ll be setting yourself apart from the majority of other applicants. If you can’t walk the walk and talk the talk then you leave yourself vulnerable to losing out on the position to others that have done the research. That’s not to say that you need to be a clone in order to secure a position, you just have to be creative. …

Just my 3 cents.

while of course there are sensible points to be made for some sort of selection criteria in recruitment processes, the idea that someone can simply ‘do a bit of research’ and whacko, they’ll knock up a winning application neglects the sort of first time / new to canberra applicant who may not already have contacts in the ps and so it may take a few goes at applicatios before they have much hope of acquiring this [dubious] skill and being admitted to ‘the game’ – why shouldn’t a suitable applicatn have a fair and realistic chance of securing the gig at their first attempt?

and while you shouldn’t have to write in ‘sc speak’, as you say, the reality is you do; and you need to know what ‘demonstrating these skills’ entails and to write so the audience [a typical panel] will not have to think outside their narrow expectations.

not talking the talk means you lose out to those who are already in the game, not necessarily those who have ‘done the research’ (other than through some usually considerable experience in the system)

shadow boxer said :

A good selection criteria quickly uncovers those that think the actual work of the Public Sefvice is beneath their considerable skills or simply don’t wish to hang up the tools and particiapte in the difficult budget cycles and strategic planning.

a ‘good selection criteria’, by definition, would be one that clearly asks the applicant to tell the panel the information that is relevant to the position – codswallop that it weeds out those for whom government sector work is beneath them – now, that’s a high and mighty statement – need mirror…

btw, care to elucidate ‘strategic thinking’ and ‘business outcomes’ for us? and do it in a sentence or two, max, for each…

shadow boxer1:30 pm 16 Aug 10

I love selection criteria, it lets me immediately weed out those that can’t write or understand concepts like business outcomes or strategic planning.

It’s especially true with IT contractors who I like to think of as the plumbers of the 21st century, they have a mildly unique skill set, leased BMW’s, cheap suits and a chip on their shoulder the size of a small car, much like Tradies used to…

If you ask 90% of them to outline the business benefits of the technology they are proposing you will get a blank look or more techno-babble.

A good selection criteria quickly uncovers those that think the actual work of the Public Sefvice is beneath their considerable skills or simply don’t wish to hang up the tools and particiapte in the difficult budget cycles and strategic planning.

blackberrystorm10:46 am 16 Aug 10

farnarkler said :

I find it amazing how complicated the selection criteria have become in the space of a decade. When I left the APS in 98, selection criteria consisted of one sentence per criteria. Now, each criteria has a number of ‘inner’ criteria.

Did anyone read Dr Ann Villier’s article in the CT a few weeks ago? She wrote that selection criteria are so complex that potential employees aren’t applying for jobs they could do very well.

I agree that they are getting more complicated. However, it might be because there is more competition for positions within the public service.

Writing a selection criteria really isn’t that hard. You don’t need to be able to write in ‘SC’ talk, you just need to be able to determine what skills they are asking you to demonstrate.

People shouldn’t be scared about writing a SC, by doing a bit of research and putting in a bit of hard work then you’ll be setting yourself apart from the majority of other applicants. If you can’t walk the walk and talk the talk then you leave yourself vulnerable to losing out on the position to others that have done the research. That’s not to say that you need to be a clone in order to secure a position, you just have to be creative. I guess the reason each criterion is so generic is so that it captures the many skills/experience and attributes that a lot of people have – the more that apply the better the chance of recruiting high calibre staff.

Just my 3 cents.

I get a few calls every month from recruitment agencies… if the words ‘ok, I’ll send you the selection criteria’ ever come up in conversation, I hang up the phone.

hellspice wrote: ok ill keep it simple, the job needed the th SC to be addressed…

no it didn’t. the job was entirely unrelated to writing job applications. the job was advertised, candidates are ‘advised’ to address the sc in their application. the application contained all the info i needed to do my job which was to select the best candidate for the position. i did my job; and i contest i did it well.

fail for you, my friend.

I find it amazing how complicated the selection criteria have become in the space of a decade. When I left the APS in 98, selection criteria consisted of one sentence per criteria. Now, each criteria has a number of ‘inner’ criteria.

Did anyone read Dr Ann Villier’s article in the CT a few weeks ago? She wrote that selection criteria are so complex that potential employees aren’t applying for jobs they could do very well.

Icepoet said :

I went to my university careers counsellor recently and asked her to teach me how to speak ‘public service moron’

I didn’t mind having to use this language during the job application / selection criteria part of my illustrious career, but it does rub me the wrong way that every six months I need to revise my fluency in the langauge in order to satisfy to some HR wonk who has never visited my workplace or actually seen me work that I am indeed doing my job.

The argument we should be having should be about those wonderful forms known as half-cycle reviews (or pathways documents or professional validation or many other names, I am sure) that some workers are required to complete . Yes. Every six months I am forced to jump through the hoop of telling HR what I have achieved in the previous six months (using official Public Service language, of course). What this document achieves, other than making me spend time away from my actual job so I can write the damned thing, I’m not sure. Yet every six months the hoop is placed in front of me and I am forced to jump. I am also wholly positive that once written and duly handed in, the piece of paper is filed away never to be read or seen again.

BTW. I am a front-line public servant, so surely the proof of my work should be seen in the actual work I’m doing or through a performance evaluation conducted by my manager(who actually knows and sees my work) and not some ridiculous document that asks me to outline the ways in which I have fulfilled some buzz-word criteria.

Jim Jones said :

If you can’t bang together a few paragraphs stating why you should get the job, you shouldn’t get the job.

In my experience, the people who whine about how crap the whole selection criteria is tend to be less than highly literate.

It’s a hurdle. If you can’t jump it, go sweep a floor somewhere instead.

As long as it’s not for the APS. The Government must have the most highly literate floor sweepers around.
As far as banging a few paragraphs together are you not following? those paragraphs are more than a few and must be written in waffle, a language not taught outside of the APS

I agree. I think this whole selection criteria thing is a waste of time.

I have recently sat on a couple of interview panels and have wondered on a number of occasions how the inarticulate and completely unprepared candidate in front of me can possibly have written such impressive responses to the unnecessarily complex and totally wanky selection criteria provided. Answer – they didn’t. There is now such a growing industry in “for $600 we will write your claims against the selection criteria for you” that interview panels simply can’t depend on the fact that this piece of writing was done by the candidate. So get rid of it I say and save us all the angst. Give me a good resume and couple of paragraphs about what you can bring to the position and the rest can be sorted out at interview.

And, before anyone starts, I had no say in the unnecessarily complex and totally wanky selection criteria.

Woody Mann-Caruso1:16 pm 14 Aug 10

When I’m asked to review a bunch of CVs to see who’s worth interviewing, I pay no attention whatsoever to the bullshit SC answers

No, you just look for a non-white surname or if they ticked the ATSI box, then throw them in the discard pile. White Australia Policy needs a white APS, amirite?

Whoops – should have checked my own spelling there, should be: “flabbergasted”

I am a current final year (double degree) honours, mature age student, working two jobs to support myself and maintaining a HD average.

I’ve been applying for public service grad positions over the past few months but was absolutely flabagastered when I received this response to a telephone interview:

“Thank you for applying for the 2011 ******* Graduate Program.

Unfortunately you were unsuccessful at the Telephone interview stage and we would now like to provide you with the following feedback.

You were required to meet a certain benchmark against all the following criteria during the telephone interview:

1. Client Services Focussed
2. Work Qualities
3. Your stream preference question.
4. Communication skills

Whilst you may have passed on one or more of these criteria’s, the successful benchmark required you to pass all these criteria’s.

We appreciate the time and effort taken in submitting your application and for completing the telephone interview, for further opportunities with ******* please look on their careers section on their website.”

Not only did they use a word (twice) that doesn’t exist in the english language, when I rang to ask for some specific feedback about which area(s) I had failed, the response I received was that I apparently didn’t use the STAR method. Situation, Task, Action, Result – for those non PS people out there.

I was stunned. From day one at uni it had been drilled into me that if I ever wanted to join the public service I MUST use the STAR method to approach all selection criteria. (In this case the selection criteria was presented as part of a telephone interview and was not written).

As someone with a reasonably decent brain in their head and who generally communicates well, I approached the interview with a friendly (but professional) conversational tone which incorported the elements of the STAR method but did not use the specific words. This method has been very effective for me in the past; where I have not only beaten a significant number of people for numerous positions but have also received feedback from my employers about my excellent interview skills and manner.

Apparently though, the young man on the phone found it too difficult to interpret a conversation that had all the elements of the STAR method but did not use the specific words of: Situation, Task, Action, Result. And I failed the interview.

I went to my university careers counsellor recently and asked her to teach me how to speak ‘public service moron’, because it’s clear to me that unless you speak like a robot, HR have no capacity to interpret and recognise a response that doesn’t match their exact wording.

Oh, and in defense of the department – it was a recruitment company that did this and not the department themselves. Though I must say it doesn’t bode well for the department.

astrojax said :

the hr unit were aghast because ‘this application didn’t even address the selection criteria’…

i considered their response inadequate as it seemed clear to me this applicant, recently returned from a similar position o/s, had not had any experience with selection criteria, wrote what they considered to be a logical and clear application – for which i duly took it – and one of hr’s ‘job’ isn’t to have tunnel vision but to assist the schools in the uni to get the best results from staff selection processes. fail.

now, tell me hellspice, where in this have i failed to do my job?

ok ill keep it simple, the job needed the th SC to be addressed. Applicant didn’t. You let them through. Double fail. Inturn everyone else was disadvantaged in that process as they spent the time and effort to complete a “proper” application and one of them should of got it regardless who was the best candidate. Whinging about not knowing the SC process is a cop out, im sure the uni has an application pack that explains it maybe they have a book on social engineering too.
Not following policy and procedure is a fail in my book.

moneypenny261210:44 am 14 Aug 10

Re: Troll Sniffer’s creative writing @#18. Very well done; made me laugh heartily.

Unfortunately there are high ranking pubes who write that kind of jibberish every day and who get handsomely rewarded for doing so. I’m sure addressing SC in that way will eventually hit pay dirt – you just need to luck upon the right agency and a selection panel with a halo complex.

In my Division, we have an EL2 who writes like that. It cunningly disguises his total lack of understanding for our business, despite having been there for years. It’s a bit of a problem when business “planning” and practice “management” is his job here. Jibberish has magical qualities however – because some more senior folk in the organisation are encouraging this EL2 to apply for SES positions. God help us.

Jim Jones said :

If you can’t bang together a few paragraphs stating why you should get the job, you shouldn’t get the job.

In my experience, the people who whine about how crap the whole selection criteria is tend to be less than highly literate.

It’s a hurdle. If you can’t jump it, go sweep a floor somewhere instead.

i agree – and the application in question [in my posts above] did just that, albeit pithily. so how does this equate to having to address convoluted selection criteria..?

the hr unit were aghast because ‘this application didn’t even address the selection criteria’…

i considered their response inadequate as it seemed clear to me this applicant, recently returned from a similar position o/s, had not had any experience with selection criteria, wrote what they considered to be a logical and clear application – for which i duly took it – and one of hr’s ‘job’ isn’t to have tunnel vision but to assist the schools in the uni to get the best results from staff selection processes. fail.

now, tell me hellspice, where in this have i failed to do my job?

My current PS job asked me to address 5 or 6 selection criteria: not one of them was waffly nonsense PS-speak, but rather each asked a specific question relevant to the job.

When I’m asked to review a bunch of CVs to see who’s worth interviewing, I pay no attention whatsoever to the bullshit SC answers. Unless they are particularly smarmy in which case I count that as a black mark.

Hellspice – you don’t appear to understand the purpose of the written job application: The job is awarded on the outcome of the interview. The interviewee is invited on the basis of their written apoplication. Astrojax’s point is that the successful applicant was only interviewed through his diligence at assessing the applications *in spite* of the SC answers.

I’ve always been very curious, though, what is the *correct answer* to the following:

“Cultivates Productive Working Relationships” – I mean, do I tell them about all the work colleagues I’ve got drunk with and/or shagged, or what?

“Communicates effectively” – I mean, this is just stupid – the application intrinsically bears witness to the applicant’s inability to spell and to their poor grasp on grammar (despite their Uni education), and the interview will answer the same question for oral skills.

“Exemplifies Personal Drive and Integrity” – Huh? You mean you shouldn’t tell them about all the post-it notes you’ve taken home and the hours you spend on Face Book at work every day?

I’m one of those who is baffled by selection criteria. Having worked in the private sector overseas, I’m not used to such things. I’m used to people who want a CV and a covering letter. People who want bullet points and clear and concise applications. I can’t understand why they ask you with selection criteria, to write paragraph upon paragraph of waffle. As someone who has looked through prospective job applicantions before, I’d much rather look at bullet points rather than pages of long winded waffle surrounding a few pertinent points. It seems totally bizarre to me.

Mind you, I thought people were joking when I got told the entire selection process often takes at least 3 months. 3 months plus to employ someone!? What happens if you don’t have anyone in the role at the time you are advertising? Everything stops indefinitely? Haha.

justin heywood10:24 pm 13 Aug 10

Jethro said :

…I always saw selection criteria more as a way of them checking to see whether or not you could string a few sentences together in a relatively coherent and grammatically acceptable manner.

I dunno about that. You could say that selection criteria tend to select for those who write coherent, grammatically correct rubbish. Troll-Sniffers ‘wall of words’ isn’t all THAT far removed from reality. In my opinion, there should be more emphasis on straight-to-the-point plain speaking.

Much good advice is ignored because the salient points are buried in a pile of verbose crap. Thus we may have had:

Minister, you are an idiot. I’m no electrician but even I know you shouldn’t put metal-foil insulation in old houses. This will be a complete stuff up.

Or

What? You want us to pay $800,000.00 for a lunch room that’s so small you can’t fit a stove in it? You must be fckn kiddin me!”

Scrap the formulaic selection criteria. Ask a few straight questions and expect a few straight answers.

Woody Mann-Caruso9:42 pm 13 Aug 10

Except it’s often ‘here’s what my friend / spouse / benevolent manager / not-so-benevolent manager who wants to get rid of me / SES uncle / student advisor / application writing service managed to string together in a relatively coherent and grammatically acceptable manner.’

CloudMonkey, you are evil. look what you started.

Jim Jones said :

If you can’t bang together a few paragraphs stating why you should get the job, you shouldn’t get the job.

In my experience, the people who whine about how crap the whole selection criteria is tend to be less than highly literate.

It’s a hurdle. If you can’t jump it, go sweep a floor somewhere instead.

+1 I always saw selection criteria more as a way of them checking to see whether or not you could string a few sentences together in a relatively coherent and grammatically acceptable manner.

If you can’t bang together a few paragraphs stating why you should get the job, you shouldn’t get the job.

In my experience, the people who whine about how crap the whole selection criteria is tend to be less than highly literate.

It’s a hurdle. If you can’t jump it, go sweep a floor somewhere instead.

Woody Mann-Caruso5:20 pm 13 Aug 10

*waits for hellspice to say it applied for a job at a vibrant research centre at a uni but was turned down*

Mothy said :

astrojax said :

i rather thunkerate that ts wasn’t trying to be pithy, more to the point…

Yeah, but assuming all you’re trying to do is mock the author of the criteria, couldn’t the point have also been made by saying “yeah, I’ve read that book/done that course too”, possibly with citation?

Reading TS’ wall-o-text, sure, I can see the point being made, but I can also see the shredder/wastepaper basket under my desk. I don’t get the back slappage awarded, that it’s being forwarded around PS circles creating chuckles, instead believing it was met with a spoken “yeah good one, wanker” and tossed.

oooh touchy touchy clearly an author of a selection criterion

astrojax said :

hellspice said :

lmfao, so you decided not to do your job properly and helped some who couldn’t submit a proper application get the job.

absolutely not – i assessed the potential of the candidates provided in the applications they submitted and the panel then made a decision based on the information they gleaned from the application/interview/referee process.

define ‘proper application’ for us…

and pray tell, tell us how do you consider i didn’t do my job properly? i rather think i did my job beyond expectations – sadly i also think those expectations are universally too low across the ps and many other agencies and institutions.

why was the HR section were absolutely aghast when about interviewing the candidate
and was or was not a selection criteria needed to be addressed ?
just so we are on the same page

astrojax said :

i rather thunkerate that ts wasn’t trying to be pithy, more to the point…

Yeah, but assuming all you’re trying to do is mock the author of the criteria, couldn’t the point have also been made by saying “yeah, I’ve read that book/done that course too”, possibly with citation?

Reading TS’ wall-o-text, sure, I can see the point being made, but I can also see the shredder/wastepaper basket under my desk. I don’t get the back slappage awarded, that it’s being forwarded around PS circles creating chuckles, instead believing it was met with a spoken “yeah good one, wanker” and tossed.

hellspice said :

lmfao, so you decided not to do your job properly and helped some who couldn’t submit a proper application get the job.

absolutely not – i assessed the potential of the candidates provided in the applications they submitted and the panel then made a decision based on the information they gleaned from the application/interview/referee process.

define ‘proper application’ for us…

and pray tell, tell us how do you consider i didn’t do my job properly? i rather think i did my job beyond expectations – sadly i also think those expectations are universally too low across the ps and many other agencies and institutions.

James-T-Kirk3:07 pm 13 Aug 10

Rollersk8r said :

I agree they can be frustrating and I’m especially turned off by stuff like “Contributes to strategic thinking – supports shared purpose and direction; maximises work linkages”.

Theres a couple of my co-workers who I would *love* to maximise work linkages with…..

Mmmmmmm Linkages…..

🙂

i rather thunkerate that ts wasn’t trying to be pithy, more to the point…

think before write = win 😉

Hey kevin22
Take it from Mothy and I – “it is not the criteria that is the problem”.

astrojax said :

yep! the candidate demonstrated, in their application, all the relevant information we needed to satisfy ourselves they were worthy of at least talking to, and at interview they continued to impress and won the position – all from a very pithy note as their application – i must say it took some ‘out of the box’ assessment in reading the application to get to this stage, a process the HR area of the uni simply wouldn’t have countenanced and the successful, best candidate would have been cut at the first hurdle.

lmfao, so you decided not to do your job properly and helped some who couldn’t submit a proper application get the job.

kevin22 said :

I’ve been waiting a long time for someone to post this.
I do agreed with everything you said.
Government selection criteria is a big waste of time. The most common would be Oral and Communication skills, which has been rephrase in so many way, that you wouldn’t believe.

SOLID GOLD.

Memo Troll Sniffer – see quote – brevity in humor = WIN.

What’s that? You weren’t trying to be funny? Well this is awkward….

oops ‘ or space i insert as appropriate lol

There are an increasing number of ads on the big job sites proclaiming ‘no selection criteria to answer’ as a good thing, so there are at least some people already thinking this way.

Thats a good start but public service job ads should be forced to state whether there is already someone ‘acting’ in the position (i.e. someone already selected for the job) so less time is wasted getting all the way to interview just to ask this.

Judging by the number of posts made during work hours I’m guessing it’s another slow day in the APS. Tax dollars at work yea.

trollsniffer – often the selection criteria were written by someone else, years ago, but are ‘approved’ and can be used for jobs of that level. Writing new criteria and getting them approved takes a long time, so the person who sent them out probably thought they were terrible too, but didn’t want to waste weeks organising new ones.

The hurdle rate, already high, is monitored by myself and other core team members

ahh, this is where you fell down. monitored by me, not ‘myself’, see…

i’m sure this is circulating creating hysteria moments at junctures across the portfolio

😉

I’m in love with Troll Sniffer.

I’m sure you were more than qualified for the job, it’s just that they chose someone with specific child support administration experience. The job would have had highly specific requirements.

yep! the candidate demonstrated, in their application, all the relevant information we needed to satisfy ourselves they were worthy of at least talking to, and at interview they continued to impress and won the position – all from a very pithy note as their application – i must say it took some ‘out of the box’ assessment in reading the application to get to this stage, a process the HR area of the uni simply wouldn’t have countenanced and the successful, best candidate would have been cut at the first hurdle.

troll-sniffer12:05 pm 13 Aug 10

A mob called the Child Support Agency advertised for an APS6. Fair enough you say. So did I. But as I read the overly jargonistic position description I realised that the pube responsible seemed to be covering up for linguistic inadequacies by employing every single current APS-approved buzzword she could find. So I wrote my claims to the criteria in language that I thought would get me the job for sure:

3. Demonstrated capabilities in one or more of the following:
• change management principles, including the need for integration and co-ordination.
• monitoring and reporting on organisational activities to multiple stakeholders
• an ability to work closely with business areas to undertake evaluation (or implementation) activities,
• a strong understanding of project management principles
• stakeholder engagement and communication.

When implementing change through principled processes, a degree of empathy with the changee is a requirement that is more often than not, self evident. The psychological impact of game plan initiatives by management is often given less than top storey priority status. This can lead to an unconsummated resentment factor creeping in that unchecked will cause a breakdown in the synergetic fields of the team ethos. Benchmarking of change process impacts can ameliorate the potentialities of the circumstance if confrontation-neutral strategies are employed in a timely manner. As an example we recently had to situationally adjust the seating plan of the section, resulting in major disruption to previously sacred tenets on workspace allocations. There was a potentiality for major ill-feeling amongst the work area stakeholders towards the management which if left unchecked would have been a series of show stoppers until sorted. But through timely and integrated communication strategies prior to the requirement for the physical trauma of the situational displacement process, most of the negatively oriented impacts were averted and became no more than bottom floor or basement issues.

I have an upper level demonstrated experience in the monitoring and reporting of organisational activities, particularly when referenced to a client group comprising multiple format stakeholders. As part of the daily results oriented activities that I am tasked with, there is a strong emphasis on analytically relevant data production. I use a digitally based input output system to monitor the ebb and flow of integrated data trends that indicate the performance based outcome variables that are across the outcomes side of the team. Trends that fall outside matrixed box square are immediately apparent and are integrated into daily reporting functions to a wide variety of relevant stakeholders within the organisation. The statistical anomalies are highlighted within the output streams to alert management and other stakeholders to anomalous trends in employment provider trends that may impact on policy after validation procedures have been applied. Different stakeholder groups require different reporting styles and the output is massaged in output phasing timelines to best fit practice aligned to the target audience.

Proximity space sharing between stakeholders in a business situation is part and parcel of core holding principles. There is a cut-off point inherent in space allocation to each participant, but critical mass awareness avoids reference to the crossover investor syndrome that can lead to negativity spirals and diluted synergetic equity in the relationship theatre. Cross border raids along generally accepted divisions is a paradigm of a ride on the yield curve, but a practised trend watcher will know when to create a negativity effect to slow the advance and lead to a securitised holding position pending fruitful outcomes further down the road. As an example, I am regularly involved in interpositioning exercises as part of positive change implementation activities undertaken in response to negative user input and application development prioritisation programs. The hurdle rate, already high, is monitored by myself and other core team members on a step climb basis and as escalation is apparent the industry bet is to stay out of the penalty square and score from the sideline. I am often reliant for results on careful negotiations with end-result developers with a view to limiting downside exit strategies, when loss of deliverables becomes inevitable, requiring some capitulations on the rocky road to a net positivity rating result. More often that not, there is an agreed middle ground suitable to both sides of the green grass factor as determined by the dividing fence. Finding the point at which the fence falls to the brown side does not require cowboy marketing, but a degree of expertise in cherry picking is often a plus.

And so on. The panel must have passed it up the line to someone moderately intelligent because I didn’t even get an interview. Imagine that!

astrojax, are you saying you hired the person who didnt submit the proper job application ?

panels – not some obscure mexican cuisine, panales, though these should lighten up, too…

the candidate did a sterling job, btw!

public service departments and their ilk need to stop using selection processes that entrench hiring clones…

Mathman said :

Having sat on the other side of the selection panel a few times, I can also say that selection criteria serve a useful purpose of being self eliminating – if candidates can’t deal with writing to the selection criteria, they aren’t the people we are looking for.

beg to differ – worked at a vibrant research centre in a uni and received an application for a position from someone who had never dealt with selection criteria but had cited – in their three short paragraph application – relevant experience, which link i followed up. the uni’s HR section were absolutely aghast when i told them i was interviewing this candidate; who eventually got the job!

selection criteria can be a useful way to let prospective employees know what sort of skill set you’re after, but panales need to be able to look through this narrow mindset if they want to capture the best person for the job.

Woody Mann-Caruso11:07 am 13 Aug 10

See article in this months’ Public Sector Informant (it’s on page 3.)

Most private enterprise people would be used to face to face straight talking and would be baffled by APS double speak bullshit.

Good to see step one of the culling process is working.

Selection criteria does not seem to be the only stumbling block for APS newbies there,s also the fact that most jobs are contract so therefore perceived as not permanent and right or wrong the idea that jobs are already taken by the person acting in the position and are only advertised because they have to so don,t waste your time applying.
From the outside looking in it appears to be the APS are happy with their inbreeding program and make very difficult to apply so as to be left alone
by non APS applicants unfamiliar with the rules.

I’ve been waiting a long time for someone to post this.
I do agreed with everything you said.
Government selection criteria is a big waste of time. The most common would be Oral and Communication skills, which has been rephrase in so many way, that you wouldn’t believe.

Clown Killer10:19 am 13 Aug 10

Years ago in another life I worked in a NSW Govt. agency that, for a range of reasons, was a highly sought after employer. We’d often get 500-600 applications for one position. The HR people who sent out the application package and background information along with the selection criteria and a cover letter that advised appliactnts to keep it short – in fact no more than a couple of pages.

Once applications were recieved, that same HR department would then ‘cull’ out all the applications under about 15 pages on the basis that those people obviously diddn’t have enough experience otherwise their applications would have been longer.

In the end, we had to ask for all applications to be forwarded to the selection committee – oh what a joy that was.

Total crap I agree….and interesting this is from a ‘Myths and realities’ document from my Depts HR area:

MYTH: Applicants must be asked to address selection criteria.
REALITY: There is no requirement to use selection criteria. Alternatives include: using capabilities such as the XXXXXX Capability Matrix or the Integrated Leadership System; CV and referee reports; a one page statement of suitability for the job or a series of job specific questions.

So we don’t have to use them. But the reality is WE DO!

Public servants find the concept of assessing someone for their suitability on the basis of their resume and a written statement too hard to grasp. So the go for the great leveller – answer the Selection Criteria and then we can compare apples with apples. Hell, we had to do it.

Wrong on many levels. Unfair on those APS virgins who have no idea of how to play the game and it means there are good people who do not apply. Our (APS) loss.

Inappropriate10:07 am 13 Aug 10

I used to think they were evil, when I had to do them, but having spent some time on the other side of the desk I can see their value. That said however, some places can abuse the idea of selection criteria and come up with some really cryptic ones.

….My personal response to these increasingly ridiculous documents has been not to address them anymore and instead, opt for departments and more specifically, Government Agencies that have already dispensed with them.

Please share with us which Departments these are that don’t use SC. I know many State Governments dont use them, but going backwards (applying) into the State, just aint happenen for me!

Selection criteria can be waffly and meaningless – best to ring the contact person to find out more about the actual job, and address that in your responses.

That said, for many jobs in the APS, the actual work can be a bit like selection criteria – responding to reports, writing up reports that link outcomes to intentions etc etc – so someone who is good at addressing selection criteria (saying what they want to say, while seeming to address set questions), will also be good at the actual APS work.

Having spent the last 8 months writing applications for jobs in the private sector, I wish selection criteria were used much more widely – at least you would have an idea what they were looking for and could tune your application appropriately.

Having sat on the other side of the selection panel a few times, I can also say that selection criteria serve a useful purpose of being self eliminating – if candidates can’t deal with writing to the selection criteria, they aren’t the people we are looking for.

I agree they can be frustrating and I’m especially turned off by stuff like “Contributes to strategic thinking – supports shared purpose and direction; maximises work linkages”.

But then again the more you write the easier they get. Most selection criteria focus on 3 general areas, being 1) Relevant experience, 2) Management skills and/or ability to get the job done, tight deadlines etc and 3) Communication and networking skills, working in a team, being flexible etc. It’s usually not too hard to cut, paste and update as necessary once you have done a few.

Somewhat ironically I recently applied for a job with the Aust Public Service Commission, where they simply asked for a 2 page application. I found this more difficult than cutting and pasting from past efforts.

I’m no HR expert but have been on a number of interview panels. I’ll admit that selection criteria aren’t perfect but as with everything else in the APS you need hard evidence of why you made the decision to choose someone. Your application just needs to be good enough to get your foot in the door.

georgesgenitals9:23 am 13 Aug 10

You are correct. Selection criteria writing is a complete waste of time.

Surely you realise the sole purpose of selection criteria is so the selection panel has a document they can point at to, in order to say some particular answer wasn’t as good as the one submitted by the person they wanted to choose anyway.

As a private sector person, the single biggest impediment to PS employment is the requirement to provide referees from your current supervisors/employers. So when you don’t get the job, your current employer knows your committed level isn’t very high.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.