How lazy is the local HR?

watto23 said :

I agree on some points with the OP. I’ve applied for many APS jobs and rarely got an interview. Yet just about every private company has given me an interview and about half of those reulted in job offers (not all taken up though) . Still I’ve spent hours on an APS selection criteria, and then because i’m not already in the APS i rarely get any reponse back saying anything, except in the 2 cases I was interviewed.

The APS process needs an overhaul, but doubt it will ever happen. I even know of people who were turned down for jobs, only to be hired as a contractor through another company…

I firmly believe that selection criteria are used for APS jobs to keep non-APS workers out of the APS. The main entry points to the public service are grad programs or for school leavers/trainees, where the ability to write pointless essays puts you in good stead for responding to selection criteria. You go from one institutional setting where you are required to perform tasks of no real relevance set to arbitrary deadlines to another exactly the same.

Over a decade ago when I was with the APS in Sydney, I was found suitable in a bulk round. I’m not sure of the process now, but you used to have “protective appeals”; most successful applicants simply made one of these protective appeals against all other applicants, yet some picked and chose friends, etc.

I didn’t like that process, in that clearly I wanted the job, so I shouldn’t have to had complete a protective appeal. So I didn’t do one as a protest, and I didn’t get the job. The reasoning I was provided was that the appellant was suitable, and as I was the only one without a protective appeal there was no choice but to bump me. I’m sure my independent attitude didn’t help.

I kept my higher duties acting, and at the next selection exercise I topped the round. Was that a worthy outcome? No. But I understand the desire to be accountable and rules exist for a reason. I suspect a lot of the problems with selection criteria arise more as a result of the inviduals in charge.

Best example from a similar time was when some bloke topped a bulk round and the panel had assumed he had computer skills. It wasn’t his fault he was never asked. He had trouble with the concept of a computer not being the same as some touch-screen terminal.

I agree on some points with the OP. I’ve applied for many APS jobs and rarely got an interview. Yet just about every private company has given me an interview and about half of those reulted in job offers (not all taken up though) . Still I’ve spent hours on an APS selection criteria, and then because i’m not already in the APS i rarely get any reponse back saying anything, except in the 2 cases I was interviewed.

The APS process needs an overhaul, but doubt it will ever happen. I even know of people who were turned down for jobs, only to be hired as a contractor through another company…

BimboGeek said :

Mysteryman said :

Was there a purpose to this inane rant? Or did you just feel like spraying your criticism in the general direction of everyone responsible for any form of employment?

Definitely the inane spraying. I don’t generally deal with HR, I deal with business owners and executives who get things done. I’m OK with recruitment agencies though, as they don’t seem to waste much time or energy.

God your awesome.

deejay said :

The problem is, selections in the APS can be contested.

Although very unlikely to be overturned, if the chair and other panel members all agree on the outcome.

I have not heard of anyone winning an appeal in all the years ive worked in the APS.

The unsuccessful applicant needs to prove that he/she is most suitable, this in itself is almost impossible, others have used more creative approaches.

I had a stint in HR at the APSC and have read some of the disputes people had put forward, some would have you scratching your head, others just have you LOL’ing for weeks to come.

deejay said :

The problem is, selections in the APS can be contested. So it isn’t enough just to prove to the people hiring that you’re the right person – you also need to give those hiring the tools to prove it to the APSC and/or unsuccessful appplicants in the case of an appeal. And those people might never meet you to be convinced by your sparkling personality. So there’s no getting around selection criteria, although there is a case for abbreviating them.

I was the departmental rep on a PAC (promotion appeals committee) run by, was it the MPRA? Whoever ran appeals processes anyway. The person acting had got the job (low level, processing applications for income support). Appellant was a lawyer from a european country, who on paper could prove “superior efficiency” since the selection criteria was generic APS 3 and went on about interpreting and applying complex legislation etc etc.

The incumbent was an asian immigrant with poor-ish spoken English, but she’d done the job for a year, the section relied on her, she knew the rules inside out and how to apply them and process the applications.

But thanks to the almighty selection criteria, the lawyer got the job instead. He couldn’t actually DO the job, but hey, that wasn’t the important thing apparently.

deejay said :

The problem is, selections in the APS can be contested. So it isn’t enough just to prove to the people hiring that you’re the right person – you also need to give those hiring the tools to prove it to the APSC and/or unsuccessful appplicants in the case of an appeal. And those people might never meet you to be convinced by your sparkling personality. So there’s no getting around selection criteria, although there is a case for abbreviating them.

What he said.

Selection criteria isn’t the best way of finding the best person for a job. It is a way of providing part of the justification, on paper, for why you picked this person for the job.

The problem is, selections in the APS can be contested. So it isn’t enough just to prove to the people hiring that you’re the right person – you also need to give those hiring the tools to prove it to the APSC and/or unsuccessful appplicants in the case of an appeal. And those people might never meet you to be convinced by your sparkling personality. So there’s no getting around selection criteria, although there is a case for abbreviating them.

harvyk1 said :

My advice? Don’t bother, learn about the hidden job market/quote]

How does one learn about “the hidden job market?” Since it is, by definition, hidden…

EvanJames said :

Selection criteria are a great way to prevent good people from applying for your job, but sadly too many “recruitment” people think that adding long lists of crap for people to address will ensure that the selection process was fair and thorough or something. stupid, yes. A process that doesn’t directly serve the outcome is a bad process.

I agree – adding criteria was probably meant to introduce some objectively ascertainable standard of fairness. Probably it was a knee-jerk, overreaction to the cronyism and favouritism that had at one time become pervasive in the public service (particularly in promotions). People hiring people they knew; risk-aversion leading to incumbents being given substantive jobs; or plain favouritism. I can see a certain twisted logic in trying to put some standards up against which applicants can be ranked and against which a selection report must be drafted. It’s the same idea driving the need to now advertise substantive positions, and long-term acting positions to be advertised internally. Goes at least some way to counteracting the natural status-quo bias.

However, I don’t think any of it actually achieves anything. At the end of the day it only puts more hoops around what is an inherently subjective process, and gives the appearance of propriety. If someone really wants to hand a job to someone else, and they know the process, no amount of procedural hurdles will change anything. I can only recall one instance where a process was so flawed that the delegate actually challenged the reccomendation. And in that case it was blatantly inadequate. The process requirements at least gave the delegate an “in” to review the decision. Pretty narrow benefit for a whole lot of cost.