SEO positions local authority

Whenever wherever

Did anyone hear of anyone who didn't pass yet?

KCC

Whenever wherever wrote: »

There is also the issue that it is now going to be broken up into 4 distinct competitions for the 4 different regions.

Similar to the CO competition depending where you applied for, you could be ranked 10th in one region and get a job while another applicant may be 1st in another and have to hold out.

I hadn't thought of that, but I would say you are absolutely right on this.

Does anyone have any idea of the number of vacancies around the country? I know my preferred local authority is currently carrying one vacancy and will have two by year end. There will obviously be more vacancies in the Dublin region.

They are also holding internal competitions though AFAIK. A such, they will probably have a ratio for internal/external appointments.

I am so keen on this role - I would be very disappointed if I wasn't at least shortlisted. I put a huge amount of effort into my application.

Tivoli1300

KCC wrote: »

Maybe they are learning from their mistakes on the PO one? I know several people who got through to stage 2 on that one who weren't eligible/suitable and it could have been a waste of resources testing and interviewing them.

Also, I wonder how many "passed" the tests? I heard from PAS that there were about 1000 applications. The shortlisting process could take some time depending on how many applications they have to go through. I would say interviews would take place around mid June?

Also, I don't have the original booklet to hand - does anyone know what stage 2 involves? Is it just interviews and a verification test or will there be additional exercises?

From the letter, it looks like stage 2 is a shortlisting. I imagine they go through all those who reached the qualifying standard and whittle down to those with best/most relevant mgt experience.

For the PO one it seemed like huge numbers were being interviewed, 15 a day till first week in June with two panels on the go simultaneously. Don't know if all 333 who were in top percentile called but had the impression most of them were other than this who didn't have degrees or required no. years mgt experience. Applicant numbers were higher than for this one though - over 2000.

KCC

Tivoli1300 wrote: »

From the letter, it looks like stage 2 is a shortlisting. I imagine they go through all those who reached the qualifying standard and whittle down to those with best/most relevant mgt experience.

For the PO one it seemed like huge numbers were being interviewed, 15 a day till first week in June with two panels on the go simultaneously. Don't know if all 333 who were in top percentile called but had the impression most of them were other than this who didn't have degrees or required no. years mgt experience. Applicant numberwere higher than for this one though - over 2000.

Thanks, do you know then what the next stage would be, e.g. just interview and verification test, or would there be additional exercises?

You would imagine with the shortlisting that they will still need to interview a relatively large number of applicants in order to ensure they are assessing from a wide pool of talent to get the best people.

[P.S. Re: the PO campaign: it did seem that all of the top 333 were called to interview, with no screening of applications beforehand. There also seems to be a good proportion of no-shows. I think they may have realised their mistake in not shortlisting. It's a costly process after all.]

Tivoli1300

KCC wrote: »

Thanks, do you know then what the next stage would be, e.g. just interview and verification test, or would there be additional exercises?

You would imagine with the shortlisting that they will still need to interview a relatively large number of applicants in order to ensure they are assessing from a wide pool of talent to get the best people.

[P.S. Re: the PO campaign: it did seem that all of the top 333 were called to interview, with no screening of applications beforehand. There also seems to be a good proportion of no-shows. I think they may have realised their mistake in not shortlisting. It's a costly process after all.]

It was very strange, I was very surprised at the numbers being called, having said that, all those I chatted with on the day seemed very smart and well able. It is hard to imagine that more than 30 or so PO posts available as many internal competitions also in play and no agreed ratio for internal to external. The point in interviewing so many is lost on me, expensive for the state and also for applicants, especially for those who travel.

Whenever wherever

For the recent Local Authority Director of Services competition they whittled down the initial 450 applications down to 200 by a paper based shortlisting.

KCC

Tivoli1300 wrote: »

It was very strange, I was very surprised at the numbers being called, having said that, all those I chatted with on the day seemed very smart and well able. It is hard to imagine that more than 30 or so PO posts available as many internal competitions also in play and no agreed ratio for internal to external. The point in interviewing so many is lost on me, expensive for the state and also for applicants, especially for those who travel.

I would agree - the candidates I spoke to during the breaks all seemed very competent, but it is a specific type of role - it's a very senior position and I think they were looking for someone with a record of consistent experience in strategic (rather than operational) management.

Tivoli1300

KCC wrote: »

I would agree - the candidates I spoke to during the breaks all seemed very competent, but it is a specific type of role - it's a very senior position and I think they were looking for someone with a record of consistent experience in strategic (rather than operational) management.

It was tough enough especially the analysis exercise in time constrained circumstances. Hard to know how well one did. Not exactly looking forward to a similar day out! Would love to have made the PO panel but don't know if good enough on the day especially given the numbers.

KCC

Tivoli1300 wrote: »

It was tough enough especially the analysis exercise in time constrained circumstances. Hard to know how well one did. Not exactly looking forward to a similar day out! Would love to have made the PO panel but don't know if good enough on the day especially given the numbers.

I felt the pressure during the analysis exercise alright! I think I did well enough on the exercise, but I know I didn't pass the interview, which is fine. I also found the verification analysis test to be ridiculously difficult!

I've learned an awful lot from the process though and I think it was well worth my while in that regard.

I'm actually exhausted today from it all - have found it hard to move from the couch!

Tivoli1300

KCC wrote: »

I felt the pressure during the analysis exercise alright! I think I did well enough on the exercise, but I know I didn't pass the interview, which is fine. I also found the verification analysis test to be ridiculously difficult!

I've learned an awful lot from the process though and I think it was well worth my while in that regard.

I enjoyed the interview, but it was tough enough - plenty of challenging. The verification exercises I found impossible - I was wrecked tired as little sleep, big travels and end of a long session. Didn't even finish them so will look like I cheated when absolutely didn't.

KCC

Tivoli1300 wrote: »

I enjoyed the interview, but it was tough enough - plenty of challenging. The verification exercises I found impossible - I was wrecked tired as little sleep, big travels and end of a long session. Didn't even finish them so will look like I cheated when absolutely didn't.

Don't worry: I, and all the other four people I know who did the verification analysis test all felt the exact same. I spoke to the other candidates afterwards and we were all in agreement. I think the test was actually poorly designed. The stage 1 test was so easy by comparison.

I mentioned it in the written feedback and so did all the other candidates I know. If we all felt we did badly, they will have to take it into account.

I know others who have yet to do Stage 2 so it will be interesting to see what they think.

Researching

How did people get on with the SEO aptitude test... I found maths challenging... what happens next??? This is my first time with Publicjobs.ie.......

Tails142

Now you play.... the waiting game.

Researching

That soulds like a long wait..... from reading the threads it seems like everyone was called to the next stage (shortlisting)...... is 282 marks for maths a low qualifying score or average.....

KCC

I found the Maths to be hard enough. The qualifying score is low at 282 - I reckon it's equivalent to 35%.

I phoned PAS re: the shortlisting - the decisions on who to call to interview will be made in early June and the interviews will probably be held during the last week of June or the first week of July.

They also said they thought the next stage would involve an interview only.

I would be interested to know how many people reached the test qualifying standard and how many they decide to shortlist.

Researching

That info is really useful - thanks. Here's hoping I'll be called for interview......good luck to everyone.

RainyDay

Just FYI http://www.impact.ie/impact-objection-to-psychometric-testing-upheld/

Tivoli1300

'The LGMA advises that the tests will be applied to candidates for public competition.' Which is this competition surely?

KCC

Tivoli1300 wrote: »

'The LGMA advises that the tests will be applied to candidates for public competition.' Which is this competition surely?

I understand that are really two competitions within one. That is, there is a confined element to this one and it looks like all internal local authority candidates who applied will now go through to the shortlisting stage (regardless of whether or not they passed the test).

Personally I think it's ridiculous, especially at this stage. Also, it's very much the norm elsewhere in the public sector to use psychometric tests, e.g. the current AP competition. It's an objective and practical method of shortlisting and research backs it up as effective. That's why it's used so widely.

I don't know if it means anything for us external applicants really. So an external applicant who the failed the tests will not be called forward to the shortlisting stage, but all LA staff who applied will be called forward, regardless of whether they passed or failed. I think it means they will probably interviewing more people? It might also delay the decisions on who to shortlist. I also wonder if they will just interview everyone now, in case the union objects to the shortlisting process?

Tivoli1300

So the union fought to re-include those who failed literacy and numeracy aptitude tests on the basis of them being insiders. Says everything really! makes me really wonder do I really want to come back to Ireland. Plus c'est la change...

Am astonished they have this kind of jurisdiction when such testing is accepted and standard practice as you say, and completely fair. really hope the media picks this up.

So externals have a more rigorous route through now or does the whole competition have to be restarted because externals who failed
should in fairness have to be reassessed too?

And what about those in LAs who did well on the tests, don't imagine they welcome this as higher chance now they get knocked out.

It will certainly slow things down as competition designed to offload initial high numbers on basis of aptitude tests. How else can they do it now. cant remember did they make degrees or a number of years relevant experience a requirement?

KCC wrote: »

I understand that are really two competitions within one. That is, there is a confined element to this one and it looks like all internal local authority candidates who applied will now go through to the shortlisting stage (regardless of whether or not they passed the test).

Personally I think it's ridiculous, especially at this stage. Also, it's very much the norm elsewhere in the public sector to use psychometric tests, e.g. the current AP competition. It's an objective and practical method of shortlisting and research backs it up as effective. That's why it's used so widely.

I don't know if it means anything for us external applicants really. So an external applicant who the failed the tests will not be called forward to the shortlisting stage, but all LA staff who applied will be called forward, regardless of whether they passed or failed. I think it means they will probably interviewing more people? It might also delay the decisions on who to shortlist. I also wonder if they will just interview everyone now, in case the union objects to the shortlisting process?

KCC

Third level qualification desirable but not essential as far as I remember.

Totally agree with everything you say above.

I will ring PAS tomorrow to see if they are still on track to shortlist this week. Doubt they are now though.

I don't think they will restart the process.

Hopefully we will have a good chance. I'm guessing majority of applicants are internal and they can only fill so many vacancies from the confined element.

Tivoli1300

Unlikely I suspect....
Shortlisting 1000 or so applications by hand, many of which will be similar
in terms of experience etc. I certainly do not enjoy aptitude testing but at least it is fair. What a huge waste of time for PAS
and affected applicants. Impact is a disgrace pandering to a ridiculous
request.

KCC

I phoned PAS this morning. They said we likely won't hear from them until next week as they have a lot of applications to go through.

Interviews are likely to be held in July over a number of weeks. They haven't decided yet if there will be a preliminary interview followed by a full interview or if it will just be the one interview.

Their view is that external applicants won't be affected by the agreement with the unions.

Tivoli1300

Thanks for posting this information KCC. Hopefully there won't be two interviews required, kills anyone who has to travel unless SKYPE an option for the preliminary one.

Whenever wherever

Had heard across a no. of counties of established LA officers who had not got through but this will no doubt slow down things

KCC

Whenever wherever wrote: »

Had heard across a no. of counties of established LA officers who had not got through but this will no doubt slow down things

I'm a civil servant and am surprised at all this. Unless there is a very good reason for it, it seems indicative of a culture of entitlement.

People complain about the civil service, but he idea of "established" officers is considered very much old fashioned now. Progression really is based on performance in the tests and meritocracy rather than it being so and so's "turn". I hadn't realised the Local Authorities would be so behind on this.

Having said all that, do you know would the majority of these established officers be Grade 7s or other? It would be good to know what kind of competition we are up against!

I'd also love to know the number of vacancies. I hadn't imagined there would be many, but surely there must be quite a few considering all the effort PAS now have to go through!

Whenever wherever

"Established officers" was my term! Apologies to be seen to be stuck in the past!

While I would think there is a no. of Grade 7's who have not progressed due to moratorium and some may be acting in SEO positions for a no. of years also, there would also be a no. of senior executive engineers who want to move across to the admin side.

Prior to moratorium engineers were successful in a lot of these competitions.

Spare a thought also for the internal candidates who got through the test thinking that some of their competitors were gone to now find out that they are back in again!

Would only surmise but would think vacancies are no more than an average of 1 per LA but the current DOS competition may create a few more.

How they decide between internal and external is anybody's guess but would think it will be along the lines of first vacancy coming from external and subsequent from internal but that's pure surmising really!!

KCC

Whenever wherever wrote: »

"Established officers" was my term! Apologies to be seen to be stuck in the past!

While I would think there is a no. of Grade 7's who have not progressed due to moratorium and some may be acting in SEO positions for a no. of years also, there would also be a no. of senior executive engineers who want to move across to the admin side.

Prior to moratorium engineers were successful in a lot of these competitions.

Spare a thought also for the internal candidates who got through the test thinking that some of their competitors were gone to now find out that they are back in again!

Would only surmise but would think vacancies are no more than an average of 1 per LA but the current DOS competition may create a few more.

How they decide between internal and external is anybody's guess but would think it will be along the lines of first vacancy coming from external and subsequent from internal but that's pure surmising really!!

Apologies - I think I was a bit cranky when I wrote my post above.

You're right - it's the internal candidates who passed the tests that will suffer most from this.

Thanks for the information. It's very interesting, especially re: the engineers and the no. of vacancies.

Tivoli1300

Have to say I seriously wonder whether there is any appetite for promotion on merit or indeed renewal via external appointments. I would be furious as an internal candidate who had made it through the first round - do trade unions not represent them too?

RainyDay

FYI, from the IMPACT members newsletter

IMPACT objection to psychometric testing upheld
by Helena Clarke















IMPACT’s objection to the use of psychometric testing, for the short-listing of
applicants to senior posts, has been successful and will prevent this form of
evaluation for internal applicants in local government. The posts that had been
subject to the testing were those of senior executive officer, senior executive
planner and senior executive engineer.



Peter Nolan, national secretary with IMPACT said “The Local Government Management
Agency (LGMA) and Public Appointments Service had commenced a short-listing
process based upon psychometric testing. IMPACT objected vigorously to this
proposal which was neither discussed nor agreed with the union.”



Peter added that, following IMPACT’s objections, psychometric testing will not be
applied to the confined competition for the posts. “Candidates who applied for
the posts and who have been notified that they failed the tests will now be
advised that they are eligible to go to the next stage of the competition. The
LGMA has advised that the tests will be applied to candidates for public
competition” he said.



Peter said the union will raise the issue at the next meeting of the Local
Authority National Council scheduled for next week.