Administrative Officer 2020 in the Civil Service

John Hutton

floorpie wrote: »

This is very strange. Clearly the grade should be split into AO and HAO, or else subsumed into EO/HEO and remove the degree requirement. I'd say it's verging on unethical to throw a person with no work experience into such a situation, especially when your assignment is mandatory (i.e. you can't choose another one) and you're in a probationary period.

I'm displeased that the panel assured me this wasn't the case, and questioned me on specifics of team management, e.g. what software I use for it.

So does this mean that there may be 24 year old APs who have just 2 years' work experience?

I don't know any that young. Youngest I know is late twenties and he seems to be an exception.

The odds are that you won't be put into a HEO role, as I said earlier about a third end up there. Might be different going forward based on what The_Conductor says.

I would not worry about probation. Unless you are clearly a massive idiot with no cop on, and make some spectacular repeated mistakes or are a massive pr!ck to everyone you will not fail your probation.

Managing staff in the Civil Service is vastly different to most private sector approaches (say a "team leader" or the like).

It is sometimes funny to see an enthusiastic fresh entrant rock up to one of their staff who has 30 years experience and start explaining their job to them, making up KPIs, changing long serving procedures and subjecting them to the usual motivational management spiel that all involved know is fake. Often in the private sectors managers have to keep changing how they manage staff trying to be seen to be trying to eek out more and being seen to be busy to justify their existence. This is not the case in the CS, odds are you will be too busy doing your own work to micromanage in that way. I had to change my approach massively and in the CS it is much nicer and less stressful. Occasionally you get one of the horror show staff (these are less and less) but everyone knows what these people are like and your manager will feel sorry for you and won't expect miracles.


Contrary to the perception most of the staff in the CS are excellent, but must be treated like adults and let do their work. There is not the same "screwing each over" for promotion, so people of the same grade are generally happy to help you out with advice - people practice interviews with each other, give tips for the tests, advise each other etc. Unheard of in the private sector.



I'm rambling now but I would not let having to manage staff put you off one bit (You should just be paid more )

ddpas

John Hutton wrote: »

Not necessarily.


Loads of people get stuck at HEO because they do not get policy experience. An AO put into a HEO role is not a sort of AO+ position (I would not use 'additional responsibility' to describe it) where you get the traditional AO policy experience and some staff to manage. If it was then that would be a big leg up.

I mean purely for interview purposes here not that it would be a fast track or anything.. a lot of AOs who haven’t been successful in AP interviews have said that their downfall was not having any experience in managing staff

floorpie

John Hutton wrote: »

Contrary to the perception most of the staff in the CS are excellent, but must be treated like adults and let do their work. There is not the same "screwing each over" for promotion, so people of the same grade are generally happy to help you out with advice - people practice interviews with each other, give tips for the tests, advise each other etc. Unheard of in the private sector.

I'm rambling now but I would not let having to manage staff put you off one bit (You should just be paid more )

Thanks for the reply.

It's not that management puts me off, I already have a supervisory role and want to advance in that respect. I was willing to take quite a hit on earnings because my perception of the CS as an outsider is, as you say, that staff are excellent. I believe it'd give me opportunities to grow because of that.

That said, things mentioned in the last few pages are contrary to my perceptions. I assumed that the roles/tasks for grades were consistent and sensible. People being randomly assigned to manage large teams on their first ever day of work with no training, accept it or leave, is concerning. I don't mind doing it, but I'd expect the things you mention to occur: people with insufficient knowledge supervising experienced people poorly. And perhaps also resentment amongst long standing staff who can't get promoted for whatever reason, and in turn difficulties in supervision.

odds are you will be too busy doing your own work to micromanage in that way. I had to change my approach massively and in the CS it is much nicer and less stressful.

But this sounds good Thanks again

ktvaljean

I’m on the panel post interview for the Industrial relation stream.

Just wondering any guesses if this will start remote ?

John Hutton

floorpie wrote: »

Thanks for the reply.

It's not that management puts me off, I already have a supervisory role and want to advance in that respect. I was willing to take quite a hit on earnings because my perception of the CS as an outsider is, as you say, that staff are excellent. I believe it'd give me opportunities to grow because of that.

That said, things mentioned in the last few pages are contrary to my perceptions. I assumed that the roles/tasks for grades were consistent and sensible. People being randomly assigned to manage large teams on their first ever day of work with no training, accept it or leave, is concerning. I don't mind doing it, but I'd expect the things you mention to occur: people with insufficient knowledge supervising experienced people poorly. And perhaps also resentment amongst long standing staff who can't get promoted for whatever reason, and in turn difficulties in supervision.


But this sounds good Thanks again

The best thing about the CS is the diversity of roles. You could basically be doing anything. Being transferred can be almost like a career change.



I took a massive pay cut to join the CS (as an EO) and was the best thing I ever did. I'm earning more now because of promotions but it took a few years.

floorpie

John Hutton wrote: »

The best thing about the CS is the diversity of roles. You could basically be doing anything. Being transferred can be almost like a career change.

Yeah I really like the sound of that. Thanks, I'm reassured :P

November Golf

ddpas wrote: »

I mean purely for interview purposes here not that it would be a fast track or anything.. a lot of AOs who haven’t been successful in AP interviews have said that their downfall was not having any experience in managing staff

This kinda goes back to my earlier point, the first few years an AO should be essentially an EO+ level of responsiblities (i.e: managing a small team of staff) and over time work up to leading projects and larger teams as the case maybe.

The_Conductor

ddpas wrote: »

I mean purely for interview purposes here not that it would be a fast track or anything.. a lot of AOs who haven’t been successful in AP interviews have said that their downfall was not having any experience in managing staff

And a lot who do have experience in managing staff- have insufficient policy experience........ Its a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Note: EOs and HEOs get caught in a similar manner. There is a push on to try and get all staff better experience, the intention being that you would be in the same section for a maximum of 4-5 years, rather than getting stuck in the same section for 10-15-20 years (as commonly happens).

John Hutton

The_Conductor wrote: »

And a lot who do have experience in managing staff- have insufficient policy experience........ Its a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Note: EOs and HEOs get caught in a similar manner. There is a push on to try and get all staff better experience, the intention being that you would be in the same section for a maximum of 4-5 years, rather than getting stuck in the same section for 10-15-20 years (as commonly happens).

The trend is very much going this way.


My advice (for what it is worth) is for anyone who wants to advance is to stay no longer than 3 years in a position (unless it is a very high profile position) . In order to have some control over where you are to be sent next, start the process at 2.5 years. If you want to stay in the same department identify a division where you would like to work. Approach the PO and say this to him. Getting new staff is a big worry because you have no idea what they will be like - if a PO is told one of his grade is being moved and replaced, and someone of that grade had previously approached him saying they want or would like to work in his division at some time in the future, who is more than 2 years in their current position and will be moved soon anyway - he will ask for that person and likely get them.



Moving to different departments is much more confusing. The new AO mobility system was due to have been launched by now, but no sign (but I am out of the loop).

Augme

The AO graduate is a interesting, and slightly problematic role now for the CS. Originally it was basically a trainneeship Assistant Principal role. Nearly all AOs would become APs while HEOs would find it much hard as they'd never have the policy experience for it. As the years have gone by the civil service has slowly progressed to a more modern approach of developing staff. As pointed out there is now a culture were all staff are expected, or the desire to have all staff if they want anyway, to be capable of doing everything from developing policy to managing staff.

The problem is in the more modern civil service this makes the AO grade a bit of a odd one.

Another interesting point to note is that due to the recession their was a drastic change in applicants to the AO competition post recession which then drastically changed the applicant pool and candidates who were successful. Once the mortatorium was lifted they was a massive jump in applications from hugely experienced and older, people who wanted to get into the civil service. So traditionally recent graduates who were up competing against other recent graduates were now up against people with 10+ years experience in management or policy or both. They realistically had very little chance competing against that through no fault of their own so the AO competition start producing candidates who had a wealthy of experience. It suddenly became less likely for recent graduates to be successful and to go to departments.

This again helped shift perceptions of the role in Departments. Suddenly Departments who got AOs were sent ones with significant experience, and honestly, probably more experience than a lot of HEOs on the panel so it became obvious to place them managing staff. They're was also the cost savings that appealed to Departments.

There is now a push to bring the role back to being an actually graduate position thoughts and to attract people just out of college. I'd assume it will then be less likely they will be placed managing people and it is something that has been on the radar of DPER and other Departments.

The_Conductor

The other thing about the AO role- is that traditionally graduates were few and far between in the civil service, and the AOs were seen as a manner of introducing educated thinking minds into the civil service. If you look back historically, it is only in the last 50 years that a majority of people completed their leaving certificates in school- never mind went onto third level and further education.

This situation has now been turned on its head- with a breathtaking array of skills and qualifications on display at even the most junior positions. My TCO two summers ago- was presented with her law doctorate while still a TCO......... and EO, HEO and higher recruitment now comes under the graduate recruitment umbrella in PAS (despite technically a degree not being a requirement for the posts).

There is a very legitimate argument to be made to thoroughly overhaul the grade system in the civil service (abolishing SOs was a first step, but it seems to have stalled)- and there is also a legitimate argument to be made that the civil service should try to leverage the skills and qualifications that people spend time, effort and money in earning- rather than simply viewing them as pieces of paper or letters after our names.

You do encounter a few civil servants who display an interesting array of qualifications and professional memberships in their e-mail signatures. Its nice to see that they are as educated as they are- but why on earth aren't they placed into posts where they can make a difference.

The more cynical of us used to joke about there being a HR/Personnel ploy to deliberately place people in Divisions/Sections where we couldn't use our skills- it was such a frequent and blatant practise though, its sort of difficult to imagine it was done by accident.

DPER were supposed to tackle all of this nonsense and drag the civil service (and the public sector at large) into the 21st century- but the will to do so seems to have fallen by the wayside.

floorpie

The_Conductor wrote: »

The more cynical of us used to joke about there being a HR/Personnel ploy to deliberately place people in Divisions/Sections where we couldn't use our skills- it was such a frequent and blatant practise though, its sort of difficult to imagine it was done by accident.

Isn't there a logic to arbitrary assignments, i.e. that you learn to be a generalist and learn about the whole system? It perhaps makes less sense these days when some people are only entering the civil service at lower grades in their 30s rather than at 16, having gained expertise elsewhere.

The_Conductor

floorpie wrote: »

Isn't there a logic to arbitrary assignments, i.e. that you learn to be a generalist and learn about the whole system? It perhaps makes less sense these days when some people are only entering the civil service at lower grades in their 30s rather than at 16, having gained expertise elsewhere.

Certainly- however if you have an MSc in applied statistics and a grad dip in economics- its kind of a waste to spend half your time fixing people's flexi clocks and doing return to works.......

Aes Triplex 94

ktvaljean wrote: »

I’m on the panel post interview for the Industrial relation stream.

Just wondering any guesses if this will start remote ?

I am on the panel for this stream also, in the top twentyish. However, I heard there are currently only 6 vacancies. Does anyone from previous years know whether you have a real chance of being placed, if you are on the panel but outside the top 6 places?

Thanks.

0gac3yjefb5sv7

Is there any business analyst or finance roles available? Or do you have to have a 3rd level degree.

ddpas

The_Conductor wrote: »

Certainly- however if you have an MSc in applied statistics and a grad dip in economics- its kind of a waste to spend half your time fixing people's flexi clocks and doing return to works.......

Bit off topic but just wondering have you heard anything about how flexible the CS will be with WFH in the coming months (even after vaccine rollout etc) ? I know it’s probably hard to know now but just trying to get an idea of when they’ll expect people back in the office and whether or not it’ll be compulsory

The_Conductor

ddpas wrote: »

Bit off topic but just wondering have you heard anything about how flexible the CS will be with WFH in the coming months (even after vaccine rollout etc) ? I know it’s probably hard to know now but just trying to get an idea of when they’ll expect people back in the office and whether or not it’ll be compulsory

The aim is to get everyone back into the office as expeditiously as possible- however, the civil service will adhere to Program for Government stipulations, which indicates that there will be an effort to work at least 20% of hours remotely. Note: this does not mean that everyone will get remote working- applications for remote working will be looked upon favourably, but subject to business needs.

Aka- its a reasonable hope that you'd get 1 day a week WFH, its improbable that you'd get more than this- but the 20% of hours isn't necessarily on a per person basis- so someone could get 4-5 days a week WFH and their 3-4 colleagues- nil, which would still meet the 20% of hours criterion.

That said- its a bit of a wait and see what happens.

John Hutton

The_Conductor wrote: »

The other thing about the AO role- is that traditionally graduates were few and far between in the civil service, and the AOs were seen as a manner of introducing educated thinking minds into the civil service. If you look back historically, it is only in the last 50 years that a majority of people completed their leaving certificates in school- never mind went onto third level and further education.

This situation has now been turned on its head- with a breathtaking array of skills and qualifications on display at even the most junior positions. My TCO two summers ago- was presented with her law doctorate while still a TCO......... and EO, HEO and higher recruitment now comes under the graduate recruitment umbrella in PAS (despite technically a degree not being a requirement for the posts).

There is a very legitimate argument to be made to thoroughly overhaul the grade system in the civil service (abolishing SOs was a first step, but it seems to have stalled)- and there is also a legitimate argument to be made that the civil service should try to leverage the skills and qualifications that people spend time, effort and money in earning- rather than simply viewing them as pieces of paper or letters after our names.

You do encounter a few civil servants who display an interesting array of qualifications and professional memberships in their e-mail signatures. Its nice to see that they are as educated as they are- but why on earth aren't they placed into posts where they can make a difference.

The more cynical of us used to joke about there being a HR/Personnel ploy to deliberately place people in Divisions/Sections where we couldn't use our skills- it was such a frequent and blatant practise though, its sort of difficult to imagine it was done by accident.

DPER were supposed to tackle all of this nonsense and drag the civil service (and the public sector at large) into the 21st century- but the will to do so seems to have fallen by the wayside.

I'm going to (gently) disagree somewhat.

If you are a general grade it is right that you can be assigned anywhere. If a role requires professional qualifications (say, an accountant) they should be recruited for it at a professional grade. Some AOs are being brought in on specific streams, this is fair enough.

Where everyone has a degree and qualifications it is impossible to put everyone in a directly relevant role, there would be too many of one, not enough of another, certain departments would suffer, group think would prevail. Bringing diverse skill sets to diverse roles is a decided positive - different perspectives etc. It is also the only way to stop silo mentalities, cliques and dependence on individual members of staff from growing. Besides, after a while it is all about experience. Having staff only working (or able to work) in specific areas makes everything far more inflexible. Not everyone should be a "specialist" and having as few "specialist" roles as possible is good imo. It can also be negative for the people involved, as they would be stuck in "specialist" roles and denied opportunities.

The system will never be perfect but general grades and general roles are a very good thing imo.

Also, people should be careful putting their qualifications in their email sig, I have a load of letters I could put but if I did I'd very much be looked upon as a tosser in my department. If ASGs and SGs don't, and POs don't, I wouldn't put it in. Also, never tell anyone you are good with excel, fatal error. :pac:

John Hutton

WFH will almost entirely depend on "local arrangements" i.e. if your PO has a positive opinion of it (and it has gone very well over the past while) you'll be grand. If people took the piss and it just didn't work, forget about it.

WFH full time is a terrible idea and will damage your career.

The_Conductor

John Hutton wrote: »

Also, never tell anyone you are good with excel, fatal error. :pac:

Thanks, I needed a laugh, even a wry laugh........

Wyattwouldnt

Aes Triplex 94 wrote: »

I am on the panel for this stream also, in the top twentyish. However, I heard there are currently only 6 vacancies. Does anyone from previous years know whether you have a real chance of being placed, if you are on the panel but outside the top 6 places?

Thanks.

I was just wondering if anyone else has been given an estimate for the numbers of positions currently available in any of the other streams? I'm top 10 and top 20 in two streams but unsure they'll get to me with the year we're heading into...

yop_mayo

Wyattwouldnt wrote: »

I was just wondering if anyone else has been given an estimate for the numbers of positions currently available in any of the other streams? I'm top 10 and top 20 in two streams but unsure they'll get to me with the year we're heading into...

Same boat as yourself, top 10 in business / finance stream and was hoping for an offer early in 2020 but my confidence is a bit shaken now...

Ddk2020

yop_mayo wrote: »

Same boat as yourself, top 10 in business / finance stream and was hoping for an offer early in 2020 but my confidence is a bit shaken now...

Yeah, same here. I’m in the top 10 in the health stream. Looks like intake is limited from what has been described. Fingers crossed, your area might be in demand with Brexit etc and they may need a larger intake.

KD1934

Ddk2020 wrote: »

Yeah, same here. I’m in the top 10 in the health stream. Looks like intake is limited from what has been described. Fingers crossed, your area might be in demand with Brexit etc and they may need a larger intake.

You placed really high and I wouldn't be worried about the pace of intakes just because someone posted their views in this thread. A steady number of AOs were still being placed towards the end of 2020 and being in a specialist stream will also be a benefit.

0gac3yjefb5sv7

MattS1 wrote: »

Is there any business analyst or finance roles available? Or do you have to have a 3rd level degree.

Any advice here?

Augme

MattS1 wrote: »

Any advice here?

You need a minimum level 8 degree at 2.1 or above.

Ravelleman

Augme wrote: »

You need a minimum level 8 degree at 2.1 or above.

This isn't right.

You must have a first- or second-class primary honours degree of a minimum of Level 8. A second-class degree encompasses both 2.1 and 2.2 grades.

A primary degree is one for which previous study at degree level (or similar) is not an entry requirement.

Augme

Ravelleman wrote: »

This isn't right.

You must have a first- or second-class primary honours degree of a minimum of Level 8. A second-class degree encompasses both 2.1 and 2.2 grades.

A primary degree is one for which previous study at degree level (or similar) is not an entry requirement.

I had thought the specialist roles required a 2.1 degree or above to be eligible

But yes, I should have said a minimum level qualification rather than degree.

John Hutton

You dont even need a 2.2. You need an honours degree, universities give 3rd class honours nowadays

Ravelleman

John Hutton wrote: »

You dont even need a 2.2. You need an honours degree, universities give 3rd class honours nowadays

That's not right either.

The information booklet attached to this thread says first- or second-class primary honours degree.

However, if I recall correctly, the ICT AO positions advertised a while back required only a Level 7 qualification. I don't know if there was any grade requirement.