Principal Officer competition 2019

Riskymove · 25-11-2019 3:27pm

Summer2019 wrote: »

Any views on this?

in neither of the previous 2 competitions were additional batches called

it is very unlikely unless lots of people fail to get on the panel

Off the top of my head
In 2015 about 350 were called to next stage and 180 put on a panel

in 2017 they only called about half that and only 80 or so made it to a panel

There are still people on the 2017 panel for regional posts

So really given the numbers of actual PO vacancies expected I cannot see more than one batch on a panel for 2 years

ThumbTaxed · 25-11-2019 3:42pm

Doodah7 wrote: »

From reading the last few posts, it seems that the aptitude test has set out what it intended to do. Anecdotal feedback from recent campaigns has been that many of the successful candidates have been able to 'talk the talk' but when it came to the actual role were unable to 'walk the walk' from the get-go.

Posters saying that they put huge amount of time into practicing the critical analysis but unable to do well in the job simulation (the 'walk the walk' bit) somewhat reinforces that opinion. For an existing Civil Servant, the scenarios outlined in the Job Simulation were broadly representative of what could occur (notwithstanding the seriously odd one or two) and it would have been a distinct advantage to have had access in a current role to the higher levels of the Civil Service when answering the questions. Again a point that shows that the aptitude test did its job.

To be an effective Principal Officer means being able to assess situations and use your best judgement on how to move forward, not how to crunch numbers or analyse text. A Principal Officer has staff to do that work which then feeds into the analysis process.

The comments of a spoofer

Doodah7 · 25-11-2019 3:45pm

Nautilus support wrote: »

I'm an AP and I virtually disagree with everything you said. Steering away from the "my minions will do the job of crunching numbers and analysing text for me" mentality is exactly what makes a PO a good PO. Also, strongly agreeing, agreeing or slightly agreeing (or disagreeing) in an absolute factual vacuum is not a good test, particularly when there are 12 (and not 100) questions and you can get lucky or unlucky. I know people who would ace the job and they just failed.

It is nothing to do with minions at all and if you think that analysing text and crunching numbers is what a PO is about, then you need to recalibrate your thinking.

I too am an AP and found the job simulation quite straightforward, finishing it in about half the time allotted, basically as it simulated certain work scenarios effectively...

Doodah7 · 25-11-2019 3:46pm

ThumbTaxed wrote: »

The comments of a spoofer

You think?

25-11-2019 3:48pm

Going by the feedback, looks like I barely missed the top third for the Job Simulation, not bad for a never Public Servant.

Going by this, approx 1200 (398*3) passed. And only the top third of the 1200 got through.

ThumbTaxed · 25-11-2019 4:02pm

Doodah7 wrote: »

From reading the last few posts, it seems that the aptitude test has set out what it intended to do. Anecdotal feedback from recent campaigns has been that many of the successful candidates have been able to 'talk the talk' but when it came to the actual role were unable to 'walk the walk' from the get-go.

Posters saying that they put huge amount of time into practicing the critical analysis but unable to do well in the job simulation (the 'walk the walk' bit) somewhat reinforces that opinion. For an existing Civil Servant, the scenarios outlined in the Job Simulation were broadly representative of what could occur (notwithstanding the seriously odd one or two) and it would have been a distinct advantage to have had access in a current role to the higher levels of the Civil Service when answering the questions. Again a point that shows that the aptitude test did its job.

To be an effective Principal Officer means being able to assess situations and use your best judgement on how to move forward, not how to crunch numbers or analyse text. A Principal Officer has staff to do that work which then feeds into the analysis process.

Yeah because doing better than another person on a job simulation is indicative of "walking the walk"! The opposite is totally the case. Those simulations are flawed and, based on results of similar tests on other competitions, this has lead to some bizarre people being called for interview over others.

But look if job simulation is weighted more highly than a cv of actual work, good luck to them if that is what they want.

Nautilus support · 25-11-2019 4:06pm

Doodah7 wrote: »

It is nothing to do with minions at all and if you think that analysing text and crunching numbers is what a PO is about, then you need to recalibrate your thinking.

I too am an AP and found the job simulation quite straightforward, finishing it in about half the time allotted, basically as it simulated certain work scenarios effectively...

I've never said it's what being a PO is about. But I've worked with many POs and the fact that the next batch will be chosen regardless of how quickly they can grasp basic info and or work with numbers is quite scary.

Also, I've just asked PAS where in the info booklet they mentioned the fact that the critical analysis was not going to be taken into account, and they responded that they decided after the tests were taken. I'm going to lodge a complaint as this has inevitably favoured a group of people over another, and they can't move the goalpost after someone scores

25-11-2019 4:18pm

Nautilus support wrote: »

Also, I've just asked PAS where in the info booklet they mentioned the fact that the critical analysis was not going to be taken into account, and they responded that they decided after the tests were taken.

As I said much further back, the Critical Analysis is pretty much an IQ test. Once you're over a certain IQ it's not necessarily an advantage (possibly a disadvantage). Plenty of Mensa types holding down very mundane jobs.

And the job simulation is just a whittling down exercise, nobody is going to be hired on the basis of this job simulation. It's a refined lottery, nothing more. Although I do understand the frustration of anyone missing out.

Matt le Kocha · 25-11-2019 4:45pm

The fact that the decision to ignore the analysis results was made after the exams is extremely worrying. This was not approach taken in previous competitions afaik.

Riskymove · 25-11-2019 4:54pm

Matt le Kocha wrote: »

The fact that the decision to ignore the analysis results was made after the exams is extremely worrying. This was not approach taken in previous competitions afaik.

I may be confusing it with a different competition, but if I recall in the previous one you had to pass the maths bit but it was not used to assess you for the panel

Summer2019 · 25-11-2019 4:58pm

Riskymove wrote: »

in neither of the previous 2 competitions were additional batches called

it is very unlikely unless lots of people fail to get on the panel

Off the top of my head
In 2015 about 350 were called to next stage and 180 put on a panel

in 2017 they only called about half that and only 80 or so made it to a panel

There are still people on the 2017 panel for regional posts

So really given the numbers of actual PO vacancies expected I cannot see more than one batch on a panel for 2 years

Thanks. It makes sense!

Matt le Kocha · 25-11-2019 5:02pm

Riskymove wrote: »

I may be confusing it with a different competition, but if I recall in the previous one you had to pass the maths bit but it was not used to assess you for the panel

I have checked the feedback that I received from the previous competitions and there is no mention of the job simulation being the metric used to rank applicants (unlike this one).

hardybuck · 25-11-2019 5:03pm

Riskymove wrote: »

I may be confusing it with a different competition, but if I recall in the previous one you had to pass the maths bit but it was not used to assess you for the panel

I think that's been the case for a long time in a lot (if not all) the open competitions.

ShellyMCD · 25-11-2019 5:08pm

Nautilus support wrote: »

I've never said it's what being a PO is about. But I've worked with many POs and the fact that the next batch will be chosen regardless of how quickly they can grasp basic info and or work with numbers is quite scary.

Also, I've just asked PAS where in the info booklet they mentioned the fact that the critical analysis was not going to be taken into account, and they responded that they decided after the tests were taken. I'm going to lodge a complaint as this has inevitably favoured a group of people over another, and they can't move the goalpost after someone scores

Thanks, that interesting to know. Did you call or email PAS?

Nautilus support · 25-11-2019 5:24pm

ShellyMCD wrote: »

Thanks, that interesting to know. Did you call or email PAS?

Email

ShellyMCD · 25-11-2019 5:39pm

Thanks

Matt le Kocha · 25-11-2019 5:45pm

Details of the complaints procedure are on the public jobs website. Essentially they have to follow the CPSA codes of practice.

beleza · 25-11-2019 8:58pm

Congratulations to all who are through and best of luck in the next round and beyond in the competition.

To those (like me) who did not place in the 398 commiserations. I am disappointed. There will be other opportunities and it’s just not to be this time.

I scored very highly on the critical - way into the top 3rd based on the feedback. I fell down on the job simulation (below average).

I completed the scenarios efficiently and had time to review every answer. Given the limited information I was possibly too cautious in answering because of this. I could definitely identify with the types of situations presented. Some I have experienced in my role.

I approached honestly and didn’t try and answer what I thought they wanted.

I will reflect on this experience and will have to look into how these tests are best answered as there is obviously a collection of answers they want if they’ve placed this as the sole sifting criterion.

Megidje · 25-11-2019 9:47pm

beleza wrote: »

Congratulations to all who are through and best of luck in the next round and beyond in the competition.

To those (like me) who did not place in the 398 commiserations. I am disappointed. There will be other opportunities and it’s just not to be this time.

I scored very highly on the critical - way into the top 3rd based on the feedback. I fell down on the job simulation (below average).

I completed the scenarios efficiently and had time to review every answer. Given the limited information I was possibly too cautious in answering because of this. I could definitely identify with the types of situations presented. Some I have experienced in my role.

I approached honestly and didn’t try and answer what I thought they wanted.

I will reflect on this experience and will have to look into how these tests are best answered as there is obviously a collection of answers they want if they’ve placed this as the sole sifting criterion.

That has got to be the most reasoned and honest appraisal of a competition I have come across. I feel exactly the same. I do think that marking based on whether one regards a response as highly, slightly or in(appropriate) is difficult to judge when there is no specific feedback. And difficult to know where to start to try to get it right next time. Congratulations and commiserations accordingly.

Augme · 25-11-2019 11:44pm

Nautilus support wrote: »

I've never said it's what being a PO is about. But I've worked with many POs and the fact that the next batch will be chosen regardless of how quickly they can grasp basic info and or work with numbers is quite scary.

Also, I've just asked PAS where in the info booklet they mentioned the fact that the critical analysis was not going to be taken into account, and they responded that they decided after the tests were taken. I'm going to lodge a complaint as this has inevitably favoured a group of people over another, and they can't move the goalpost after someone scores

How has this favoured one group over another? And what group has it favoured?

Matt le Kocha · 26-11-2019 11:13am

Nautilus support wrote: »

I've never said it's what being a PO is about. But I've worked with many POs and the fact that the next batch will be chosen regardless of how quickly they can grasp basic info and or work with numbers is quite scary.

Also, I've just asked PAS where in the info booklet they mentioned the fact that the critical analysis was not going to be taken into account, and they responded that they decided after the tests were taken. I'm going to lodge a complaint as this has inevitably favoured a group of people over another, and they can't move the goalpost after someone scores

I am of the same view. I looked back at the information booklet and it says that:

'Candidates will be ranked on the outcome of their online assessment tests and may be called to Stage 2 in accordance with their ranking'.

Significantly it says 'tests', not 'test'.

Blondie2000 · 26-11-2019 5:43pm

I think the same it was indicated that scores on both tests would be used to calculate overall score. I don’t think they can change their minds during the competition as it would obviously effect the outcome. CPSA guidelines maintain transparency and if there was a change from the information booklet this should have been communicated during the process before the tests and clearly stated.

26-11-2019 5:50pm

Matt le Kocha wrote: »

I am of the same view. I looked back at the information booklet and it says that:

'Candidates will be ranked on the outcome of their online assessment tests and may be called to Stage 2 in accordance with their ranking'.

Significantly it says 'tests', not 'test'.

Although, if you're looking at the 's', then they can rely on the word 'may'.

AlanG · 26-11-2019 5:57pm

I got called to the next section - a 9 minute video to answer 3 questions. I did very high in the critical and ok in the Job Simulation. It woudl be interesting to put in an FOI request for the questions and answers to the simulation section.

With regards to answering the questions I took the approach of "what actions would a PO be willing to have in the published in the papers about this scenario" It is not about what people would do in the real world, it is about what they should do by the rules. For example the scenario where your friend in a different department tells you informally that a supplier is bogey you should not act any differently due to what may be unfounded gossip (and you should already have checks in place). In reality many people would act on this sort of information and mention it to their superiors.

tea and coffee · 26-11-2019 9:28pm

I'm sure there must be some exemption from FOI, otherwise previous tests would be used as a basis for potential candidates to study for future ones.

cee_jay · 26-11-2019 11:38pm

FOI Section 30(a)

What the Act states:
30(1) A head may refuse to grant an FOI request if access to the record
concerned could, in the opinion of the head, reasonably be expected to—
(a) prejudice the effectiveness of tests, examinations, investigations,
inquiries or audits conducted by or on behalf of an FOI body or the
procedures or methods employed for the conduct thereof

morant · 27-11-2019 11:04am

One of the questions has been bugging me since the test and I would value input from anyone that got through to the next stage. It is the question about the rash decision from above you are instructed to follow up. I wasn't sure if chain or command would be followed/ expected or should you delay/ confront /lobby to allow a decision made in calmer circumstances be made!

AlanG · 27-11-2019 11:10am

cee_jay wrote: »

FOI Section 30(a)
What the Act states:
30(1) A head may refuse to grant an FOI request if access to the record
concerned could, in the opinion of the head, reasonably be expected to—
(a) prejudice the effectiveness of tests, examinations, investigations,
inquiries or audits conducted by or on behalf of an FOI body or the
procedures or methods employed for the conduct thereof

From my experience working on FOI requests you need a very strong reason not to release something. The local FOI officer may try to use that section to block information but upon appeal there is very little chance that details of an old test could be said to prejudice the effectiveness of future tests as they could not argue that they will use the same tests again or it would give returning candidates an unfair advantage. That FOI exemption is clearly intended for information pertaining to future tests and examinations. .

cee_jay · 27-11-2019 11:41am

AlanG wrote: »

From my experience working on FOI requests you need a very strong reason not to release something. The local FOI officer may try to use that section to block information but upon appeal there is very little chance that details of an old test could be said to prejudice the effectiveness of future tests as they could not argue that they will use the same tests again or it would give returning candidates an unfair advantage. That FOI exemption is clearly intended for information pertaining to future tests and examinations. .

Precedence would say otherwise:
https://www.oic.ie/decisions/ms-k-and-the-public-appoi/

Riskymove · 27-11-2019 5:38pm

cee_jay wrote: »

FOI Section 30(a)

whatever about previous job scenarios it is really the scoring process that would be key and likely to be refused.

Tr1ckieD1ckie · 27-11-2019 7:36pm

morant wrote: »

One of the questions has been bugging me since the test and I would value input from anyone that got through to the next stage. It is the question about the rash decision from above you are instructed to follow up. I wasn't sure if chain or command would be followed/ expected or should you delay/ confront /lobby to allow a decision made in calmer circumstances be made!

I wondered about that one too... I took the view that sometimes we have to protect our managers from themselves... The question did frame it as an irrational and unexpected reaction

Nautilus support · 30-11-2019 3:41pm

Augme wrote: »

How has this favoured one group over another? And what group has it favoured?

For example, Jim scored 600 in the critical and 451 in the scenarios, whereas Joe scored 700 in the critical and 450 in the scenarios. Jim goes to stage 2 and Joe doesn't. Even though the average is massively in Joe's favour. Anyone like Jim is favoured, compared to people like Joe.
Also, Joe spent 3 weeks before the test studying for verbal and numerical tests. How's that fair?

30-11-2019 3:56pm

Nautilus support wrote: »

For example, Jim scored 600 in the critical and 451 in the scenarios, whereas Joe scored 700 in the critical and 450 in the scenarios. Jim goes to stage 2 and Joe doesn't. Even though the average is massively in Joe's favour. Anyone like Jim is favoured, compared to people like Joe.
Also, Joe spent 3 weeks before the test studying for verbal and numerical tests. How's that fair?

The Critical Analysis was taken into account, and people that did not reach a pass mark were excluded (and therefore not ranked), so both tests matter.

But, for PAS to simply ignore the detailed applications required makes a mockery out of the system. If I'd have known prior to the process that applications would only be considered after a somewhat refined Just17 'Are you mostly A, B or Cs to see who is your ideal boyfriend test' I'd not have applied. And I'll not apply again for PAS positions and have deleted my Publicjobs profile.

Some senior Civil Servants do make excellent candidates for non PS roles, and the PS do need more than just career Civil Servants, but this process will have experienced non CS's running a mile from the process. It's a farce, and at this remove I can have a laugh.

Nautilus support · 30-11-2019 4:24pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The Critical Analysis was taken into account, and people that did not reach a pass mark were excluded (and therefore not ranked), so both tests matter.

But, for PAS to simply ignore the detailed applications required makes a mockery out of the system. If I'd have known prior to the process that applications would only be considered after a somewhat refined Just17 'Are you mostly A, B or Cs to see who is your ideal boyfriend test' I'd not have applied. And I'll not apply again for PAS positions and have deleted my Publicjobs profile.

Some senior Civil Servants do make excellent candidates for non PS roles, and the PS do need more than just career Civil Servants, but this process will have experienced non CS's running a mile from the process. It's a farce, and at this remove I can have a laugh.

My interpretation of being "ranked" based on both tests is not that one is pass/fail and the other one determines the order. My interpretation may be wrong of course, but for a senior position line this one 1)you would expect the info booklet to be a bit clearer, and 2) pas deciding what counts before and not after the tests.

I also agree that the fact that the cv/application form counts ZERO at this point is farcical

VanHalen · 01-12-2019 5:19pm

Nautilus support wrote: »

My interpretation of being "ranked" based on both tests is not that one is pass/fail and the other one determines the order. My interpretation may be wrong of course, but for a senior position line this one 1)you would expect the info booklet to be a bit clearer, and 2) pas deciding what counts before and not after the tests.

I also agree that the fact that the cv/application form counts ZERO at this point is farcical

I reckon they haven’t even bothered to look at the CV’s at this point. They’ll sift through the 10 minute videos and decide what CVs to review based on that.

sheepstealer · 02-12-2019 10:23am

Even then they will cull based on your answer relating to managing people and resources before looking at other two. Still though I could imagine for the reviewers it will be tedious in the extreme going through 398 replies !

jmc1993 · 02-12-2019 10:51pm

Did anyone do the Online interview today? How did it go and did anyone use notes to prompt themselves?

hardybuck · 03-12-2019 11:22am

Fair play to anyone who makes it to the panel after jumping through so many hoops.

Interesting to see that the upcoming TCO competition won't be using the same video and online testing methods, and I don't think the EO competition did earlier this year either.

William72 · 03-12-2019 2:31pm

jmc1993 wrote: »

Did anyone do the Online interview today? How did it go and did anyone use notes to prompt themselves?

Interesting question - was thinking of this too - I was thinking of some index cards to prompt me. Nothing I've read is saying its not permitted but still not sure. Anyone do/thinking of doing this?

kaseyj · 03-12-2019 10:58pm

jmc1993 wrote: »

Did anyone do the Online interview today? How did it go and did anyone use notes to prompt themselves?

Did mine today. Very nerve wracking process. I didn't rely on cue cards or notes. I didn't think the process really allowed the time for this with 3 min answers. It was tough to get the answer in to the time and try and maintain composure and eye contact on camera. Glad it's over

tea and coffee · 04-12-2019 1:57am

kaseyj wrote: »

Did mine today. Very nerve wracking process. I didn't rely on cue cards or notes. I didn't think the process really allowed the time for this with 3 min answers. It was tough to get the answer in to the time and try and maintain composure and eye contact on camera. Glad it's over

Was the "senior management experience" question first, please? I.e. what order were the questions in; as they appear in the booklet?

That is 1. Please provide an example that best demonstrates your ability to provide Leadership and Strategic Direction, including your experience in driving organisational change. 3 mins

2. Please provide evidence of your management experience at an appropriate senior level, including your experience of leading teams and managing resources. 3 mins

3. Please provide an example that best demonstrates your ability in using your judgement and decision making, specifying the nature of the data evaluated and the decisions you made. 3 mins

Thanks

druss · 04-12-2019 2:03am

tea and coffee wrote: »

Was the "senior management experience" question first, please? I.e. what order were the questions in; as they appear in the booklet?

That is 1. Please provide an example that best demonstrates your ability to provide Leadership and Strategic Direction, including your experience in driving organisational change. 3 mins

2. Please provide evidence of your management experience at an appropriate senior level, including your experience of leading teams and managing resources. 3 mins

3. Please provide an example that best demonstrates your ability in using your judgement and decision making, specifying the nature of the data evaluated and the decisions you made. 3 mins

Thanks

As they appear in the booklet.

druss · 04-12-2019 2:06am

kaseyj wrote: »

Did mine today. Very nerve wracking process. I didn't rely on cue cards or notes. I didn't think the process really allowed the time for this with 3 min answers. It was tough to get the answer in to the time and try and maintain composure and eye contact on camera. Glad it's over

Similar emotions and a similar experience, especially on the first question.

VanHalen · 04-12-2019 9:53am

Did mine yesterday evening. Spent a lot of time getting the “production” right - it was dark outside so had to rely on lights. Bulb wasn’t strong enough so I had to deploy lamps in the room as well! Then the laptop fan wouldn’t go off so there was a buzzing noise when I recorded the test video. There’s no option to go back and recalibrate the sound so you have to relaunch the application, key in your email address etc - ugh. Ended up using a different laptop which hadn’t got the fan going off.
They mention in the bumpf that Q2 is the important one so if you don’t get a qualifying score in that one you can’t proceed to the next stage. Of course that was the one I ran out of time on and it cut me off mid sentence!

molotov10_0 · 04-12-2019 11:30am

Just completed mine and it was a bit of a car crash! Felt confident enough starting off and then I just turned to jelly... :rolleyes:

Very hard to stay composed and keep talking unprompted. Deffo chalking it up to experience.

Only advice is try not to overthink it and as hard as it is, just treat it as a conversation... to yourself

Best of luck to everyone in for it!

Xofpod · 04-12-2019 11:58am

What a horrible process that was.
Will be writing a strongly worded complaint to PAS that the process clearly favours certain groups over others; millennials are so much more used to doing embarrassing and demeaning things online.....

Tr1ckieD1ckie · 04-12-2019 11:59am

The experience noted by other posters tallies with mine too. Used some notes but hopefully not too obviously.. Was worried about losing eye contact so tried to look mostly at the camera. Did other people feel questions 1 and 3 were competency based and suited a STAR approach. Felt I didn't really address the 3rd question about decision making and data analysis properly but there you go.

Wonder if the video process will put some people off and the number of people who attempt stage 2 might be a little less than the 398.. For those who are more familiar with the PAS approach, based on 398 cleared for stage 2, what proportion might be called to stage 3.... which I assume is probably face to face interview??

Xofpod · 04-12-2019 1:11pm

Tr1ckieD1ckie wrote: »

The experience noted by other posters tallies with mine too. Used some notes but hopefully not too obviously.. Was worried about losing eye contact so tried to look mostly at the camera. Did other people feel questions 1 and 3 were competency based and suited a STAR approach. Felt I didn't really address the 3rd question about decision making and data analysis properly but there you go.

Wonder if the video process will put some people off and the number of people who attempt stage 2 might be a little less than the 398.. For those who are more familiar with the PAS approach, based on 398 cleared for stage 2, what proportion might be called to stage 3.... which I assume is probably face to face interview??

I wouldn't be surprised if Stage 2 culled the field by 50% and the final stage does the same again, down to a panel of roughly 100.

VanHalen · 04-12-2019 4:26pm

I reckon they will start sorting wheat from chaff by looking at the answer to Q2 first and if you did well enough then they’ll look at Q1 and Q3. If they are satisfactory then they’ll (finally) look at the CVs and decide who goes forward.

Riskymove · 04-12-2019 5:18pm

VanHalen wrote: »

I reckon they will start sorting wheat from chaff by looking at the answer to Q2 first and if you did well enough then they’ll look at Q1 and Q3. .

they have already said that that is what they are doing

Principal Officer competition 2019

Comments