Principal Officer in the Civil Service

Uriel. · 15-07-2015 12:28am

Will be interesting to see if there is a particularly significant scale of recruitment at all grades in the the coming year or if the policy will continue to be low levels of replacement

Public2015 · 15-07-2015 10:12am

How likely is it that there will be significant PO recruitment in 2015, just not using this panel?

There still seems to be a lot of ads for PO level jobs which are being carried out directly by departments and agencies. Also, people here have already said that departments set up their own internal panels in advance of this one.

Is this panel the real deal, or just a "show panel"?

The_Conductor · 15-07-2015 10:19am

The biggest issue- more than anything else- is DPER are refusing to sanction the posts. This is going to ridiculous extremes- you're ending up with APs on the higher scale being offered inducements to take acting up duties, POs covering entirely different Divisions- and ASGs being downgraded to 'Director' posts........

Its not that this panel is for show- but the perception (among serving staff)- is that promotions and recruitments are being blocked at every possible opportunity by DPER- and not by unions or for any other reasons.

Uriel. · 15-07-2015 11:20am

The_Conductor wrote: »

The biggest issue- more than anything else- is DPER are refusing to sanction the posts. This is going to ridiculous extremes- you're ending up with APs on the higher scale being offered inducements to take acting up duties, POs covering entirely different Divisions- and ASGs being downgraded to 'Director' posts........

Its not that this panel is for show- but the perception (among serving staff)- is that promotions and recruitments are being blocked at every possible opportunity by DPER- and not by unions or for any other reasons.

There might be some flexibility following the budget. However, I was under the impression that DPER have, to a degree, relinquished control back to Departments in terms of appointments but the salary cap has remained and Departments are struggling to make new appointments as they are at or close to the salary cap.

Not sure how that interacts with appointments from external panels though.

The Veteran · 19-07-2015 11:40pm

How many Depts actually have delegated sanction? Salary caps also make it difficult for Depts and in some Depts priority is being given to CO\EO\aO recruitment\promotions over those further up.

A lot of Depts have had internal comps and are unlikely to look to the open panel in any real numbers if at all.

I also hear DPER doesn't have a lot of faith in the open panel.

KCC · 20-07-2015 10:28am

The Veteran wrote: »

I also hear DPER doesn't have a lot of faith in the open panel.

That's interesting. I heard that DPER expect 100 posts to be filled from it. Also, they spent so much money and time on the competition that it would be a scandal if there weren't a significant number of appointments from it.

The_Conductor · 20-07-2015 10:43am

KCC wrote: »

That's interesting. I heard that DPER expect 100 posts to be filled from it. Also, they spent so much money and time on the competition that it would be a scandal if there weren't a significant number of appointments from it.

What people are saying is there was an expectation of significant experience and skills that would be brought in from the private sector- which would help with modernisation and change in the civil service- however, the calibre of the panel candidates- just doesn't match up to expectations. DPER imagined there would be significantly more interest in the posts from far higher skilled candidates than proved to be the point.

We may be at the point where DPER have to accept that if they want high quality candidates at this level- they have to offer remuneration commensurate with what they can command elsewhere- and the economy is such that candidates such as DPER want- are in demand elsewhere- and are with-olden to no-one.......

Personally- I think a few people in DPER may have read a few too many articles written by Indo staff- the grass isn't quite as green on the other side- as its been painted to be for many people..........

KCC · 20-07-2015 11:34am

The_Conductor wrote: »

the calibre of the panel candidates- just doesn't match up to expectations.
QUOTE]

Ouch, as someone on the panel, that's hard to hear! If they don't use the panel though, they have wasted not only their time and money but also that of candidates, some of whom travelled from abroad to participate in stage 2.

It could emerge as a nice media story of wastage in the public sector.

The_Conductor · 20-07-2015 11:47am

There is an expectation that people are willing to make the extra effort for civil service positions- and that the very best of the best would go for PO positions. The 100 who were placed on the external panel- are doubtless remarkable people- however- if DPER were expecting PO positions to be of interest to those at the pinacles of the Irish business world- they need to set their expectations to a reasonable level.

PO- Head of Division- positions- are positions of great responsibility.
Just because DPER have managed to turn EO into graduate recruitment- and to attract people with significant experience into AO positions- does not mean they had any reasonable expectation that they would get the level of experience they were expecting- at PO level.

They have set the bar increasingly higher at every level- the reality was that people would give their right arm for a civil service position over the last 8 years or so. Unfortunately- there is a sea change out there- and there are now opportunities that DPER have to compete with- they are no longer the only show in town for good decent well qualified and experienced candidates. If they want to attract the best- they are going to have to revisit their remuneration- and take an entirely different tack.

I don't mean to be any way derogatory towards the 100 exceptional people on the panel- doubtless they will bring about great change for the better in the service. If DPER want to attract the best of the best going forwards- they are going to have to try an entirely different tack- and recognise that times have changed. Simply putting PO recruitment up as external recruitment on Publicjobs- does not guarantee that they will attract the people they are trying to do- esp. going forwards.

The_Conductor · 20-07-2015 11:52am

KCC wrote: »

Ouch, as someone on the panel, that's hard to hear! If they don't use the panel though, they have wasted not only their time and money but also that of candidates, some of whom travelled from abroad to participate in stage 2.

It could emerge as a nice media story of wastage in the public sector.

They don't seem to care about wasting people's time.
Its a similar story for all the competitions- from CO upwards- there are loads of people who came back from annual leave abroad- or created waves in their current jobs- just so they could take the interviews, repeated testing etc etc

As for wasting their own time- PAS are dedicated to running these competitions- its their raison d'etre. If they weren't busy- they'd probably see it as a failing.

There is a strong argument to be made for wholesale changes to the recruitment processes across the public sector- at all levels. The current system does not best serve anyone.

KCC · 20-07-2015 12:09pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

They don't seem to care about wasting people's time.
Its a similar story for all the competitions- from CO upwards- there are loads of people who came back from annual leave abroad- or created waves in their current jobs- just so they could take the interviews, repeated testing etc etc.

Thanks; you definitely seem to have the inside track. How many people do you think will be taken off the panel or is it anyone's guess?

The_Conductor · 20-07-2015 12:16pm

KCC wrote: »

Thanks; you definitely seem to have the inside track. How many people do you think will be taken off the panel or is it anyone's guess?

Unfortunately- I don't have a notion how many may be.
At this stage- I doubt DPER know either.
There will be an increasing number of pre-existing POs taking retirement imminently- which will result in a larger number of openings at this level both immediately and presently- than would normally be the case.

I'm not sure if there was any update circulated on the June adjudication hearing regarding the ratio of external:internal recruitments:promotions at this level. I presume there was a finding- if so- it will be the determent of the ratio- the actual numbers- will depend on how many people retire- which unlike in some public sector organisations who monitor this and flag any issues arising in the near future- I don't think there are tracks kept on this in the civil service (though obviously there should be- and it would be as simple as implementing a system akin to that which An Garda Síochána are using).

Uriel. · 20-07-2015 6:32pm

No word on the outcome of the arbitration that I have heard.

For those on the panel, the real deciding factor (after your position on the panel) will likely be the length of time the panel remains active. If it is the year (as PAS say at least year lifespan), it's one thing, but if the panel stays active for closer to 2 years or more(unlikely) your chances of getting a position increase substantially.

I guess it is DPER that ultimately determine the length of the life of the panel, but if they are not happy with the caliber of the candidates (e.g. They hoped to get more non civil service blood into the system) then they may shut it down at the earliest opportunity. It is unclear and will likely remain that way, as to DPER's intention - are they really looking for external (to the public service) candidates as a whole or are the creating the illusion of same?

You'd wonder about the cost of doing a competition though and then not bothering to use that resource. Have they not learned anything about public sector expenditure management? Or did they get it so wrong as to their belief that the civil service can attract candidates of sufficient skill and experience (from the private sector) with the employment package on offer in the public sector...

Jonathan · 20-07-2015 11:32pm

I think DPER are slowly realising that public service remuneration package is no longer attractive enough to recruit high calibre candidates and are working around it using grade inflation.

Take for example the two ICT AP1 positions with DPER that are currently advertised. One position (development team lead) doesn't even require previous staff management experience (athough they do mention it would be considered an advantage).

fly_agaric · 21-07-2015 8:44pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Personally- I think a few people in DPER may have read a few too many articles written by Indo staff- the grass isn't quite as green on the other side- as its been painted to be for many people..........

Delurking...Ha! I suppose it is a classic case of the "Big Lie" theory in action. They (the indo) as well as most other media organs in Ireland have been spewing nonsense unchallenged for so many years about public sector & civil service that alot of it has been internalised as "truth which everyone knows" by many at this stage [incl. perhaps some people working in it!].

The_Conductor · 22-07-2015 11:52am

Jonathan wrote: »

I think DPER are slowly realising that public service remuneration package is no longer attractive enough to recruit high calibre candidates and are working around it using grade inflation.

Take for example the two ICT AP1 positions with DPER that are currently advertised. One position (development team lead) doesn't even require previous staff management experience (athough they do mention it would be considered an advantage).

AP positions- with no previous staff management experience?
Seriously?
Thats extremely worrying to say the least!
Things really seem to be falling apart at the seams!

elinRB · 22-07-2015 3:37pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

they need to set their expectations to a reasonable level.

I think it is not just their expectations that need to be reset but also their method of recruiting.

The competencies which a PO had to meet were obviously written by a career civil servant, possibly based on a management book from the 1970s. They are repetitive and, to a large extent, meaningless to the job. The same goes for the online test. They expect to be able to tell something about a person's management abilities from some time pressured hypothetical situations judged by the management standards of the civil service (and not of private sector employers).

I'm not sure much needs to be said about the scenario test where individuals were asked essentially how they would manage a quango that had gone off target.

I strongly suspect that given the format of the process, serving public and civil servants performed significantly better than their private sector counterparts. It would be interesting to see.

(I am on the panel, but was appalled by the process by which it was put together)

The Veteran · 22-07-2015 11:27pm

The majority - overwhelming majority - of applicants were already civil or public servants so no real private sector appetite to join up

Tivoli1300 · 23-07-2015 5:47am

As an external candidate for who did not make the panel I agree whole heartedly with this - the competition was designed in ways that make it extremely difficult for non civil serants to shine or even display their strengths. I say this as someone who is in a fantastic job at an equivalent level of seniority abroad who would have been willing to take pay and huge conditions cut to come home. There was zero interest in my experience from the civil servant on the interview panel, in fact he was quite rude - I thought he was doing it as an interview technique until I saw his marks! The other two marked me fairly.

The whole process was off putting especially the scenario exercise which is nearly impossible from a non civil servant point of view as so outside our normal reference points. If they want external candidates to even apply, a process that involves huge time committments, ridiculously long repetitive forms containing overlapping/ poorly defined and unintegrated competencies which are ignored for interview selection purposes and a subsequent assessment process that is run like some kind of humiliating hunger games type ordeal for interview panel and candidates alike and that has no bearing on the worlds externals live in, needs to change.

elinRB wrote: »

I think it is not just their expectations that need to be reset but also their method of recruiting.

The competencies which a PO had to meet were obviously written by a career civil servant, possibly based on a management book from the 1970s. They are repetitive and, to a large extent, meaningless to the job. The same goes for the online test. They expect to be able to tell something about a person's management abilities from some time pressured hypothetical situations judged by the management standards of the civil service (and not of private sector employers).

I'm not sure much needs to be said about the scenario test where individuals were asked essentially how they would manage a quango that had gone off target.

I strongly suspect that given the format of the process, serving public and civil servants performed significantly better than their private sector counterparts. It would be interesting to see.

(I am on the panel, but was appalled by the process by which it was put together)

Sica · 23-07-2015 7:16am

Tivoli1300 wrote: »

The whole process was off putting especially the scenario exercise which is nearly impossible from a non civil servant point of view.

Which I agree with a lot of what you and everyone have said, I don't agree with this. If anything I thought this was the best/most appropriate part of the whole competition. The exercise was a test of the ability to identify issues in organisational governance and highlight the lack of controls, the composition of the board, and things like that. Although the organisation was a quango, substitute it for a medium size business and the issues are still the same.

Tivoli1300 · 23-07-2015 8:36am

The issues may be similar - although I can't see anybody setting up a business to provide 'training/awareness raising' when there are existing lower cost options already available but that aside.. . the relationships and options for dealing with problems are very different. The reporting and decision-making relationships are different - what authority does a Principal have in relation to the CEO or the board of a quango for example. Who sets the agenda? What is the interface with the Minister.

elinRB · 23-07-2015 8:37am

I disagree (with Sica).

Medium sized business are set up with a profit motive (you'd hope!). A quango has a public service motive. That immediately means that what you're trying to fix and what you're trying to achieve are completely different. The same approach can't work for both.

Businesses can fire staff that under perform. Quango's are stuck with public service employment terms.

Businesses can just close down if its all going awry, but a quango with the political backing of a minister is a different animal altogether.

If there is an argument that applying the same logic to a business and a quango was the right thing to do, then why wasn't it presented as a small business that was in difficulty? The fact that presenting it as a quango was off putting for private sector people. I suspect that PAS never even considered that.

Uriel. · 23-07-2015 9:33am

elinRB wrote: »

I disagree (with Sica).

Medium sized business are set up with a profit motive (you'd hope!). A quango has a public service motive. That immediately means that what you're trying to fix and what you're trying to achieve are completely different. The same approach can't work for both.

Businesses can fire staff that under perform. Quango's are stuck with public service employment terms.

Businesses can just close down if its all going awry, but a quango with the political backing of a minister is a different animal altogether.

If there is an argument that applying the same logic to a business and a quango was the right thing to do, then why wasn't it presented as a small business that was in difficulty? The fact that presenting it as a quango was off putting for private sector people. I suspect that PAS never even considered that.

I find it strange that you describe the various things that make the public sector different from the private sector in terms of its natural management, the difference in reporting structures, the difference in the way it does business (including where it has no choice); but then go on to complain that the testing/assessment of candidates for senior positions in the public service doesn't ignore all of these differences and rather should put candidates into a private sector scenario...

The_Conductor · 23-07-2015 10:28am

Also- if you're applying for a senior management position in a bureaucracy- the very least you can do- is a little study on how a bureaucracy operates- and how the role you're going for- fits into the structure. Why would the examples used reflect situations which aren't pertinent to the post you're going for? I don't know if you've applied for some of the other competitions- there were some real humdingers of examples in some of the Revenue and DFA competitions- the instructions are to answer the questions as honestly as you can- very often that is simply what you have to do........

I'd also dispute that a pre-existing civil service or public sector employee has an undue advantage over a wholly external candidate. The external candidate has the potential to bring a lot more to the table- in particular far better opportunities to sell themselves in the competencies- than a civil service or public sector candidate has (from talking to a few retired people who have done some interviews in PAS- they are overwhelmed with the number of GAA posts being used as competency examples (this was not at PO level- however, similar holds across the board))...........

The paperwork- is onerous on all candidates. It would be far preferable to leave the significant paperwork until further in the process- aka if you're going to get knocked out early on- spending significant time and effort early on- when it could reasonably be avoided- is an obvious manner in which the process could be changed to better suit a significant cohort of candidates.

The presumption with this competition- was/is that there would be significant interest in the posts- and from DPER comments- that a significant majority of the applicants would be external in nature. That there were more internal candidates- should prompt the question- what put off external candidates from applying- and are there changes that could be made to the process that would equally assist all candidates (aka that would not unduly discriminate against any segment of potential candidates). Part of the post mortem in PAS and DPER should focus on how they ended up in the situation they find themselves in.

The issues being discussed here- are more a reflection of the differences between someone who is in the private sector- and expects to bring structures and processes with them (including it would appear- salary expectations)- versus public sector candidates- many of whom may be ossified in their ways and traditions- and *need* change (this isn't unique to this grade- it permeates the structure of the CS). Add the battering the whole CS as an organisation has taken over the last decade in the media- and the manner in which none of the myths being peddled by journalists, politicians and others with vested interests have been rebutted- and you have significant misunderstandings from the get-go.

I'd argue that the recruitment process doesn't necessarily suit any of the candidates- internal or external- however, is one cohort more disadvantaged than the other? Certain sections of the process may suit those with an intimate knowledge of the CS and how it functions- other sections- such as the interview process itself- arguably give a significant advantage to external candidates.

The PO recruitment process- is the same process thats being used for other grades (with small differences- the lower down the grade structure you go- the less onerous the process is- obviously COs aren't going to be asked to give detailed presentations- whereas the nature of the abilities being sought in candidates the higher up you go- have to be reflected in the recruitment process).

The salary scales for all grades are in the public domain- the only failure on this part- is there aren't typical net salaries- net of all deductions- published (which would detail public sector pension deductions and levies- that someone in the private sector might not be familiar with).

The general rules governing recruitment- are widely available- they mirror the HSE and other public sector organisation rules which have been extensively discussed in the Houses of the Oireachtas over the past 2-3 years.

Anything out of the 'ordinary' is detailed in the various agreements (also publicly available) such as Haddington Road / Lansdowne Road etc (and of course the Financial Emergency Act- which is beginning to be unwound).

Transparency is to the fore- there is nothing hidden- everything is on the internet- for someone who is willing to seek it out (or get help in this regard).

KCC · 23-07-2015 10:56am

Re: the process: I think they should have shortlisted candidates on the basis of application forms. Re: the strategic exercise: internal candidates (depending on their experience in the civil service) would have found it easier than external candidates. Besides that though, I thought it was a good test of ability - smart decision making, ability to work under pressure, analytical skills, problem solving, influencing/persuasion skills; etc. It was possible to prepare for it also as the real exercise was very similar to the sample one given.

Re: the ratio of internal to external: the arbitration process for filling AP vacancies is over and the ratio is 33:33:33 - internal: interdepartmental: external. Does anyone know if what the ratio is for PO vacancies then? Since there wasn't an interdepartmental element, I would imagine it will be 50:50? Anyone in the know?

KCC · 23-07-2015 10:56am

Re: the process: I think they should have shortlisted candidates on the basis of application forms. Re: the strategic exercise: internal candidates (depending on their experience in the civil service) would have found it easier than external candidates. Besides that though, I thought it was a good test of ability - smart decision making, ability to work under pressure, analytical skills, problem solving, influencing/persuasion skills; etc. It was possible to prepare for it also as the real exercise was very similar to the sample one given.

Re: the ratio of internal to external: the arbitration process for filling AP vacancies is over and the ratio is 33:33:33 - internal: interdepartmental: external. Does anyone know if what the ratio is for PO vacancies then? Since there wasn't an interdepartmental element, I would imagine it will be 50:50? Anyone in the know?

Uriel. · 23-07-2015 11:47am

KCC wrote: »

Re: the process: I think they should have shortlisted candidates on the basis of application forms. Re: the strategic exercise: internal candidates (depending on their experience in the civil service) would have found it easier than external candidates. Besides that though, I thought it was a good test of ability - smart decision making, ability to work under pressure, analytical skills, problem solving, influencing/persuasion skills; etc. It was possible to prepare for it also as the real exercise was very similar to the sample one given.

Re: the ratio of internal to external: the arbitration process for filling AP vacancies is over and the ratio is 33:33:33 - internal: interdepartmental: external. Does anyone know if what the ratio is for PO vacancies then? Since there wasn't an interdepartmental element, I would imagine it will be 50:50? Anyone in the know?

Would you have a link for the outcome of the arbitration? It would be interesting to figure out as to when it comes into effect. As mentioned earlier in the thread, there's been plenty of internal PO competitions. If those vacancies already filled this year through the internal process are not be included in the new ratio, then you would expect that the reality will mean a limited number of positions being filled from the external panel. Perhaps an Inter-Departmental competition will follow.

EDIT sorry just realised you referred to the AP arbitration not the PO. One would expect a similar ratio though I guess... Can't think of any reason why it would be judged to be different to be honest.

KCC · 23-07-2015 12:37pm

Uriel. wrote: »

EDIT sorry just realised you referred to the AP arbitration not the PO. One would expect a similar ratio though I guess... Can't think of any reason why it would be judged to be different to be honest.

That's right - since there was no interdepartmental element, I'm guessing the PO one would be 50:50 internal: external and should take account of the number of internal appointments since the competition.

The AP ratio is mentioned at http://www.pseu.ie/_fileupload/Newsletter/Newsletter%20July%202015.pdf

Since a decision has been reached on the AP ratio, I'd imagine one has also been reached on the PO one?

Uriel. · 23-07-2015 12:42pm

KCC wrote: »

That's right - since there was no interdepartmental element, I'm guessing the PO one would be 50:50 internal: external and should take account of the number of internal appointments since the competition.

The AP ratio is mentioned at http://www.pseu.ie/_fileupload/Newsletter/Newsletter%20July%202015.pdf

Since a decision has been reached on the AP ratio, I'd imagine one has also been reached on the PO one?

They might have to run an interdepartmental panel now though that's the only thing... Or just fill 66% of vacancies until such a panel is established....

Riskymove · 23-07-2015 3:14pm

KCC wrote: »

Since a decision has been reached on the AP ratio, I'd imagine one has also been reached on the PO one?

one third internal : two thirds open

Principal Officer in the Civil Service

Comments