Principal Officer competition 2019

No quotas in place as far as I'm aware. More women applying for senior posts in recent years so there's likely to be a more balanced outcome in terms of gender as a result

Will all interviews be completed by 21 January? I presume results won't be known until mid February or so?

Riskymove wrote: »

last time it was around a month alright

Hoping it might be a bit shorter given last time there was the supervised tests and a written report to mark which we don’t have this time around.

did my case study this morning and then the interview.

Interview was decent I felt.. case study presentation was ok but the answers to the some of the questions on the presentation fell short. One or two occasions where they were obviously looking for something and I just ended up repeating myself.. Ah well all a learning experience.

PAS staff were lovely and really do their best to 'mind' and support you through the process


Ps anyone asked for two signed photos- my invitation said one and that's what I brought...

Quick question which has been bugging me- what happens if you don't get asked about a particular aspect of one of the core competencies at all- say one of the sub areas at the end of the overall competencies like actively collaborating with other departments (under Leadership) or managing teams (under Management and Delivery of Results) e.g. where time allotted for that competency was fully utilised before the interviewer got to ask about that competency.

Do you get docked marks for not speaking about how you meet that competency... Is the information in your application form taken into account here?

Great bunch in the PAS Today. Staff and candidates alike. ðŸ˜. Anyone have any insight into how soon after the last interviews that we get notified?

Your overall assessment will be on the questions that you answered in the hope that your response meets most (not necessarily all) of the subcategories of the competency. You might be over thinking it too 😂. It's hard to switch off after, isn't it?

Now had a week to think about it all (and thanks to everyone who has shared their own thoughts and impressions).

I found the presentation exercise quite a lot less complex than the practice exercise sent out to us - to the point where I thought, in the room, that I must be missing a few papers. Saying that, I took, and needed, the whole 90 minutes to take notes and prepare my presentation - situation summary, key issues, recommendations for each and how to go about it - and took the entire 15 minutes to make the presentation. I was more than happy with how I did, and was surprised at the questioning, as most of the questions just seemed to seek what I'd already said. However, talking to others after, it seems that my panel was pretty much sticking to the same script on questions for everyone. Overall, either I did pretty well in this or I catastrophically misunderstood the exercise.

The interview was not so good. I had prepared well, but for a structured interview and this was, at best, semi-structured. For example, while we had been advised to be able to talk about the competencies in terms of specific examples and experience, the interview seemed to shift around a lot and there were quite a few hypothetical questions - what would you do if.. etc. I walked out of it thinking train crash, but in reality it was probably closer to a dog's dinner (a bit of everything all mixed in).

So a bit of good and a bit of not so good. I don't expect to go further, but, as the everlovin' reminded me, I was no worse off leaving than arriving. Best of luck to everyone, congratulations on getting that far (still quite an achievement) and thanks for all the advice and info along the way.

And they're out (the Phase 3 results)... best of luck to everyone.

Also thought mine hadn't arrived but it just dropped into the inbox now, perhaps check your junkmail.

Deep breath taken and...almost exactly the same place on the OOM as last time (mid 60s), so it's large panel good, small panel bad. Still out in the marshes until the panel is announced.

Well done, Trickie Dickie - mid 20s is definitely on the panel, that's a great achievement. And well done (and commiserations) to everyone else, no matter what the news. It's a big haul to get to stage three in the first place. You put in a huge effort to get there, you reached the standard and it can simply be good day/bad day after that.

Meanwhile, it's a diet of fingernails for me.

+1 on the sentiments above, very hard to get so far through quite an intense process and then not get the news you were hoping for..

Congrats to Grey AP and Conovski and anyone else on this thread who got some positive news.

Does anyone know how far along the OOM the 2017 panel progressed. I appreciate that past performance is not indicative of future results and all that but I'm well down the list (low 50s) so just wondering how likely it will be for me to be offered a position.

mossy74 wrote: »

Does anyone know how far along the OOM the 2017 panel progressed. I appreciate that past performance is not indicative of future results and all that but I'm well down the list (low 50s) so just wondering how likely it will be for me to be offered a position.

Hey Mossy74 Don't take this as Gospel (in the absence of any other sources of info.... I had a gander through the old threads on here to look at some of the patterns...)

The previous thread suggests that the offers were made up to people on the mid sixties on the 2017 panel with about 45 people actually appointed.

[URL="[url]https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057384074&page=65[/url]"][/url]https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057384074&page=65

It took about 4 months in 2017 to get to 30 on the panel https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057384074&page=55



And on the 2015 panel (which is discussed earlier in the same thread) they went a bit higher.. that panel saw offers were made up to people who were in the eighties on the panel- GreyAP's old post there suggests about 85/90 offers with about 65 people actually appointed. I heard there was a standoff between DPER and AHCPS which meant appointments were slow to get started but it moved quite quickly after that.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057384074&page=31

I suppose the really crucial piece of information is any sense of whether there are more or less people due to retire/ be promoted in 2020/2021 than in these older competitions/ panels.

I understand there is about 1300-1400 staff currently in the PO grade... if you make a broadbrush assumption that most of these are in the 45-65 age bracket (and probably weighted older given the limited further promotion opportunities.. as there are only circa 200 A/Sec jobs...) this would suggest the need to replace 1/20 or maybe 65 POs each year.. and (acknowledging that the application is a bit lumpy in individual departments) these should be pulling two offers from the open panel to every one internal appointment..

Also bear in mind the earlier open panels saw roughly 25% offer refusal either because the location didn't suit, people already got an offer through internal promotion or they just had a better option outside the CS...

So they might get to offers on the panel in the sixties again while only actually filling 45 roles.. All of which is a longwinded way of saying if similar patterns hold true, there's a good chance they'll get to you in the fifties.

But I should stress I'm not a civil servant and have zero access to real/live data so I'm making some very broad assumptions on the publicly available workforce information... if anyone with more accurate information can update or add weight to this, I'd be very interested (and grateful)

As a veteran of the 2015 competition... I got on the panel, which was somewhere around 170. However, before offers started there was a stand-off between DPER and the line departments over ratios of internal to external appointments. This took nine months to resolve ie nine months before any appointments from the open panel, for a two year panel. AHCPS tried to argue that the new panel should start from first appointment, but there was no budging and the two years ran from its announcement.

In the meantime, departments had been filling any vacancies from their internal competitions, so there were very few jobs when the open panel finally started and it moved very slowly. As far as I know, 120 were appointed in the end, so it finished before it got to me.

For this panel, I'd agree with Trickie Dickie's summary, but go a bit further. The AHCPS has calculated that 85% of current POs will retire in the next ten years, or approx 1200/1400, so that would be about 120 a year. Assuming that trend is backloaded, I think it's sufficiently cautious to say 80 retirements/promotions in each of the next two years. This gives 54 appointments available for the open panel for each year. If there is a 25% refusal rate, offers could be expected for the first 70 or so places on the OOM in the first year. However, given PO panels can be slow to take off, they may possibly offers into the 50s in year one and up to or over a hundred within two years. As long as there is not another international crisis.

celticfan1 wrote: »

Hi - first time poster here. I am a not CS on the panel. Anyone any knowledge on the likelihood of a regional posting being offered - preferably west of the Shannon !!!!

Hi Celticfan1

That's always a tricky one. In the west, some departments and offices (eg Revenue) have large branches in Limerick, Galway and Kerry, and there are a few smaller outfits, but probably not the turnover at PO as in Dublin. There are also large offices in Wexford and Cork. Your best bet is to contact PAS (by the email for queries on this competition) to find out if they have any now, and then every couple of months for an update.

Hi all and congratulations to everyone who has made onto the panel, an excellent achievement.

I am one of those who failed to progress after the Presentation and Interview.

I failed to reach the qualifying standard in the three competencies in the Presentation (Leadership & Strategic Direction, Judgement & Decision-Making, Building Relationships & Communicating). Those three competencies were also tested in the Interview (along with three others).


That said, what aroused my curiosity in terms of the marking was that I felt I did a very good interview and I got high marks into the late sixties in three of the six Interview competencies (Management & Delivery of Results, Self-Knowledge & Expertise, Drive & Commitment) but dipped one or two marks under in the three other Interview competencies (Leadership & SD, J & DM, Building Relationships & C). On reflection, this bemused me as I was scored very highly in three of my interview competencies (65+) and just under the qualifying mark of 41 in the other three but I felt my performance was consistent, solid and well-received throughout all six interview competencies. That therefore got the paranoid part of my mind to consider whether the Board overseeing the marks revised downward my three other interview competencies because I failed those identical competencies in the presentation if that makes sense. Perhaps the Board overseeing the marking did not want a situation where a candidate passed all competencies in the interview and failed to progress on the basis of the presentation alone in the fear that someone may appeal or something.


I may be completely wide of the mark but the reason I am highlighting this is to enquire whether anyone who may have failed the presentation in a particular competency was also marked below the qualifying standard in the same competency heading in the interview.


Well done again to the panellists and hard luck to the others who, nevertheless, did well to progress so far.

Barn Owl Baby wrote: »

Hi all and congratulations to everyone who has made onto the panel, an excellent achievement.

I am one of those who failed to progress after the Presentation and Interview.

I failed to reach the qualifying standard in the three competencies in the Presentation (Leadership & Strategic Direction, Judgement & Decision-Making, Building Relationships & Communicating). Those three competencies were also tested in the Interview (along with three others).


That said, what aroused my curiosity in terms of the marking was that I felt I did a very good interview and I got high marks into the late sixties in three of the six Interview competencies (Management & Delivery of Results, Self-Knowledge & Expertise, Drive & Commitment) but dipped one or two marks under in the three other Interview competencies (Leadership & SD, J & DM, Building Relationships & C). On reflection, this bemused me as I was scored very highly in three of my interview competencies (65+) and just under the qualifying mark of 41 in the other three but I felt my performance was consistent, solid and well-received throughout all six interview competencies. That therefore got the paranoid part of my mind to consider whether the Board overseeing the marks revised downward my three other interview competencies because I failed those identical competencies in the presentation if that makes sense. Perhaps the Board overseeing the marking did not want a situation where a candidate passed all competencies in the interview and failed to progress on the basis of the presentation alone in the fear that someone may appeal or something.


I may be completely wide of the mark but the reason I am highlighting this is to enquire whether anyone who may have failed the presentation in a particular competency was also marked below the qualifying standard in the same competency heading in the interview.


Well done again to the panellists and hard luck to the others who, nevertheless, did well to progress so far.

Hi, I failed on one of the competencies in the presentation. I got 40 but got 75 on the interview on the same competency. I got in the 70s and high 60s in the interview and then got 70, 50 and 40 in the case study. From talking to other people I answered very similarly to others on the case study but definitely got a much harder time than others. I would say I was first one in on the case study on the first day which I don’t think did me any favours.

Hope that helps.

Barn Owl Baby wrote: »

Hi all and congratulations to everyone who has made onto the panel, an excellent achievement.

I am one of those who failed to progress after the Presentation and Interview.

I failed to reach the qualifying standard in the three competencies in the Presentation (Leadership & Strategic Direction, Judgement & Decision-Making, Building Relationships & Communicating). Those three competencies were also tested in the Interview (along with three others).


That said, what aroused my curiosity in terms of the marking was that I felt I did a very good interview and I got high marks into the late sixties in three of the six Interview competencies (Management & Delivery of Results, Self-Knowledge & Expertise, Drive & Commitment) but dipped one or two marks under in the three other Interview competencies (Leadership & SD, J & DM, Building Relationships & C). On reflection, this bemused me as I was scored very highly in three of my interview competencies (65+) and just under the qualifying mark of 41 in the other three but I felt my performance was consistent, solid and well-received throughout all six interview competencies. That therefore got the paranoid part of my mind to consider whether the Board overseeing the marks revised downward my three other interview competencies because I failed those identical competencies in the presentation if that makes sense. Perhaps the Board overseeing the marking did not want a situation where a candidate passed all competencies in the interview and failed to progress on the basis of the presentation alone in the fear that someone may appeal or something.


I may be completely wide of the mark but the reason I am highlighting this is to enquire whether anyone who may have failed the presentation in a particular competency was also marked below the qualifying standard in the same competency heading in the interview.


Well done again to the panellists and hard luck to the others who, nevertheless, did well to progress so far.

Firstly, well done to those who made it. Quite a journey.

This was my first time in application for such a CS role (private sector to date)...

My story is somewhat similar..
I got high 60's to low 80's across the board in the interview. I knew that presentation was a sh*tshow, so I wasn't expecting much.
I got 2 50's and then a 40 in judgement/decision making (for which I got 80 in interview).
So I got eliminated by dint of one competency in presentation which was assessed as quite high in interview.

That's not to say that 50 is a stellar result for the other 2 presentation competencies, but I must say, the rigidity of the process has me thinking twice about moving out of the private sector.

Tr1ckieD1ckie wrote: »

Quick straw poll about the presentation.. of the x number of options ... who recommended one of them, and who recommended an alternate approach which wasn't exactly one of the ones we were "fed"... obviously without too getting into the specifics of the case study materials on a public forum like Boards..

I'm guessing that dismantling every single one of them, selling all assets and privatising the function wasn't the ideal.answer then? 😁

Tr1ckieD1ckie wrote: »

Quick straw poll about the presentation.. of the x number of options ... who recommended one of them, and who recommended an alternate approach which wasn't exactly one of the ones we were "fed"... obviously without too getting into the specifics of the case study materials on a public forum like Boards..

I'm guessing that dismantling every single one of them, selling all assets and privatising the function wasn't the ideal.answer then? 😁

Tr1ckieD1ckie wrote: »

Quick straw poll about the presentation.. of the x number of options ... who recommended one of them, and who recommended an alternate approach which wasn't exactly one of the ones we were "fed"... obviously without getting too deep into the specifics of the case study materials on a public forum like Boards..

Hi chose one location - the not so great location. I didn’t address what to do with the money as they were in OPW ownership so my CS brain said they’d have a Dept or agency in the buildings in the morning. Obviously not what they wanted to hear.

I was in touch with PAS last week. They were still waiting for the first vacancies to be finalised. They said that there will be a small number of vacancies to begin with and do not expect the panel to move quickly.

I subsequently heard (not from PAS) that there was one vacancy submitted to PAS to fill from the panel