Public Service Promotion

W

Wardy7

Guest
Why is the system for promotion in the Public Service how it is?

Competency based interviews which require you to fit into defined "boxes".

No input from your manager on your strengths, abilities, experience etc. Based completely on 30 minute interview with 3 strangers where you have to hope that the questions go your way and you manage to work in all of your information (which can't always be done).

Lots of good people succeed but unfortunately lots of gonkers do to! People who can talk the talk but can't (or couldn't be bothered) to walk the walk.

So unbelievably frustrating. Sucks the life, enthusiasm and ambition from you.

Quote of the day from my OH "This place is designed to break you"

:(
 
A friend of mine sets on interview panels for PS posts and promotions. He said that in most cases they are trying to find/promote the best person but it is still often the case that they already have the person or the local Councillor, who will be on the next panel when the other people on the current panel are seeking promotion, is looking to appoint a friend. If he pushed to have the right person promoted/hired he just doesn't get asked back the next time.
 
Yeah, I have heard that many times too. In many cases they know exactly who's getting promoted before they interview.

The corruption is sickening and just serves to ruin the good people!
 
Wardy7 said:
Yeah, I have heard that many times too. In many cases they know exactly who's getting promoted before they interview.

The corruption is sickening and just serves to ruin the good people!
Click to expand...

I have no sympathy for this.

If that is how you see it have some self respect and leave.
 
Wardy7 said:
Yeah, I have heard that many times too. In many cases they know exactly who's getting promoted before they interview.

The corruption is sickening and just serves to ruin the good people!
Click to expand...
I don't think it's endemic though and probably not nearly as bad as in large private companies. It's the bar is set at the lowest common denominator that would get me.
 
cremeegg said:
I have no sympathy for this.

If that is how you see it have some self respect and leave.
Click to expand...
That's unfair. If someone is dedicated and wants to do a particular role which is only available in the Public Sector then leaving isn't really an option. From a corruption point of view our Public services score very well internationally. It's in quality and efficiency that we fall down.
 
Purple From a corruption point of View our Public services score well internationally .Tell me how you can compare your own post no2 Internationally when there is no paper trail .
 
If the corruption is sickening, that is the OPs comment not mine, and the good people are ruined. Then leave.

Of course people don't leave, they stay and collect their wages and pension entitlements and moan.

Life is short, why waste yours in an atmosphere of sickening corruption.
 
jjm2016 said:
Purple From a corruption point of View our Public services score well internationally .Tell me how you can compare your own post no2 Internationally when there is no paper trail .
Click to expand...
Sorry jjm, I don't understand your question. I base my views on this matter on the reports from Transparency International.
 
I listened to a business podcast earlier recently which said that if you are recruiting or hiring and get it right 6 times out of 10, you're doing really well. The reality is that any kind of recruitment or promotion process is, to one degree or another, a subjective process. I've been passed over for roles in the past and bitched about it afterwards but I've also hired and promoted people in the past and made the wrong decision. I've learnt for example that the most experienced operator does not make the best supervisor or that the person with most operational knowledge does not make the best trainer.

Having said all of that, the use of Councilors in any PS interview process is questionable. At the very least, they should be expected to state any conflict of interest or contact from candidates at the door before an interview
 
Other than performance at work I don't know any accurate way of assessing candidates for promotion. Some have the knack of performing and looking well at interviews but when it comes to walking the talk they are found wanting. And will it ever change? From my observances in the public sector no chance whatsoever.

If you are looking for advice go and get yourself an interview coach and conduct several sessions over weeks until you are completely comfortable on how you look, act, do etc. Believe me, I hear you.
 
I think that promotion should be based chiefly on job knowledge and productivity on the basis that if a person is neither knowledgeable nor productive, then any other competencies or skills they may have are irrelevant.

Knowledge should be demonstrated by written examinations, which are set and checked by competent assessors.

Candidates should be known to the assessors only by number in order to eliminate favouritism.
 
Sophrosyne said:
I think that promotion should be based chiefly on job knowledge and productivity on the basis that if a person is neither knowledgeable nor productive, then any other competencies or skills they may have are irrelevant.

Knowledge should be demonstrated by written examinations, which are set and checked by competent assessors.

Candidates should be known to the assessors only by number in order to eliminate favouritism.
Click to expand...
What about management positions? The most difficult part of any job is managing people.
 
I did not say that competencies, such as communication, leadership and people skills, etc., are not important, but rather that they are irrelevant in the case of an individual who is neither knowledgeable nor productive, manager or otherwise.
 
Purple said:
What about management positions? The most difficult part of any job is managing people.
Click to expand...

You can probably hear my guffaws . . . first let's look at the competition for promotion process.

1. Assessment by Line Manager:- Usually done quarterly in arrears and you are advised that no matter how good or bad you are, you are getting a "down-the-middle" assessment. This exonerates the manager if after promotion you are seen in a good or bad light. If he gives you excellent marks on an assessment and you fail to perform he is seen in a bad light.

2. The Interview:- Board made up with some regulars who are there for the mileage, subsistence and handy fee. No member of the board will disagree with the already decided winner ensuring their participation on future interview boards.

3. The Result:- Form FU2 is sent to all unsuccessful candidates, but advising " the standard was high" and "you were not successful on this occasion" and "best of luck in your future career." That is if they are capable of forming a decent letter, which usually they cannot.

4. The Fallout:- You've made your mediocre line-manager look good for years. You've taken his flak every hour of every day. He has used you (and calls it delegation) and you are now tired of being flogged to death. You made allowances for such unperforming management in the past and you decide to stay working, clocking in the hours, but making life as easy as possible for yourself. Well they asked for it! You turn your hobby into a good business idea and you make a few bob on the side proving you're better than most.

. . . anybody looking in and feeling the hurt, read my last sentence.
 
Leper said:
You can probably hear my guffaws . . . first let's look at the competition for promotion process.

1. Assessment by Line Manager:- Usually done quarterly in arrears and you are advised that no matter how good or bad you are, you are getting a "down-the-middle" assessment. This exonerates the manager if after promotion you are seen in a good or bad light. If he gives you excellent marks on an assessment and you fail to perform he is seen in a bad light.

2. The Interview:- Board made up with some regulars who are there for the mileage, subsistence and handy fee. No member of the board will disagree with the already decided winner ensuring their participation on future interview boards.

3. The Result:- Form FU2 is sent to all unsuccessful candidates, but advising " the standard was high" and "you were not successful on this occasion" and "best of luck in your future career." That is if they are capable of forming a decent letter, which usually they cannot.

4. The Fallout:- You've made your mediocre line-manager look good for years. You've taken his flak every hour of every day. He has used you (and calls it delegation) and you are now tired of being flogged to death. You made allowances for such unperforming management in the past and you decide to stay working, clocking in the hours, but making life as easy as possible for yourself. Well they asked for it! You turn your hobby into a good business idea and you make a few bob on the side proving you're better than most.

. . . anybody looking in and feeling the hurt, read my last sentence.
Click to expand...
...at least it hasn't made you cynical. ;)
If that's how the Public Sector really works then what hope is there for us as a country?
 
Leper said:
Other than performance at work I don't know any accurate way of assessing candidates for promotion. Some have the knack of performing and looking well at interviews but when it comes to walking the talk they are found wanting. And will it ever change? From my observances in the public sector no chance whatsoever.
Click to expand...

As an ardent union man, were you not part of a movement that rigidly resisted the move from promotion on seniority to competitive promotions...??
 
Never a truer word Leper , the same system applied in Bank of Ireland .
It was common knowledge that assessing managers were allocated rankings which were to be applied regardless of any excellent performance of the individual being assessed.
Regardless to say the inability of managers to correctly rank performance caused mass discontent which was only halted when staff with Union backing simply refused to engage with appraisals .
This course of action was hugely beneficial to staff as many who were on incremental Union negotiated salaries never had to participate in such appraisals again - it was of course different for those on pay for performance.
 
Actually, seeing Deiseblue's post, I think I may have gotten Leper and Deiseblue mixed up... :eek: unless ye are both ardent union men...!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top