W
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!
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.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!
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.I have no sympathy for this.
If that is how you see it have some self respect and leave.
I have no sympathy for this.
If that is how you see it have some self respect and leave.
Sorry jjm, I don't understand your question. I base my views on this matter on the reports from Transparency International.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 .
What about management positions? The most difficult part of any job is managing people.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.
What about management positions? The most difficult part of any job is managing people.
...at least it hasn't made you cynical.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?