DWP Recruiting Again - 2012

SpiralGalaxy

northerntake wrote: »

I dont mean competencies in general , I mean using examples of things you have done whilst employed by DWP.

I get the impression we may have been marked down using competencies to do with job roles in DWP.

I got a company a relative worked for (not a small one) to change one of its policies after they gave them a nervous breakdown. Their processes stunk to high heaven.

Complaining about scores puts you on the back foot - the burden of proof is on you, really, if you do complain, to prove that you deserved more. Complaining about the process itself is another matter: my point was that the people who design and run these tests collect statistics to validate those tests. They also audit the process from time to time. That information will tell you if the process is treating candidates fairly. I'm just thinking out loud, because I doubt they'd let anyone near even their aggregated stats. It's going for the jugular, though, if you want to complain and can interpret that information.

pamoja

northerntake wrote: »

I dont mean competencies in general , I mean using examples of things you have done whilst employed by DWP.

I get the impression we may have been marked down using competencies to do with job roles in DWP.

I totally agree. My competencies were based on my previous role as an EO as I thought they were much more relevant to the job role. I received rubbish scores to say the least.

SpiralGalaxy

SmithsoniusUK,

That's what I don't like about competencies: diverse competencies might look better to an assessor (face validity), but if the evidence isn't there that they lead to better job performance, the assumption is a faulty one, and should have no place in scoring anyone. Until it's well proven that they do, someone using work for their competencies for the work they're applying for should expect that they are providing the most relevant information, as their competencies will be directly related to those needed for the job, if written well - they weren't to know otherwise, and it's completely logical to take that tack anyway. If that's actually what's being done (and I've no idea), that's discrimination against their own staff for rehire. Just crackers.

mommarat

pamoja wrote: »

I totally agree. My competencies were based on my previous role as an EO as I thought they were much more relevant to the job role. I received rubbish scores to say the least.

All of mine were work based too as in the past we were told they marked higher. I know no one in dwp as yet who has hot the comps they need for an interview. Had I known some should have been based on other parts of my life I would have writen them differently. The spec did say they should be related to the job description. Me telling the kids how to put shopping in a basket and praising them for it was obviously the way to go.

SmithsoniusUK

No matter what system they use it'll always have cons. I've heard of people who have applied to law firms with a ton of experience both work and pro-bono and the right qualifications who were turned away because their A-Levels or even GCSE's aren't high enough!

Tests, I think, are no better or worse than the competencies because with both of them you have people who do well at them and people who don't and it has nothing to do with how good they might be at the job. I've seen people who don't handle tests well but actually handle time constraints and quick fire decision making in work very well.

Same with things like psychometric testing, I've seen my friends take those tests and it maps them out bang on, but others are way out.

A lot of them can also be overcome with good prep or knowing what to say or select. If you know the ideal profile for a fast track manager for example then you will know or have a very good idea what to select on a psychometric test for example. Same goes for the competencies, if you know what to write you're golden in many cases.

At the end of the day they have to whittle down the numbers to a manageable level some how and I guess it's better than just using a test score that tells you nothing really about the potential candidate.

yvonne13_2

Has anyone actually got a job with DWP after posting on here?

Walter_Wall_3

It looks as if some people have discovered the truth about competence-based application forms.

The best thing to do is to make stuff up, as far as I can see, since anything work-related (e.g. your experience and good work while an FTC AO) will get you nowhere. So just lie next time - that's what I'll be doing.

SmithsoniusUK

mommarat wrote: »

All of mine were work based too as in the past we were told they marked higher. I know no one in dwp as yet who has hot the comps they need for an interview. Had I known some should have been based on other parts of my life I would have writen them differently. The spec did say they should be related to the job description. Me telling the kids how to put shopping in a basket and praising them for it was obviously the way to go.

Obviously not everything in life makes a good example, but if you've been involved in say a local community project, even a regular neighbourhood watch group, you have the opportunity to meet the job description, say you volunteered to be a scout troop leader, ou can show people management, possibly working with diversity and customer service. Gaining extra qualifications or helping others to get them, again by say setting up and/or running a first aid training course or picking up CIPD qualifications could be used in competencies to show developing capability. If you were a police special or territorial army soldier/officer you could use that for skills.

I had an interview today where I was asked to give examples to show I had dealt with conflict resolution so I used examples of dealing with drunks and drug addicts while working part time at a store and an example of calming some friends down while at uni who were almost about to get into a fight with a group of bouncers. According to the interviewer today I came across as a strong candidate based on those kinds of examples, provided vetting goes fine I have a temp job with them after training...

Just because the job description says building capability doesn't mean the only place you can develop that kind of experience is in a job, as I've alluded to above.

SmithsoniusUK

Walter_Wall wrote: »

It looks as if some people have discovered the truth about competence-based application forms.

The best thing to do is to make stuff up, as far as I can see, since anything work-related (e.g. your experience and good work while an FTC AO) will get you nowhere. So just lie next time - that's what I'll be doing.

And I'm not endorsing lying or making stuff up, I've already pointed out several settings in which you can develop the skills that are looked for in the job description, more and more these last few months I've been looking at ways I can improve my CV in addition to just looking for full time paid jobs. It doesn't need to be something that takes up all your time, even some volunteering for an hour or two a week can give you something to work with.

SpiralGalaxy

SmithsoniusUK wrote: »

No matter what system they use it'll always have cons. I've heard of people who have applied to law firms with a ton of experience both work and pro-bono and the right qualifications who were turned away because their A-Levels or even GCSE's aren't high enough!

Tests, I think, are no better or worse than the competencies because with both of them you have people who do well at them and people who don't and it has nothing to do with how good they might be at the job. I've seen people who don't handle tests well but actually handle time constraints and quick fire decision making in work very well.

Same with things like psychometric testing, I've seen my friends take those tests and it maps them out bang on, but others are way out.

A lot of them can also be overcome with good prep or knowing what to say or select. If you know the ideal profile for a fast track manager for example then you will know or have a very good idea what to select on a psychometric test for example. Same goes for the competencies, if you know what to write you're golden in many cases.

At the end of the day they have to whittle down the numbers to a manageable level some how and I guess it's better than just using a test score that tells you nothing really about the potential candidate.

Some psychometric tests have flaws, I agree - and they're usually used by HR depts well after they've outlived what usefulness they had. Businesses can jump on stuff that doesn't always have a good evidence base.

I agree, they have to sift somehow. And I agree the A Level/GCSE requirements for other posts are a little redundant if you've got a good degree in a relevant subject (some just don't apply themselves to get the grades when they're younger). The point is that a measure can be used for sifting, as long as you can demonstrate that people that do well on a measure tend to do better at the job, by and large. Competencies don't have that backing, so structured interviews, assessment centres, cognitive ability tests, and other measures should replace them, at least for the time being. In Canada, their use led to such concern that a panel of experts was convened to determine their usefulness - in all measures but one, compared to job analysis (an older tool), competencies fell short. I had to research this in my final year at uni, and I read a lot of nice things about the approach, but looking for evidence was like looking for a needle in a haystack. I hope, at least for the present, that they don't extend this to other government departments, the NHS in particular.


Anyway, sorry for waffling on. I'll butt out, as the thread will shortly be moving to interview tips and advice and onto happier notes. But this is a good paper to read on the topic that is relatively accessible, if anyone is interested: http://www.performancegroup.co.nz/NZJP34_Markus117.pdf . All the issues the paper raises still exist.