Application Feedback

Savvy_Sue

As you don't want the job, probably as easy to leave it, but is there an HR section you could ask to review your 'failed' application to see how it might have been improved?

ERICS_MUM

I confess to being a bit of a control-freak and in your situation I personally would need to get to the nub of their comments - couldn't rest until they explained, and I understood , their comments.

I used to interview job applicants and always made sure I gave full and helpful feedback if unsuccessful applicants asked for it.

tommytynan123

Marker wrote: »

Oh I know that goes on. It's not very fair at all, and the organisation I got rejected on is awful for it. But at least give some decent feedback.

Out of interest if you know. What is the difference between C1 and SEO? Why aren't the grading structures consistent throughout the Civil Service?

Sorry been away.
C1 / SEO = the same. SEO shouldn't be in use unless its changed back in the last 18 months or so. C2 = HEO and D = EO

Navy HQ used to have their own system (poss shared by other HQs) that denoted a post by SO1 (= SEO = C1) so a job title would be SO1 Training for eg. I found this helpful to work out who and what level I was talking to ! Rather than ''Fleet Training Manager'' (grade ??) it was ''SO1 Fleet Training'':)

de_g.

Marker wrote: »

My application for both was exactly the same, and is competency based.

The sentence above may be the problem.

II had a similar issue recently - two forms for two promotion opportunities within the same division of the same executive agency. For one, I nailed the competencies, but for the other I tried to adapt for the ones that were different and didn't get sifted.

Until recently, Civil Service departments and agencies generally had different competency frameworks. Now there is one standard one, but I'm not sure if all have moved over to it yet. This may have been the problem - you addressed the right competencies for one but not the other, even if they appeared superficially the same.

Another possible issue is that you tried to cross reference between examples. On the online anonymised system we use now, they don't necessarily look at all four/five competencies from one person together, so if you relied on this it may have caused the problem.

As for sifting and feedback, we get sift scores on request. There's almost no scope for mixing people up as it's online submission only and scores are moderated for the consistency.

tommytynan123

de_g. wrote: »

The sentence above may be the problem.

II had a similar issue recently - two forms for two promotion opportunities within the same division of the same executive agency. For one, I nailed the competencies, but for the other I tried to adapt for the ones that were different and didn't get sifted.

Until recently, Civil Service departments and agencies generally had different competency frameworks. Now there is one standard one, but I'm not sure if all have moved over to it yet. This may have been the problem - you addressed the right competencies for one but not the other, even if they appeared superficially the same.

Another possible issue is that you tried to cross reference between examples. On the online anonymised system we use now, they don't necessarily look at all four/five competencies from one person together, so if you relied on this it may have caused the problem.

As for sifting and feedback, we get sift scores on request. There's almost no scope for mixing people up as it's online submission only and scores are moderated for the consistency.

Absolutely right de g
I applied for 2 x posts recently with a local council and both applications used the same functional competencies but you cannot just 'cut and paste'' You must write each one against the job details.