Civil Service Jobs application process - general observation

ReadingTim

gettingready wrote: »

ReadingTim - are you serious?

Can you not see the total lack of logic in this type of application process and how much time is being wasted?

And your last statement - wawwwwwww, easy there

Because of those forms and procedures Civil Service is losing out on potentially gaining real talent as guess what? If anyone has a choice to

a) Send in a CV (we are in 21st century) and have a decision within a week

b) Fill in endless forms, do endless tests, wait for potential interview for weeks and then decision for several more weeks

Guess which one will the person go for?

Let me give you and example or two.

Someone I know applied for w Work Coach role wit DWP - the whole process from application to interview took about 2 months and then another 3 months to be notified if she got a job or not.

I myself applied for a job with MoJ in Jan, had an interview early March and only LAST WEEK I got an email with a job offer.

In the same week when I had an interview at MoJ, I also had an interview somewhere else with much simplified application process. And I was offered the job 2 days after my interview and started early May. I would have started earlier but had to wait for a SC. My office is at Millbank (work this out).

So Civil Service application process needs to get out of a cave and move on with times.

I'm entirely serious. Filling in a form may be time consuming for the applicant. Sifting CVs is time consuming for the employer. Guess which the employer is going to choose? As stated previously, they don't owe you, or anyone else, a living. Deal with this fact.

Furthermore, given the numbers of people applying for the civil service, and the obvious calibre of the successful applicants (if the fast stream tests are/were anything to go by) there's no shortage of people who don't have a problem with the process. In fact, the only ones who do seem to have an issue are those who are unsuccessful. Sour grapes possibly? Either way, I don't see the civil service suffering too much, and there's always the private sector as an alternative.

In short, they do it because they can. The individual is not special. They are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.

gettingready

Scorpio33 wrote: »

My guess is that it costs them for each test someone does.

By making people do the application first, it sifts out those who can't be bothered or not that interested before and test costs are incurred.

I am guessing at this though.

Not correct.

Tests are sent out automatically once the "competencies" are submitted - without them (competencies) being checked/marked so there is not sifting before the tests are sent out so tests are sent out to everyone who submits competencies.

gettingready

Reading Tim - you just can see the total lack of logic that I am trying to explain, you are completely missing my point. Wonder if you do it on purpose or are you really that blind not the see how illogical that is?

But that - that really is a statement of the year.

In short, they do it because they can. The individual is not special. They are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.

How demoralising and degrading to work in this type of environment.

Stylehutz

You're not likely to get any sympathy from posters on this one as I have experienced. Just full of daily mail readers who like to attack the unemployed and who think that employers can do no wrong.

gettingready

But it is not about sympathy - just pure logic or rather total lack of it in case of this particular process.

lincroft1710

gettingready wrote: »

How demoralising and degrading to work in this type of environment.

As one who was a civil servant for 35 years, Reading Tim's statement is not unreasonable.

gettingready

How horrible to work for so many years realising one's whole work existence summarised in that statement.

I would be devastated

ReadingTim

gettingready wrote: »

But it is not about sympathy - just pure logic or rather total lack of it in case of this particular process.

What is logical from a employee's perspective isn't necessary logical from an employer's perspective. Perspectives can be conflicting, even mutually exclusive. Some even think it's fundamentally impossible for them ever to be reconciled. I'm surprised this appears to be new to you.

I can see why it appears frustrating from an employee's perspective even if I think you have a slightly inflated sense of the importance of said employee, and I have tried to explain why these arguments are (in the main) simply irrelevant to an employer.

However, I'm simply baffled as to why you appear incapable of viewing the argument from the opposite perspective yet think I'm the blinkered one... You really need to practise the logic you so glibly preach.

gettingready

You have worked too long in Civil Service to see what I am trying to explain here. No worries. I really feel for you after that quoted statement.

NeilCr

I'd take an educated guess that this process is, at least a bit, aimed at keeping the number of applicants down. I used to recruit in an offshoot of the Civil Service - many years ago I can remember we got over 1000 applications for one clerical job. Times may have changed but friends still working there say that most vacancies are still very oversubscribed

As has been said sorting through huge numbers of CVs is both time consuming and inaccurate. The likelihood is that you aren't going to get the best applicant - you will, though, get a more than acceptable one. The process described seems aimed at whittling down numbers - as well as making some attempt at sorting the wheat from the chaff

From a Guardian reader who spent quite a bit of time as a union rep getting up management's noses!