Struggling to secure permanent promotion - Civil Service

tinkafairy

TELLIT01 said:

I worked in the Civil Service for a few years and there always seemed to be somebody on a temporary promotion, and everybody knew it was just that 'temporary'.  There is no shame or humiliation in returning to a substantive roll after a temporary assignment.  

The fact of being in a temporary role has never meant it was automatic that the person would get the substantive role in the event of the job becoming available.  The standard recruitment process is followed, and that means others who weren't interested in a temporary upgrade will also be applying.

On this, it really would be awkward. But again, too outing to give more details. I did have a good chat with my manager, who is getting me to literally apply for any SO or G7 roles coming up. She's also badgering our SCS about the fact we're under resourced. 

I think, if I had been a little sharper in the day, and the panel had included another person from the team I was looking to join (except for the hiring manager) I may have faired better. There were a few naive things I did, that I would not have usually have done. I'm in the midst.of helping with some HO recruitment at the moment - so I do have some perspective from the other side. 

I need to get something in place before the end of August though... Which is adding to my stress levels. Especially as it is so very, very busy at the moment and has been for a while. 

tinkafairy

RedFraggle said:

I'm an SCS1 with a disabled marker and reasonable adjustments in place. I've never been discriminated against because of my RAs.
I interview a lot at roles from SEO up to G6. The biggest failing I see is lack of demonstrating a competence through not enough detail of what was done in what way and directly by the candidate.
Within the "star model"....
Situation/Task is the scene setter l. This should have enough detail so the panel can see it's relevant to the skill/behaviour/knowledge they're looking for.
Action: this should be the bulk of the answer, what did you directly do, exactly how, liaising with what grades, using what tools, skills, behaviours. That's where you sell yourself. The hardest part is working out which skills/knowledge/behaviours the question is targeting.
Result: what happened, it closes the loop.
I see a lot of candidates that sound like they could be great but they just don't evidence it.
Hope this helps 

Thanks, yes. I'm usually more focused. I used a live example, and an example I knew one of the panel would be familiar with - but made some errors with forgetting to make it clear for the independent on the panel. For example, I used someone's name - without explaining their role (not something I would usually do!) and I did not make enough of so e of the actions I made in the live example that others would not have thought to do. I did get helpful feedback from the vacancy holder, it's just taken me a bit of time to breath and take it in. I'd got quite good at interviews at one point, but haven't had one since July last year .. and apparently have forgotten everything 

tinkafairy

Emmia said:

tinkafairy said:

I just can't sleep now. I keep re-running everything. I'm just so down. And it's not like I can take time off to recoup. I need to secure a substantive post by the end of August. There are very few being advertised, and my confidence of getting anything in my own department is nonexistent now. 

I work so hard, everyone complements what I do and says how key I am. But when it comes to the crunch there's never a job there to back it up. It seems people who do less, get better rewards because they have time to work on getting through the application/ interview process. 

@tinkafairy Why do you need to secure a substantive post by the end of August? Is it because of financial commitments you have taken on the temporary promotion, expecting to be appointed permanently?  Or are you on a fixed term appointment, so failing to get a permanent job means you're out on your ear?

My top tip is to be on annual leave on the day of the interview - do not go into the office or log in to work beforehand... Things always crop up that disrupt your preparations for what is an important meeting.

Ideally sit the interview on your own laptop (if it's on teams) to avoid work distractions.

Because I was hoping to get a substantive role before the fbd of the EOI where I could reasonably ask to do a 9-day fortnight so that my husband does not have to do compressed hours over 4 very long days (also CS very different role, different department) to help with childcare for our youngest child. 

End of August is also the end of the leave year in our department. I am already struggling to take all leave and Flexi accrued to get me down to just 19 days carry over - and this is with turning a lot into overtime (in an over time and Flexi role). 

I've been covering mat leave, and I also wanted to be able to do a proper handover before moving to a new role. I'm not the only person on my team in this position either (EOIs) and it would be good for us all to get some stability -- and retain some of the amazing talent that has come into the team. 

For this job, this was the only time the panel could convene outside the original interview slots offered -- which I was already booked in to be on interview panels/ assessments for recruitment. I was on call on the day before so it was not feasible to be off. There was also a last minute ask COP Friday for some more info first thing for the commission that morning. 

tinkafairy

Emmia said:

tinkafairy said:

I think I naively thought that achieving something that the minister and senior leadership wanted would have helped me? 

The Minister is a political appointment, and they quite rightly have nothing to do with the recruitment of civil servants, only Special Advisors who move on with the Minister are appointed in this way. 

I think you thought you'd get a tap on the shoulder for promotion, but that's not how the CS works. Non hiring managers have no sway. Even if that was how it worked, you might not be "favoured" or you'd be thought of as indispensable in your current role, and so would be blocked or would languish. The advantage of the CS is that you do have a route to achieve promotion without the input of managers.

I've not been clear. No, I was not expecting a tap on the shoulder (but the hiring manager had gone out of their way to sell the job to me and ask me to apply. And we do get on and work well together - though in different teams). I used the live/ going on example in my interview. Which the hiring manager understood what was going on (delivering at pace) but the other panel members did not. It was clearly a mistake on my behalf to do so. It would be a great example, but perhaps not while in progress. 

tinkafairy

Marcon said:

gm0 said:

There are some harsh realities in play.  Promotion selection in many cultures can be affected by lots of different factors. 

Prior demonstration of competence/capability/experience and readiness via secondment to more responsibilities for next level management or leadership being a small part. But not definitive in achieving selection.  Theoretically table stakes but not always.  And regularly not the overriding thing.

Many things get overlaid.  It isn't entirely fair.  Nor does it say fair on the tin.  Even if people naively have expectations of the process that it should be - either for a version of "fair" as they understand it i.e a personal world view - be it meritocracy on prior output, or DEI goals to right past wrongs.  Perceived fairness is personal around the individual decision and weighting and collective. Or it's a system perception from reading the HR manual platitudes - which just may not be honoured entirely in the live process.  It will be flexible enough to get the answer that is wanted.  The SCS one certainly is.

I am saying that a "reasonable adjustments" lens - that they are not walking the talk on that - is fine so far as it goes around interview and appointment. I am not suggesting that it isn't a factor here. Just that there is more.  And over focusing just on that may not in fact help you achieve what you want.

Subjectively particular 4s, 5s and 6s may take a view that another candidate - incidentally one without your RA requirements is preferable. To them. Because they have options - sufficiently equally qualified with different strengths and weaknesses, or candidate X broadens team diversity at level - so identity mix thumbs on the scales - or whatever it is.  Preferable.  If they can justify that choice from the selection offered within process and criteria and have the form filling lined up. Off they go.  Job done. No foul.  You remain a good and useful T/Prin, substantive HEO/SEO (in old money) with some well known strengths (and weaknesses). Very useful.  

SSC blended internal and external recruiting is particularly bizarre if you are used to corporate.  Been there. Done that.

Let's unpack a few other overarching influencers on preferred candidates.

Identity has skewed selection weightings. Applying discrimination just in a different slant - to progress the identity targets you want.  Obviously this can work for or against you based on your identity, situation and the organisation demographics at target level.   It's not the substantive point of discussion here. But an example of an overarching "reweighting" in flight criteria. It's a hot culture war button so let's not get into the rights and wrongs and subtleties of it here.  It's a planned thing. It happens.  The processes have sufficient flexibility to allow it.

Much more common is the strong desirability of keeping highly effective cheaper experienced "worker bees" especially expert, flexible sweepers - doing what they do well.  

Promote an SME "doing a job" rather than "managing" without doing as much of what they used to do.  Generic team leader capable duffers I have plenty.  Actual SMEs not so much.  The flexible expert problem solver trap.

If holding them back can be achieved without them exiting the organisation in a huff.  It's a good answer.  For the boss. And the organisation.  You let and encourage them to take a run at promotions as it helps keep them believing it's possible and is good practice.  And because it's policy and the right thing to do - and to support them as one of your staff.  But you don't lift too much of a finger to make the inconvenient (to you) thing happen where they exit on and up.  Hard to backfill.  Meanwhile they do their job and secondments well. And they don't get a promotion.  And they don't leave.   The numbers are a bit better if you aren't fully paying them (CS and private sector can vary on this one).  A squeakier ambitious extrovert generalist wheel albeit a less useful one day to day gets the promotion. And the SME is sad - but returns to work.

From the organisation's perspective the SME is harder to replace.  And this outcome is a win.  For the SME it becomes an unwelcome pattern which repeats.  The leader should of course be working on the team with the SME on apprentices around various activities.  To make them easier to lose. Nobody is really indispensable. But that doesn't make losing your key workers convenient either.

On this - a long time ago I had a conversation with senior leaders in an organisation where I worked about this very thing. As I reviewed my (significant) achievements and my own ongoing career blockages.  And the apparent disconnect between what I had achieved and future rewards.  In the end it came down to "because we can".  We know you enjoy your job here and likely "won't leave".  You lack credibility on that threat.  And are useful doing what you do. So.....we respond to the incentives as they are.

Believing the process was "fair" and had integrity on a what have you achieved and demonstrate dimension was *my* mistake of misunderstanding and not keeping them awake at night.  My persistent naivety in the face of knockbacks was in fact slightly amusing.  Going around believing in stated core values like that. Repeating the same behaviour and expecting a different result. Bless.

In gaming circles people talk about the "meta" - as a term for the embedded rules that underpin a particular (apparent) visible system.  

Presenting yourself credibly as a flight risk (if thwarted), motivated and ambitious, qualified at next level, not too essential where you are.  Requires a thoughtful approach to the meta, and the influencing and deciding audience. It's a game.  Culture does vary this a bit but some aspects are universal.  

Aside from corporate experiences.  I've been through the full process myself for senior civil service appointment at 3.  Panel interview with independent non civvie NEDS and the civil service commissioners.  

They picked the wrong shortlist.  Wasted my time extensively over multiple steps.  And recommended the wrong person (not me as it goes) so Cabinet Office just cancelled the entire appointment process at the end and overrode the department.  Wasting everyone's time. All candidates. Officials.  NEDs the lot.  And then slipped in another golden child external candidate they liked - entirely outside of the process.  The CS Commissioners just sat and watched the integrity of the process they apparently supervise burn and warmed their hands.  Why they turn up and waste everyone's time with the little integrity speech beats me.

Nobody kicks off about UK gov stuff like that in a politically directed world.  You might want to work in this town again temp or perm.  I'm retired now. So now don't care about telling the anecdote.  An old perm sec I know just laughed at my story and said ah X likes to run the process forwards. Sweet. The other captains do rather tend to start with the answer and run the process to colour the required paperwork to get to it.   Now that's more a 123 problem than a 6,7 appointment problem.  But you need to lift the lid on the mechanism.

I am sure the challenges you face with interview around the day job are real for you.  As an analytic and introvert personality type but not diagnosed with anything specific.  I am not particularly interview gifted either at concisely blowing my own trumpet as loud as possible tailored to audience and their checklist.  While reacting in the panel session.  I need to prepare quite a lot. Talking points in short term memory for anticipated Qs - and general question areas I plan to redirect to a humble brag example (criteria focused talking points) - utterly shamelessly like a politician in the media. All pruned viciously for brevity. Interviews are a special hell for most. of us.  

A few people are quick verbally and charismatic and shameless.  And yes - it has little to do with ability to do *most* jobs day to day.  Verbal skills under pressure do matter and matter more for management roles heavier on communication but do get overweighted by this process. And so what.

Finally - the more constraints you apply to where the opportunities need to be - the smaller the opportunity pool becomes.  I would not relocate to India/China.  Their relevant needs were there not here.  My constraints were here not there.  My choice to prioritise family over career. That decision you have control over.  And it sounds like you know your priorities.  But they don't owe you an ideal next level job - and only in the location you want. Nobody does.  It may work out. It may not

So Meta.  Checklist. Criteria used by assessors.  Game focus.  Step back.  Treat the process less literally and less seriously - with more of the contempt it *richly* deserves - just don't let that contempt show.  

Try to relax into it - and project confidence. Even though it's hard.  If you find yourself in a "useful SME trap". Then a move to a post which provides a reset with a carefully chosen boss - may be a way to break the cage.

Good luck

Could you condense into a couple of sentences, perhaps - and ones which OP might find helpful, bearing in mind their ADHD, ASD, and dyslexia? The nuggets of wisdom are currently buried a bit too far down for the rest of us to fathom, so I imagine OP hasn't a hope!

I think here SME is subject matter expert. Which are often harder to backfill and retain skillset and knowledge. So whilst someone may in the surface be encouraged to go for promotions, their team doesn't really want to lose them because it is a lot harder to recruit and fill that position. Someone seen as more generalist or at least occupying a more generalist role is more likely to get full support in being promoted. There are also fewer subjects matter expert focused roles available more broadly. 

But I might not be reading that quite right. So please let me know if I've got that wrong @Gm0 ? 

Emmia

tinkafairy said:

Emmia said:

tinkafairy said:

I think I naively thought that achieving something that the minister and senior leadership wanted would have helped me? 

The Minister is a political appointment, and they quite rightly have nothing to do with the recruitment of civil servants, only Special Advisors who move on with the Minister are appointed in this way. 

I think you thought you'd get a tap on the shoulder for promotion, but that's not how the CS works. Non hiring managers have no sway. Even if that was how it worked, you might not be "favoured" or you'd be thought of as indispensable in your current role, and so would be blocked or would languish. The advantage of the CS is that you do have a route to achieve promotion without the input of managers.

I've not been clear. No, I was not expecting a tap on the shoulder (but the hiring manager had gone out of their way to sell the job to me and ask me to apply. And we do get on and work well together - though in different teams). I used the live/ going on example in my interview. Which the hiring manager understood what was going on (delivering at pace) but the other panel members did not. It was clearly a mistake on my behalf to do so. It would be a great example, but perhaps not while in progress. 

The hiring manager wants a good pool of suitable candidates, that's why you were encouraged...

The interview I bombed at (I still wince at the memory) was one where I was the person doing it on temporary promotion, and was expected to be a shoo in for the job. That day I did not take annual leave, it was a work day from hell, and because I was in the office they kept shunting my interview slot to accommodate other candidates... By the time I got in the room my nerves were shot and it was a rapid slide downhill.

I now (as a learning from this experience) don't seek temporary promotions, and don't seek promotions within the team I'm in. I am a subject matter expert, but my line manager is fully aware that I will be seeking a new job on promotion, outside of the team and probably department that I'm in. 

Personally I think live examples are fine to draw out a particular element of a behaviour, but a past (delivered) example is usually better for the main thrust - for example you might say... "As a result of what I learned in example X (which you've already outlined) I have applied the same (or different) approach in project area Y which I'm currently working on... This has meant benefit(s) A, B, C, have been identified, saving time/money/improving customer experience/etc."

tinkafairy

Thanks @Emmia it really was that sort of work day. Not a moved interview, but suddenly lots of urgent work from all sides. 

 I've been offered some interview coaching by one of the panel, which I will take up. But maybe not this week! There's some more roles advertised at SO/ G7 level which my manager is encouraging me to apply for. Though she did confess she'd like to have me in a substantive role in my current team (when one comes up). 

I'm not a subject matter expert - but I do have some fairly specialised Comms experience. 

lincroft1710

From your last few posts, it seems you can see the mistakes you made in the interview. I'd lay money it was the "independent" you failed to impress combined with the other panel members believing you should have made more effort in putting the "independent" in the picture. You now know for next time.


Take comfort in this thought. There are far, far more people who fail promotion interviews than pass and probably some of those were a better choice than the successful candidate, but unfortunately couldn't demonstrate it on the day.