Government Jobs and Internal Applicants

• 

  grog on 09/09/2022 - 23:47

  +1

  For me, the ability to demonstrate compliance with the selection criteria line by line is top priority

  No personal attributes would play a part.

  • 

    dimes on 09/09/2022 - 23:56

    but how do you consider whether they have "demonstrated" it? By considering their work in the office, or only by what they have said in their application and interview?

    • 

      Hybroid on 10/09/2022 - 02:19

      +1

      References are vitally important for internal applications. They will ask your current line manager, project leads worked with, directors etc.

      What they say holds far more value than anything you say in an interview.

      Particularly “would you work with/hire them again?”

  • 

    Mokr on 10/09/2022 - 09:32

    The person you know obviously has a huge advantage compared to the outsider.

    You seen them demonstrate skills

    So the outsider needs to be very much better to win in most cases

• 

  Iwantthebestprice on 09/09/2022 - 23:59

  -3

  Get the job on your own merits rather then relying on what random people on a forum say. Nothing worst then someone saying “how do I get into a government job easily”

  • 

    dimes on 10/09/2022 - 00:25

    +1

    My OP could also be used from the perspective of someone on a panel of interviewers

• 

  GrueHunter on 10/09/2022 - 00:06

  +2

  Do you treat all internal applicants the same as all external applicants, namely discarding any knowledge you have of them outside of their application and interview? Or do you consider how well (or not well) they have worked within the organisation so far?

  You do both by having an independent panel member and seeking referee checks from their current and previous managers.

  it would give internal applicants an unfair advantage over external applicants.

  An advantage in the sense they have more direct experience - but this goes to merit, so isn't unfair.

• 

  freefall101 on 10/09/2022 - 00:29

  +9

  It's not unfair to recognise the skills and knowledge an internal candidate has. They're going to bring it up in the interview/application anyway and it'll come up in references, you can't just blank it out of your mind. Particularly within the same office. If it's a different department/office then it might be a different story.

  Plus hiring internals is important for career development and internal morale. If all the promotions go to external people, the current people get pissed off, especially if they have to explain everything to the new person coming in. It also takes longer and costs more to bring in an external person (even if there's no recruitment fee, there's background checks to pay for and notice period to wait on).

• 

  SnowDragon on 10/09/2022 - 07:31

  +1

  I've been on a few panels in government

  I would say the written applications are all fair game - internal applications generally have better responses since they've done it before to get into the government. Additionally they can always ask colleagues to look over their responses before submitting.

  The interviews however can be a little more biased depending on whether the panel members know the interviewee.

  For example if you are interviewing someone in your office and they've only kind of half answered a question, you can prompt them with "do you have any experience with x", knowing full well they've done x. You can't do the same with external applicants.

  That being said I have known of people incumbent in a position who have basically just been relaxed in the interview thinking they had it in the bag and then losing to an external applicant. At the end of the day it comes down to who is the best fit for the role and there are policies in place to make sure that happens.

  but they perform disastrously in the interview? Would you still consider hiring them?

  Not sure if it's the case for all state governments but mine is 50/50 between interview and written application.

  If there are 5 selection criteria then you are marked out of 5 for each response, up to a total of 25. Generally the top 3 or 4 scorers will get an interview (assuming they scored well)

  In the interview you are then essentially answering the same 5 selection criteria questions and once you've left the room the panel will collectively decide your score again out of 25.

  The person with the highest collective score out of 50 will be the preferred candidate.

  So to answer your question: you have to do well in both stages. Some people can write a brilliant response to the criteria but suffer when it comes to interviews. Same is true vice versa.

• 

  spal on 10/09/2022 - 08:46

  +3

  Been on a few panels. To answer the question technically, the panel will assess your response to selection criteria on a STAR method and score you. Resume is helpful in influencing the score. But if selection criteria has not been address sufficiently resume is unlikely to get you an interview. Jobs can be advertised for the internal candidates only. But whatever is the field, each application is to be treated on its own merit. I actually find that external candidates do better as there is a bit of an advantage of what people say and it cannot be verified. That is where hopefully interview helps. References in public service actually wouldn't help much. Because the referee wouldn't know what you have answered in the interview. For example, if two candidates have worked in a similar job and have done the same things, one is absolutely honest and given examples from their own work, another has picked outstanding examples, but either they are not their work or they had some limited role in that work. In reference check responses to the questions are generally not verified. So, if the referee says that they are a good team member, turn up for work and there are no issues the second person will get ranked higher.
  For those who are in public service may agree that it is therefore easier to get a promotion in a different organisation then in your own agency. Having said that public service is not entirely immune to tap on the shoulder recruitment. Discrimination is rife. Particularly in APS the selection process will test everyone to a set standard and if found suitable in the interview process is placed in a merit pool. Then the managers get to pick their preferred candidates from these pools. There is no merit ranking. Managers also set up their preferred candidates by giving them higher duties, which then set them up for promotion.
  So, in isolation the interview/selection process is very fair. There are ways this is being compromised.

• 

  TheMindsetTraveller on 10/09/2022 - 09:44

  +4

  I know this guy from the news, John Barilaro is his name, that if you know the right people, it does not matter how crappy your resume is (e.g. John has not been to Tafe) or if have weak work experience (e.g. John has no prior international exposure and experience) you can easily get placed into overseas travel roles paying more than half a million per year.

• 

  Porker on 10/09/2022 - 15:55

  +1

  For me, and yes I do work in Government, external and internal are interviewed the same. The difference is that internals will generally always get an interview as an unspoken courtesy, where externals might not get past the CV review process.

  Not that it's document, but 'who' you know really does assist.

• 

  morse on 11/09/2022 - 08:21

  +1

  It can work either way. If someone on the panel has prior knowledge of the applicant that would adversely effect their application they are meant to declare this and give the applicant a chance to defend themselves. I doubt this happens often.

  If someone does disastrously at interview, they’ll rarely get the job even if the panel wants them, as it would be hard to justify if there’s a suitable candidate that didn’t bomb at interview.

  If there’s someone I strongly dislike applying I’ll step off the panel.