This is my guide to succeeding in Canadian Federal Government Competitions, part of a series of guides to government that I have planned. I have developed multiple versions of the guide over the last 18 years and I still consider it to be a work in progress.

The Guide has evolved over the years:
- 2004: A PDF version that I used for presentations;
- 2005: The first prose version on my site and only included a subset of the full list of topics;
- 2006: Update of some sections;
- 2007-2012: Updates of some sections;
- 2014: Complete update and expansion;
- 2017: Targeted updates and expansion;
- 2020: Partial update of some sections;
- 2023: Partial update of some sections.
For 2025, I’m beginning a full update of the Guide, and until it is “done”, the latest versions will be available on the website and as individual downloads; the slide deck and the full Guide will not be compiled until the end. Click on the links below to get the latest versions of the chapters.
In the meantime, if you want the latest Powerpoint deck, you can click on the file name below to see a pop-up PDF version in your browser or click on the Download button to save a copy to your device.
SECTION | CHAPTER | TITLE | YEAR | DOWNLOAD SLIDES | PROSE | DOWNLOAD SINGLE | DOWNLOAD GUIDE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Welcome | 1 | Who is PolyWogg? | 2023 | HR-Guide-Deck | Introduction | ||
2 | Be the Duck: A metaphor for success | 2023 | (see above) | (see above) | |||
3 | The Right Fit: Is Government right for you? | 2023 | — | Understanding yourself Types of jobs | |||
2. A formal selection process | 4 | Overview | 2017 | (see above) | Overview of the process | ||
5 | Searching for government jobs | 2017 | (see above) | Find jobs | |||
6 | The application process | 2017 | (see above) | Applications | |||
7 | Written exams | 2017 | (see above) | Written exams | |||
8 | Interviews | 2017 | (see above) | Interviews | |||
9 | References | 2017 | (see above) | References | |||
10 | Language tests | 2017 | — | Language tests | |||
11 | Security clearance | — | |||||
12 | Pools (including fully- and partially-assessed) | (see above) | |||||
13 | Informal feedback | — | |||||
14 | Best fit interviews | — | |||||
15 | Letters of offer | — | |||||
3. Other types of processes / informal situations | 16 | Student hiring (FSWEP, co-op) | — | ||||
17 | Casual | — | |||||
18 | Terms | — | |||||
19 | Bridging / conversion | — | |||||
20 | Assignments or deployments | — | |||||
4. Specialized topics | 21 | Spotlight: Inventories | — | ||||
22 | Spotlight: Executive processes | — | |||||
23 | Spotlight: Top 10 competencies for EC | — | |||||
24 | Spotlight: Top 10 competencies for AS | — | |||||
25 | Spotlight: Top 10 competencies for PM | — | |||||
5. Congratulations, you’re a duck! | 26 | Managing your career | — |
I’ll update the table of contents as I finish the various chapters and sub-chapters.

Hi Paul,
i have an upcoming exam on vidcruiter where i have to answer by recording myself, which seems really stressful considering I probably won’t have a lot of time to prep:
3 “interview” questions, 4 merit criteria assessed:
– integrity and respect
– working effectively with others
– showing initiative and being action-oriented
– thinking things through
since there are only 3 questions, which merit criterias do you think will likely be combined in one question?
in my opinion, thinking things through and showing initiative will likely be assessed separately, while demonstrating integrity and respect could be matched with teamwork? what do you think?
also, they haven’t mentioned if it’ll be scenario-based or direct questions, any advice on how to prep?
Hi Maryam,
Sorry, missed this in the comments queue. So let’s call it them I&R, WEWO, SIBAO, and TTT.
a. I&R goes really easily with WEWO, not that much for the other two. Certain scenarios COULD combine them, but doubtful.
b. WEWO goes with I&R, as I said, and COULD go with SIBAO, but is unlikely to go with TTT.
c. SIBAO goes well with TTT, but not so much the other two.
d. TTT is often by itself, but could go with SIBAO.
If it was me, I would combine EITHER I&R with WEWO or SIBAO with TTT, just as you suggested.
I&R is frequently tell us of a time when, and it’s really hard to mark. If they combine with WEWO, they can make it more scenario-based, and thus easier to mark too.
The last two could be either scenario or direct, they’re 50/50, not much help. You basically need to prepare for both options.
Good luck! (Or I hope it went well if you already did it!).
Paul
Hi Paul,
Ive been in a partially qualified pool for 2 weeks and had a 45 min interview with a manager. From what he told me the next steps would be SLE and security clearance (give or take 6 months). Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but am I fast tracked to be hired ?
Hi John…
That all sounds great, although I don’t know if I would say “fast tracked”. They’re proceeding to the next step which is to test your language and security clearance, and people can still fail those, it’s not a “given” that you’ll get both automatically. I don’t know your situation, but you can figure it out yourself somewhat:
a. If you need B level oral, it means in your second language that if someone asks you what you do for work, you can give a decent 2 minute explanation without a bunch of “umm, err, ahh” hesitations, few grammar mistakes and nothing serious, etc. If someone asks you how to get from where you live to a grocery store, you can give concrete instructions on how to get there that make sense. If you need C level oral, you’ll need to be able to give an opinion on a topic of some complexity — what do you think of the policy on working in the office? Is it effective? What about COVID vaccination rollout? They don’t care about your views (btw), they care if you can explain it in a straightforward manner, jump between verb tenses, and answer a question or two of follow-up. Communicating in proper language in a business setting. Both for oral communication of what you say and comprehension of what you hear.
b. For the security check, it totally depends on what level they are doing, what your personal history looks like, and where you’ve lived if you’ve lived abroad. If you lived abroad, was it within the time frame of your security check? Is it somewhere friendly that will answer questions when RCMP/CSIS ask about you in their databases? Or will they get back to the RCMP / CSIS in the fullness of time and take forever. If you lived in the UK, security people will send a request to MI5 asking about you and if you show up in any databases for arrests or person of record (tied to some incident). MI5 will action it sometime within a month or so, depnds on how busy they are and how many people we’re asking about, and send back a report which someone here will read and decide if there is anything to follow up on or not. Equally, they’ll run you through all the domestic databases for crime, incident reports, credit check, immigration issues, etc. And again, if the computer finds something, someone will read it and make a decision if it is an issue or not. Maybe you were a witness to a car accident and your name is in a database somewhere for it. So it pops. Or maybe you were interviewed as a person of interest (aka not a suspect, just someone they wanted to talk to) in a domestic assault case involving a neighbour, but you didn’t know anything. Every time the computer gets a hit for whatever reason, A person reads it and makes a decision towards your security clearance. After all the boxes are checked, they review it all. 90% of the time it leads to nothing. 10% of the time, it might lead to questions for you. You already know if they’re likely to find something or not. That includes parents or siblings or exes who were in trouble with the law too. If your brother is in a notorious biker gang, and your name pops, they’ll want to ask you more questions like, “Have you ever been to their club? Do you see your brother often? Are you now or have you ever been a member of the motorcycle club?”. Because close family and exes are good sources of influence, so if you have those ties, they probably won’t let you work on organized crime files, for instance. You can do tons of OTHER things in govt, but all clearances are supposed to be job-dependent…
So, going back, all good news, they want to hire you. 6m on the other hand is a long time to wait!
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the insight. I haven’t received yet any news for the SLE test however it’s only been a week. I’m playing things around in my head now and maybe I should have done better.
Is it normal to have only the best fit interview after being placed in the pool ?
Hi John, in theory, the best fit can ONLY take place after being put in a pool.
Paul
Hi Paul,
Is it acceptable to put HR in the previous supervisor information if I don’t recall that information for the secret clearance check ?
I have tried to fill it up to the best of my ability.
Hi John,
Thanks for your question. Outside of lying on the form or deliberately omitting details, there’s no real “wrong” way to fill it out. After that, it gets very subjective sa to what you think is good or bad. I’ll give you a small framework to think about it, and you can decide what to do.
In my opinion, everything you enter either:
a. Helps them do the check
b. Gives them just enough info to do it
c. Makes it hard to complete
Assuming this is for a new job, until your clearance is complete, you can’t start the job. So, in an ideal scenario, you want to give them A whenever you can. You don’t have to go above and beyond and hunt down the address of your last supervisor who has changed jobs 3x, is in Witness Protection, and living under an assumed name in another country, but if you are still friends with someone who works at your old area, could you ask them if they remember the name? But for every box you go to fill in, there are four possibilities:
1. You have the info, easy to fill in;
2. You don’t have the info, but with a little work, you can fill it in more accurately;
3. You don’t have the info, and can only give a general answer with an explanation as to why you don’t have more info;
4. You don’t have the info at all, and explain why.
The more gaps, the longer it takes. But note too that clearances are a hybrid process of computer automation and manual review. They will run your name through a bunch of databases, and the computer will flag anything that’s a hit…so if you were arrested but not charged, or have a credit note about disputed charges, or a court case where you sued your cousin, whatever. It will find any potential matches and flag it. The officer reviewing your file will look at it and throw out the false matches (praise the universe if your name is NOT John Smith), and review the remaining hits to see if anything seems untoward. They will then follow-up to confirm any details that might be an actionable concern, when compared with your job description of the new job, and write a report. Gaps hurt you as the computer spits out “INFO NOT FOUND”, and has to be manually reviewed.
However, as an example, suppose you worked at ABC company from 2011-2014. The security folks aren’t likely to call ABC unless they see some sort of mismatch. Like you said 2011-2014 but the tax records show 2010-2016. And your next job started in 2017 but you said 2015. It could be simple typo on your part, or simple error of another kind, but anything that doesn’t match, they check it out. Note they are NOT calling for a reference check if you were good at your job; they ARE calling to see if there were any problems that would stand out for a security clearance — theft, assaulting your boss, false wage claims for hours not worked, etc. Most of the time, a call to an old employer would likely be fine if it is HR instead of a supervisor that might have moved on anyway, as HR is used to these sorts of calls and will handle/route accordingly.
However, in addition to verifying mismatches, security also does random calls to various contacts aka spot checks to verify the info is legit. Kind of like intelligence work — literally, it’s CSIS — where they poke your paper trail to see if it holds up when scrutinized. If it was top secret, they would manually check a LOT more of the info; for Secret, there are certain things they check, others they rely on the computers to flag.
As you see, I added a clause to the two options when you don’t have the info and can’t easily get it — explain why there’s a gap. I recently did an update to my security check and it is just a renewal for a job I already have. I don’t really care how long it takes particularly, so there was certain info they were asking for that was ridiculous. Could I have gotten it? Sure. Was I going to waste time doing it? No. It might mean it would take longer to process, but it wasn’t worth my time. For example, they wanted the last employer’s contact information for a bunch of the people in my family, the majority of which are retired and have been for over 10 years. It is not even remotely relevant and to be honest, highly intrusive. I wrote a note in the box to explain why I didn’t have the info — basically I’m not in contact with certain people and was not going to contact them to ask them for personal info that was none of my business. The clearance came back no problem in about 4 months. If it was my FIRST job, and I didn’t start until I did it, I might have put more time and energy into it.
If you have the info or can get it easily, do so; if not, at least explain why not. It’s perfectly valid to say “The former manager no longer works there and thus I have included the contact info for HR”.
Hope that helps…ultimately, as I said, it’s a bit subjective how much work you put into it. But putting the HR contact will not screw things up.
Hello Paul,
My interview went well and I received the feedback that I have been selected an hour after. I also received my CIDP and now the letter of offer is pending security checks.
What is the probability to be rejected at this stage ? Do you have an idea of security concerns that could affect the process ?
Thank you,
Hi Christian,
Soooooo that all sounds great. There are no real stats on people getting rejected at the security check stage, but it’s generally low. Part of that is because people who have security issues likely didn’t apply…if one has a criminal conviction for fraud, one probably doesn’t apply for a job that has a security clearance requirement for honesty and integrity.
I’ll give you some info on how the security process works, it’ll likely tell you what to think about. There are three general levels of security:
a. Reliability — mostly a criminal records check and a credit check;
b. Secret — a bit more, potential conflicts of interest, etc.;
c. Top Secret — full drill down, may interview you or others, etc.;
The first thing they do in a security check is put all your info into a complex search engine that searches their various databases. You can kind of think of the databases as lists of people with problems/issues for whatever reason. The search will see if your information matches anything on the computerized list. For a criminal records check, that is pretty obvious; same for credit, they just pull up credit scores and things. For Secret and Top Secret, they’ll see if your name shows up in any immigration databases as a problem…and they also ask Qs about all immediate family members such as your immediate family (siblings and parents) and a spouse’s family (inlaws), plus your own kids. They’re really looking for anything that could be a problem with you or with people who can influence you in your family. For example, if you applied for a Customs Enforcement job, and it turns out your brother is part of a notorious motorcycle gang, they are going to have questions. If you are applying for Top Secret on intelligence stuff at PCO, and you travel regularly to Syria, they’ll have questions.
When I applied for my Secret clearance, average time was 4-12 months at Foreign Affairs for new people…I got mine in 6 weeks — I was nobody, I had gone nowhere, I was basically a student with no international travel, two of my family already worked for the government. I’m pretty sure their check said, “He’s gone nowhere, he’s done nothing, he knows nobody, give him a clearance.”
The real slowdown is if you lived abroad (born or even moved). When they do the clearance, they frequently ask for information from the foreign state aka the equivalent of a criminal records check. So, it goes like this, “Hello Belgium, Canada calling as we do or as you do us, we’d like to have you run the following 3 names and let us know if anything pops up.” Belgium says no problem, a few weeks later, all good. It’s a reciprocal arrangement, things go pretty fast with most advanced countries. By contrast, a friend asked me once how long hers would take, and I had to point out…she was born in India, moved to Nigeria at age 5, moved to Canada at age 12, went to China for a year abroad during university, went back to China after grad school to work for a Chinese/German joint venture…I told her to get comfortable. It took a year for them to get enough info to give her the clearance — and there were NO issues in there, it was just a year to gather all the responses.
Going back to the computerized search, if they find nothing, they take a quick peek in person and call it a day. If it finds something, then someone has to review the findings manually.
Soooooo, did you live abroad? Takes longer. Did you travel abroad? Takes longer. Were either to countries that Canada might be suspicious about? Takes longer. None of the above? Takes shorter. Family situation is messy with people in trouble with the law? Takes longer. Only child, parents dead, no spouse, no kids? Administratively takes shorter time.
In the end, you can probably best guess whether yours will take longer or shorter.
Good luck!
Paul
Thank you Paul, it’s clear enough.
The level of security for my case is reliability.
I lived abroad, in a single country (Africa) prior to move to Canada. At the time I moved to Canada, I submitted the equivalent of criminal records report from my country to IRCC. Does the Department refer to the IRCC to pull the data, or it goes itself to the foreign government ?
Thank you,
Christian
Hi Christian,
The short answer is I don’t know, sorry. They DO pull IRCC data, but whether they decide that is sufficient or not is up to them. In some cases, a generic pre-filled process from from another govt to immigration may not be considered sufficient for a security clearance. It’ll be up to the desk officer doing the clearance to decide…my feeling is for reliability, they will go with IRCC doc, but no way to know.
Paul
Hi Paul,
Thank you very much for your valuable inputs.
Best regards,
Hello Paul,
I got my clearance two days ago. How many times it typically takes for the HR to finalize the LoO and send it out ?
Thank you,
Christian
Congrats on finishing that step, but there is no real answer as there are two elements left in a sense.
The first is to generate the LoO — that’s usually just under a week at most.
The second however is your actual start date — HR really likes to tell people NOT to have an early start date (2w) because everything has to be entered into the payroll system. For internal candidates, just moving between depts, I’ve heard them suggest 7-9w from the time entered to the start date because that way NOTHING has to be done manually by the pay system. As you’ve no doubt heard, our pay system generally sucks. A recent stat I heard is that if the system has the full time needed to do it all automatically, the success/accuracy rate is about 99%; if there is a manual step involved anywhere, the accuracy drops to 80%. Faster but not necessarily right, too many options for the system not to handle the manual intervention well. For external hires? I’ve heard some depts HR say 12 weeks. Soooo, I have no idea what to tell you. 2w before Phoenix was relatively standard, 4w wasn’t uncommon. After Phoenix, it’s a crapshoot.
Good luck though, keep me updated! And congrats again!
Thank you, Paul. And thanks again for the heads-up.
The admin told me that it typically takes 10-12 weeks. so it aligns perfectly with what you just mentioned.
I’ll keep you posted.
Besides, I received my security clearance (reliability status) in 20 working days despite the fact that I lived abroad. This is to confirm what you said that if there’s nothing to worry about in one’s profile it goes quickly.
Hello Paul,
I received the LoO a week a half after the security clearance was issued. My effective start date is set to April 24th, so exactly 8 weeks after receiving the clearance.
Thanks for all your guidance throughout my hiring process.
Christian
Congrats Christian! That’s awesome. See you around the halls sometime! I’ll be the one needing a walker at this point…(2 years to retirement)
Paul
Hello Paul,
Just wanted to add a detail – maybe not relevant: it is an entry-level job.
Thank you,
Hi Paul,
I am enrolled in a EL-03 process. The language requirements in the job posting is not clearly indicating the requirement for that specific position (in Gatineau). It is printed as follow:
Various language requirements
English essential
French essential
English or French essential
Bilingual imperative BBB/BBB
Do you know what could exactly be evaluated when it comes to the SLE ?
Thank you,
Hi Christian,
It means there are multiple open boxes — some are English essential, some are French essential. Some are E or F essential. And some are bilingual imperative.
If they staff one of the first three, they don’t need to test anything. If they’re staffing the last one, they’ll give you the full SLE (reading, writing, oral) as per the PSC website.
Good luck!
Paul
Hi Paul,
Your feedback is much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Hi Paul,
There is a job posting that I am interested in and I am having a hard time fully understanding one of the essential qualifications “Significant experience in managing and developing management frameworks, business processes, procedures, directives and/or standards related to key strategic, operational or business matters.” (The link in case you are interested: https://emploisfp-psjobs.cfp-psc.gc.ca/psrs-srfp/applicant/page1800?poster=2276100).
At first hand it appears to be business planning and management related which is an area I do not have exposure to. I am a researcher who mostly conduct various research and analysis as well as responding to adhoc requests in my day to day. However, the statement reads key strategic, operational “OR” business matters which makes me believe that there are some flexibilities in meeting the qualification depending on how it is interpreted. The issue I have is that I am at a loss trying to understand what it means exactly to have experience in “managing and developing management frameworks, business processes, procedures, directives and/or standards related to key strategic, operational or business matters.” I tried to look for examples or other job postings online but could not find much.
Would you be able to give any insight as to what kind of experience the post is really inferring to and some applicable experience examples in ways one could possibly supplement to the experience without particular business, program managing experience?
If not, are there any resources that you would recommend for interpreting Jobs.gc.ca essential experiences that would give further guidance to what different essential experience means in the GoC context and examples that can assist my situation in any way?
I appreciate your time and assistance in advance.
Hi Sam,
Sorry, started to reply, and accidentally crashed my response. Trying again. Generally, it’s asking for three things:
A. Significant experience in managing and developing –> not just managing, not just developing, but creating a working system to do “something”, with significant experience (however defined for depth or length)
B. One of 5 elements — management frameworks, business processes, procedures, directives and/or standards
C. One of 3 elements — related to key strategic, operational or business matters
This will sound a bit harsh, but generally speaking, if you don’t know what those words mean, you don’t have it. This is not a generic EC-04 position, this is essentially a business analyst who B creates a business process for say “how do you request a new desk in Delhi”, very operational/administrative. Corporate planners, or even AS would be likely to have this type of experience, generic EC_04 analysts or researchers would not.
Similarly for C, it isn’t generic “policy” issues, this is very practical, almost finance-style/level operations. The strategic would be to the extent the dept has some new high level operational issue, not a simple policy issue — like how are we going to divest ourselves of housing contracts in Manila, etc.
They might have some flex in C, but aren’t going to have much in B. It’s looking for very much “business operations” style documents.
Good luck!
Paul
I have a EC 6 interview coming up for a supervisory position. I love supervising and it is something I am passionate about. I haven’t done an interview in over 6 years, coupled with me wanting to get this job is making my anxiety level go up 10000%.
How would I prepare for an interview like this? I haven’t received the competencies they will be testing in the interview so I don’t even know where to begin 🙁
Hi Jenna,
I’m going to assume that you applied for an online posted job. So while you haven’t been told which specific competencies will be tested in the interview phase, you SHOULD have the original list of all of them on the original poster unless it’s a weird internal thing or separate employer. I’ll deal with both scenarios.
First and foremost, if it was normal public service and you have the poster, look at the abilities and personal suitability items. I don’t know if there was a written already done where you might knock off some comps, but basically ask yourself “which of these As and PSs” are suitable to ask in an interview with one of the three forms:
– Tell us of a time when…you demonstrated X;
– Here’s a scenario…how would you demononstrate X;
– This job involves a lot of X…what do you think is the most important elements of X?
You can probably see 3-4 that are clearly going to be interview questions where they want to know how you would handle something. They want to “test you”. And as a test of your own abilities, ask yourself, “If I was them, which ones would **I** want to test directly?”. The rest they may kick to the reference check stage.
Secondly, if you don’t have the larger list of competencies and / or don’t want to wait, you can look at the TBS Key Leadership Skills and try to figure out what would be good for an EC-06 to do. They have a page that is the list of KLCs and sample behaviours. While they target EX level, they often have examples that you can adapt to know which apply at better levels to TLs or supervisors.
https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/professional-development/key-leadership-competency-profile/examples-effective-ineffective-behaviours.html
So, for example, the KLC for supervisor for Create Vision and Strategy lists these bullets:
a. Informs analysis with a thorough understanding of the environment
b. Works with others to implement concrete work activities
c. Contributes to the development and implementation of organizational strategies and objectives by coordinating the work of employees
d. Communicates with clarity and conviction
e. Identifies issues, implications and activities that may have an impact on priorities
f. Implements solutions that respond to changing priorities
Six things that TBS thinks a supervisor should do for KLCs. If you do all six KLCs and all the subbullets, it’s almost 50 things you should do. You can’t do 50 things. You can’t even remember 50 things. Let me suggest an alternate prep, and this will serve you not only for this comp, and other comps, it will help you start to think about management in a different way than simply “I’m passionate about supervision” (not a criticism, just an evolution of your development).
Go through the above 6 and ask yourself, “What resonates most with you?”. For vision, for myself, I will always emphasize a, d, and e the most. I’m a planner, I need context, and I need to communicate things out. Just like writing my guide. I share my “vision” of how things work. I recognize that B and C are important, sure. But that applies to every heading, nothing special about it for me. And F? Well, yeah, but I am not enamoured of that heading … it makes us more responsive than I think we should be as supervisors or amnagers. That’s great for a DM, but I don’t want to blow with the wind. I want to be the rock my team gets as support. Yeah, we’ll adapt, but there is a risk to me of being too responsive. Sooooo, as my management “brand”, I will talk about context and the bigger picture, and communicating my team’s “portion” of that bigger picture. That’s my philosophy. Which means in preparing for headings I don’t know or competencies I can’t envision yet, I **can** go through and say, “hmm, what would vision mean to me”. 2-3 of the 6 that TBS thinks are important.
If you do that for all 6 KLCs, you will have a natural management style that fits you AND that you can then communicate in a question. Soooo, let’s say you find out that the competency is about working with others in your team and motivation. So perhaps you like to start off by saying, “I think my primary role as a manager is to get my entire team to row in the same direction. For me, creating that direction is about sharing not only the destination but our ports of call along the route. Being the compass bearer to help chart our route, while working with them on the best ways to row, to balance the loads in the boat, to address maintenance issues, to figure out coverage across seats, “. I don’t know where I’m going with that metaphor, but you get the idea. By contrast, you might decide that vision is entirely about working with your team, so you’ll nail b and c automatically, those resonate more with you.
Whichever ones on the TBS list resonate with you, those are the best ones to use. Too many people will try to talk about all six and come off sounding like a parrot; the goal is for interviewers to see you, to see what you’re passionate about, how you would behave if given the chance.
The more you know what you think will be your personal management philosophy, the better you are to answer any Q about any competency because you know who you are. It’s surprising for example how easily it is to talk about vision or lifelong learning or active listening into any answer and it will “work”.
One of my favorite answers I gave to a question in an EX exam was about Values and Ethics. And I just spoke from the heart. I started saying that I don’t like V&E in govt as we use examples that are often too simplistic, about issues that are clearcut right and wrong, but that I believe that V&E is about resolving conflict when you have two principles in direct opposition to each other, that pull you in opposite directions, and there’s no right answer. I used an example of transparency in leadership against confidentiality of certain management files (it was about a DRAP-like situation). I didn’t pre-plan it much, I didn’t know the question (I expected it to be about conflict in general), and I just spoke from the heart. I didn’t make it through but the DG gave me feedback afterwards that it was the best answer she had heard in 25 years. And far from a typical answer. But I felt totally comfortable about it because in my “core values” of my management style, I have transparency as a key point. I can talk about that in 25 different ways if need be, because it’s “natural” to me. I’m not making up an answer, I’m just sharing what I would do.
All of which is a long way to say you can either wait for the actual competency subset, estimate that subset before the real list comes, or work on your KLCs and key headings that will translate very well into your real interview when you get there.
If it helps for your prep, the biggest challenge of all is being yourself. The more that you can make it like a conversation where you’re sharing what you would do and less about answering a test, the more you will look like the supervisor they want.
Paul
Thank you for your time in writing this. It was extremely helpful and helped calm my nerves. 🥹
Hi Paul, question, when I’m answering the Essential Qualifications and I put how much time I spent within a particular role, what if my experience for that essential qualification was only for a portion of my time in that role? Or I only had one or two instances during that time where the experience truly applies? Example, I’m applying for a project management 3 position. I worked as a forensics analyst that also oversaw the server room and I worked on IT related projects sporadically as lead, would I include the entire time I worked as an analyst as my experience? Because technically that wouldn’t be true, it wasn’t a main function of the role, I just happened to get assigned the projects.
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for the Q. So let me go sideways for a second to note something that likely is obvious but always good to remember:
a. You apply for jobs for which you think you are qualified and write your best cover letter/application;
b. They decide if what you write meets the standard and if they’re screening you in.
People will often ask a version of your question where they’re wondering if their experience is enough, or not, etc. My general reaction is your job is “a”, not “b”. So don’t do their job for them. OFten that used to be of the form, “While I don’t have 3 years of experience…” / “While I am not an analyst…” / “While I’m not qualified for the position…” (the last is the translation of the first two), it’s not your job to decide that. You think you ARE qualified as you are applying.
Where I think it is fair to question your application is if there are say five experiences and you are weak on 2 or more of them. Weak potentially on 1, you should still apply. You still write the best applic you can. And let them decide if what you write is sufficient.
Now, going back to your example, I get your “concern”. It probalby feels like a cross between values and ethics and pragmatic, am I wasting my time, etc. But here’s the thing. You aren’t faking anything or going to be able to put one over on the screener. I screen EC candidates all the time. If I am looking for someone who does X as part of their day job, every day, core responsibility, then someone like that will have an application very rich in examples and even just the way they write about it. I’ll be able to tell. By contrast, if they only did it once or twice in three years, by stint of their having certain files, that too will come through. Your example won’t be as rich, you won’t structure your answer the same way. I’ve done a lot of corporate files in my career, and if someone applies as a planner for example, I can tell if they are a “planner” by trade or a “planner” by accident.
But here’s the thing…from my poster, you can’t tell if I’m looking for only hard-core planners OR I’m open to someone with some planning experience. Yes, the assumption if we add a time frame is that it was a core part of your duties and it will say something like one of two things:
1. “Two years of experience in…”
2. “Two years of experience * in…”
For the asterisk, some postings will clearly say “* Where it has been a core part of your duties on an ongoing basis for a period of two or more years”. Sometimes they’ll add a definition, in which case, they mean a hard core planner (for my example), not just someone with some experience. Totally depends on the process, and YOU can’t decide. Only they can.
So as a candidate, we do our job. If we generally are solid on the other headings, and we might be a bit weak on one, we nail our regular ones and do a bit of work on the weak one to make it as strong as possible — and then we submit. If they’re open to someone with some experience instead of hard-core, they’ll screen you in; if not, they’ll screen you out. If they have doubts, they’ll look at your resume and go, “Okay, sure” or “Okay, no”.
One last variable I often throw in depends heavily on where you are in application world. If you’re applying for one, make the effort; if it’s a dream job, make the effort; if it’s just one of seven that you might be applying for, decide how close you think you can come and if that one is a good return on your time investment or the other six would benefit from reallocating your time. My personal philosophy is if I would actually take the job if offered, I’m that intererested, then I’ll make the effort to apply and see what happens. Note too that this is simply the reality of “best fit” too…if they were looking for someone hard-core in that function, well, that isn’t you so you won’t be the right fit for them and the job won’t likely be the right fit for you either.
Hope that helps!
Paul
Thanks Paul, I pulled the trigger on the application. If nothing else comes of it, it was at least good practice and gives me a potential template to work with in the future.
hi Paul,
I have an interview coming up assessing two competencies. One of them is
: Demonstrate integrity and respect.
can you please help me prepare, any advise or guidance ?
thank you a lot
Hi Myriam,
V&E or Integrity and Respect are often hard to test. Of the three possible Qs (from the guide), it is:
a. Easy to imagine a previous experience question — Tell us of a time when you had to demonstrate blah blah blah
b. Harder to mark a question where they say “Here’s a scenario that will challenge your integrity and respect…what would you do in this situation?” Global Affairs used to love this form of an integrity question where your boss was doing something unethical and how you would address it. But the problem is that very few people have encountered the type of situation they portray, and thus people flounder. So it often looks like an unfair question — experienced Foreign Service Officers often can’t tell you what a good answer would look like, so how would a candidate? But it CAN be asked.
c. Easy to also imagine a Question where they say — “This job requires integrity and respect. What does that mean to you?” (more abstract).
For me, the best way to prepare is to ask yourself the third one…what DOES it mean to you? If you look at the TBS website for key leadership competencies, you’ll see stuff under headings related to respect, integrity, values, ethics, etc. But which ones RESONATE with you? For example, you might find 7-10 principles that could be part of I&R or V&E, but you can’t likely talk about them in personal detail or give examples. The world doesn’t work that way. Soooo, instead, pick two or three that strongly resonate with you out of the laundry list. Like perhaps integrity in interpersonal relations — respecting others opinions, speaking honestly, trying to understand not impress, etc. You can define it however you want, but the more you pick something you beliee in generally, the more it will come off as authentic. And really they are just looking to see how you think.
The main things people do wrong in these situations is if asked for an example, they do one of two things — they negate the question (“Oh, I would never be in a situation like that, I proactively manage my relationships so that would never happen”) or they make it too simple (“Oh, they asked me to break the law, and I said no”).
A much better example is anything where you had to struggle with the right answer…in the best scenarios, two positive elements are in conflict (like snitching on a sibling — you want to protect the sibling but you also want to be truthful with your mother). How do you resolve something when two things are in direct opposition to each other? For example, I have a past experience where I had to maintain confidentiality of some information but I had a colleague who was about to make a risky decision because they didn’t know the information that I did…I found a third path to helping them without breaking either part. I’ve subsequently heard from different senior people that it is among the best examples they have ever heard. It isn’t about how you manage when things are easy, but when they are hard that shows integrity and respect. So going back to example of interpersonal skills, do you have a past example (or can imagine one as a scenario) where someone is being hostile and rude but you still want to help them?
Good luck!
Paul
Hello Paul,
I got a written exam coming up for junior compensation advisor role with RCMP and the evaluation is for attention to detail competency using MS word and adobe software. Is there anything i can do to prepare. I have read the definition of attention to detail on google.
Thank you in advance
Hi Kamal, Congrats on getting to the exam!
You have read the definition, which is good. My suspicion is they will give you a “real life” scenario like “here’s new person 1, in-house person 2, someone returning frmo work 3, etc.” and they will ask you to pull some info from a series of guides/tables, apply it to the situation demonstrating attention to detail, and likely either a) save it in Adobe OR b) set it up so that it can be digitally signed in Adobe.
Not sure what else they would do although it could be almost anything. Was there anything specific to your knowledge of Word and Adobe? If so, the Word part could be a bit more technical … so maybe create a letter (basic), table with shading or insert graphics (medium), or a mail merge of some sort (advanced).
Good luck!
Paul
Thank you for the wish and advice both. The experience required was client service delivery and role duties involved reviewing analysis of documents and responding back to clients. Nothing Technical was mentioned.
Thank you again and I will keep preparing.
Great, let me know how it goes (but not details on actual Qs or anything, just in general).
Hello,
I would do that. I appreciate your help and support
Hello Paul,
I hope your day is going great. I applied for a role and was asked to fill out a Candidate Achievement Record (CAR), which will be used to assess if I fit into the SOMC. The email seemed to have specifications similar to those of exam request emails. The CAR is an assessment tool.
Question 1: Have you ever heard of this? Should I study for it like I would a regular exam? Since it is a tool, should I expect anything different than I would get on a regular exam?
For context, I will be tested on:
K2 – Knowledge of the machinery of Government
PS1 – Demonstrates integrity and respect
PS2 – Thinking things through
PS3 – Showing initiative and being action-oriented
PS4 – Working effectively with others
Question 2: For K2, except for the policy development process, what else could I focus on to learn about the machinery of government?
Question 3: Is working effectively with others (P4) another way of saying teamwork, collaboration, or both, or is it entirely a different competency? Usually, I can find the descriptions on TBS or other government sites, but I have not found them for this. I may also be overthinking this..lol.
Thank you!
I look forward to your reply.
Hi Georgina,
Another candidate was doing something similar, look very interview-like but your wording looks more like just filling out a written form. I am not familiar with the CAR used like this. In lieu of more specificity, you might as well prepare like it was an exam/interview. The only difference in a “tool” is that you may have limitations on time per question and/or limit on overall length, saving time, etc.
For K2, the policy devt process is good, but you should also familiarize yourself with roles of PCO, TBS and Finance.
For working effectively with others, it’s often a combination of teamwork, collaboration, integrity and respect, etc. They CAN be interchangeable but think of it as more “the mechanics of working together” with the addition of integrity and interpersonal skills.
Good luck!
Paul
Thanks!
Hi Paul,
I am taking an exam in a few days but I can’t find anything on the internet about Judgment and Discretion. Can you help?
thanks in advance for the guidance
thank you
Hi Marielle,
What do you mean you can’t find anything on the internet? I think you may be confused about hwo to prepare as all you need to do to search is Google “definition of judgement” or “definition of “discretion”. For example, judgement with Merriam-Webster will give you “the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing”. So already you have:
Judgement:
– Decision/opinion
– Evaluation
– Discerning
– Comparing
If you think that through a bit, you’ll realize if you’re comparing something, it’s likely options of some sort. Discerning may mean breaking things down into smaller bits in this instance. For me, I would end up with the following “revision”:
1. Understand the situation
2. Identify the key variables in the situation
3. Compare the details
4. Weight / evaluate options
5. Make a decision
You can do the same for discretion. You may not find an official Government of Canada definition of discretion, but nobody else would be able to either then. So you have to make your own.
Good luck…
Paul
Hello,
I news advise and couldn’t think of anyone else rather than the legendary Polywogg.
I suffer from
* Asperger syndrome
* Severe Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) with impulsivity and emotional dysregulation
Accommodations for exams within central public service have generally been sufficient. Sometimes, I was granted 50% extra time, which is adequate given the initial time allocated. Once, I was given 24 hours.
However, in my current agency, the situation is different. The time allocated for tests is very short, and even with 50% extra time, I cannot produce coherent responses.
Recently, two scenarios assessed planning and organization (planning and organizing a two day event considering all provided information, with precise details and all measures to be taken) and a second scenario that assessed attention to detail.
The time given was one hour to evaluate four skills:
– Attention to detail
– Planning and organization
– Written communication
– Use of Word and adherence to instructions
Given the limited time and the task requirements, I lost my composure. I was unable to think or reason properly. Writing two detailed texts in 1.5 hours is impossible for me. Additionally, my emotional dysregulation completely unsettled me, and I even started to tremble. I believe this exam is absolutely not suited to my limitations, and adding 30 minutes is not an adequate measure since the initial time was not adequate at all. I took 7 exams these past few weeks and even when I was offered 30% it suited my needs and I had enough time to think and write.
I would like to know what my options are. I think something was wrong with that particular exam.
P.S. I do not yet have the results.
Thank you in advance for your help.
Hi Layla,
This is a really tough Q to answer. I could skirt the issue by talking about various types of accommodations available, staying strong, etc., but I’m not sure that would help you much. Or I can go in a different direction and challenge you to think about something kind of ugly.
So, at the heart of accommodation is traditional views of challenges — mostly physical. I’m thinking more about accommodations to doing jobs. So, a simple one might be a person delivering mail around a building, gets injured, can’t walk around as easily, so they give them a small cart to push or drive. Accommodated, problem solved.
And that is the goal of all accommodations…some people think is about removing what someone cannot do, but it’s not. It’s giving you extra tools so you can do the full task. Maybe in a different way, but you can do it. The reason I’m mentioning that is that certain types of accommodations are incompatible with certain jobs. Some jobs might require you to do A, B, C, D, and E as the core elements. In order to accommodate you, accomomdation would mean you that still do A, B, C, D and E. They don’t drop C, etc. They figure out a way for you to do A-E differently, but you still do them. And yet there is a long history of accommodations in the workplace, backed up by some labour law, which followed that alternate and dangerous route. If you can’t reach something on a high shelf, they make it someone else’s job. If you can’t deal with unruly clients, they give you a back-office job. None of those are really what accommodations are supposed to be about. They are wrongly reducing the job or giving you a different job, not accommodating you.
When it comes to certain cognitive or behavioural issues, certain types of accommodations are common for a test environment. So people often get extra time on texts, or maybe they can use a computer instead of answering by pen, etc. Obvious stuff, and you’re already aware of those. But there are also limits to accommodations.
For example, asking someone to complete a summary of a document in 1h might seem unfair, and they think that a reasonable accommodation might be you get 90 minutes. But it wouldn’t be a REASONABLE accommodation to give you unlimited time or a week to do it either. That’s not even close to the same test. Giving you 50% more time would always be considered by any HR or LR tribunal to be more than reasonable. Doesn’t matter if you couldn’t handle it, it’s whether you could still do an actual test, not just however works for you. It’s reasonable accommodation, not any accommodation you feel is appropriate.
Now, here’s the ugly part. There are jobs that require the employee to do a series of tasks within a certain timeline, write a summary, and be done in an hour. And there is no accommodation available in the real job that would change that. I’ll give you a good example. Cabinet meetings happen often mid-week. It is incredibly common for a large # of docs to come around the day before in the morning, perhaps 7-8 for the meeting, and someone has to summarize the content for the Minister. Often within an hour or two. Or several in a morning. There is no accommodation to have someone “take extra time”, they’re due at noon. No exceptions. If that is the case, someone who needs more time CANNOT do that job. There is no reasonable accommodation available that would enable them to meet that deadline.
So the ugly question I have to ask you is, if you are doing tests for jobs, and others are fine, but this type really throws you, are you applying for the right kind of jobs? Because even if you get through, you may go to do the job and find out that the type of scenario is what they do regularly. And maybe then have tight deadlines. They wouldn’t be able to accommodate you enough to do it and still meet the job requirements.
The test you were given is NOT simply a test of whether you can do it — it’s whether you can do it and to do so both quickly and accurately. If they gave you 2 or 3 hours, they’re not testing if you can do it quickly.
The reason I ask if the job is right for you, rather than seeing if there’s some solution that would let you “pass” it by removing the time requirement, is that getting the job might actually be a BAD thing. If you look through the PS Labour Relations Board Tribunal, you’ll see a number of cases over the years where someone started a job. And, as per above, they were supposed to do A,B,C,D. They were accommodated to do D, and B. They could do C. But there were no reasonable accommodations to do A — either they couldn’t do it, they couldn’t do it well or they couldn’t do it in the time alloted. But all four elements were part of the job. So it turns into a long protracted legal battle for the tribunal to say in the end, “nope, no reasonable accommodation would meet the reqts” and the person ended up wasting 10y of their life in a bad fit job, painful HR stuff, and a long tribunal case. But they shouldn’t have been in the job in the first place — it was a bad fit for their condition.
I know that’s not a popular view, nor even what HR or LR will tell you. They’ll blow sunshine at you, tell you that they’ll accommodate you. But most tests that managers put in their test are simulations of the type of work they do. If you cannot do it, even with accommodations in test situations, you should seriously decide if that is really the right type of job for you.
And interestingly, to be clear, this is really not about your conditions. Lots of people are good writers, strong policy people, and yet they couldn’t produce high-quality output in a parliamentary relations office on a consistent basis. It’s not a skill they have, even without any need for accommodations. Equally, lots of people with “no issues” would do the test you do and not complete it in 60 minutes. Or 90 if accommodated. But at some point, extra time changes the test from a real test to just a task.
Good luck, and I know that is not what you want to hear perhaps. But I don’t like people blindly applying to jobs that seem interesting if they’re not going to be successful later…let me know how it goes.
Paul
Hi Paul, thanks for being honest with me. I forgot to mention I have been acting in that job for 08 months and I do it really well and the manager is more than happy with the work I do. The job doesn’t require to do anything quickly. it’s an AS-01 admin job and my substantive is an admin job as well.
I have been applying to similar jobs and even got qualified in pools at higher levels. This particular process was with the agency I work for (CFIA) and I am almost certain the time allocated for the task was not right at all but who am I to say that. Too bad.
Thanks again
Hi Layla,
Indeed. And it may be be too aggressive a test or the person running it didn’t know what they were doing. But someone, somewhere thought it was what they were looking for… 🙁
Paul
Hi Paul,
Update: I was successful, made the pool, and got hired.
On top of my limitations, I am a perfectionist, and it really felt like I didn’t have time to refine every single detail of the scenarios and steps.
I guess that wasn’t what they were looking for!!!
Have a good day! 🙂
Hi Layla, That’s fantastic news, congratulations! 🙂
QUACK! 🙂
Paul
Hi Paul, thanks for this HR guide.
I was screened out of a process because I didn’t meet the “thinking things through” criterion, and I’m really confused. The question was about how to prepare for a presentation of a project I developed that could benefit other departments, and I was confident that I covered everything necessary. Could it be because I exceeded the recommended word count by 50 words, or might there be another reason? I requested informal feedback but was denied because it’s an external process. I really want to understand in order to prepare better next time because this criterion seems really tricky.
Thank you
Hi Alice,
Sooooo, there’s no real way to know without feedback. I can tell you generally there are four POSSIBLE reasons that people fail that one, but not the probability for this case:
a. Going over the length … yes, it’s bad to go over the length, BUT the solution for that is to normally only mark up to that point. So if it is 550 words, they only mark the first 500. The last 500 is cut off and it assumes that it isn’t there. Now is that enough to fail you? Not usually. But if it was to reason your way through to a recommendation and you only made your rec in the last 50 words, then it’s incomplete. Usually it wouldn’t be enough to fail you if you have everything already covered. But some might do it VERY draconian — if you go over, you get 0 for not following instructions. Rare, but it happens.
b. You misunderstood the question / went in the wrong direction … it is quite common for people to read something, think, “Ah-hah! I know what they mean!” and then go off on some weird tangent that they didn’t expect. So perhaps they were thinking about policy development and instead you focused on implementation. Or they asked it about people management and you answered as if it was financial management. It can easily happen. An alternative form is people who “negate the question”. So they get asked to respond to “A” happening, and they say, “I would never let that happen” and give 500 reasons how they would manage to prevent it. Except that wasn’t the question. So someone could get asked to think through a problem, and they start off by saying they would prevent the problem. Except that is NOT the question…if they wanted to know how to prevent it, they would ask that.
c. Too high a scope / too low a scope … Suppose I ask you about a problem with a new food program for kids and what you would do to implement it. Again, like with (b), you might do a really high scope, talk about relations with stakeholders, political direction, etc. Or you could go micro and talk about how you would do research, design options, etc. If they were looking for low, and you went high, or they wanted high, and you went low, there’s a mismatch. They might feel you didn’t give enough detail or they might feel you were in the weeds.
d. Incomplete answer … This is one that is specifically tied to thinking things through. It’s the upstream / downstream problem. So, suppose you are a lifeguard, and you’re working in a bay where a river empties out. And every day, you see people come down the river, drift out in the bay, get in trouble, and you have to save them. That’s a downstream problem, and the solutions are obvious. More lifeguards, direct saving, good processes, better training, better deployment of lifeguards, etc. But if you literally think of slightly upstream from that, maybe you need signs telling people not to swim. Or if there are beaches, then there should be lifeguards there and protective ropes, etc. And if that isn’t enough, maybe you go farther upstream and find out there is this spot where someone is literally throwing people in the river aka the source of the problem. What do you do for that? Police? Army? Education? Physical intervention? etc. You could give a fantastic “downstream” solution or a fantastic “upstream” solution and miss something in either end. So that was an upstream gap. Suppose instead you have a service call centre where people are timed for how long it takes to deal with a client’s problems. And the “time spent” is really high, with growing wait times. So they tell staff to work faster. They stop helping solve say 2-3 inter-connected problems that the client has, and only deal with one at a time. Faster completion rates, but the clients aren’t helped as well, and their “one call” now requires “three calls” to solve. So someone might solve the “upstream” problem and miss the implications of that. A slightly better example is finding ways overseas in certain countries to encourage the parents to send girls to school. Solution? If they come to school, the school gives them food to eat, AND food to take home (small packets of rice and meat for the family too). So now there’s an incentive? Except when the girl graduates, say grade 8, the food stops. So now they have an incentive for the girl to GO to school but to NEVER GRADUATE. Sometimes there are perverse incentives. But in Qs in interviews, sometimes they’re looking for a good balanced answer for TTT where they see the upstream stuff, the current environmental stuff, and the downstream implications. “A full picture” if you will of what you would address. If so, leaving out another piece that migth SEEM out of scope, may in fact have been something they were looking for.
Which is it? Could be any or none. It could also be that they had 100 applicants, wanted to move 30 forward, took the top 30 which was everyone with 8/10 or above, and you had 7. If the pass mark had been 7, you would have been in; the pass mark was 8, you weren’t in. Or they were looking for COMMS as the main thing to do, and you didn’t address it enough in their view.
Without feedback, there isn’t much way to know.
Paul
Hi Paul,
Since it was a recommendation and not an instruction, I didn’t think much of it. The wording is usually more specific, such as “maximum word count: 500.” Should I assume next time that a recommendation is actually an instruction that was poorly worded?
Thanks a lot for the detailed feedback. It really helps put things into perspective.
Thank you!
Hi Alice,
Recommendations CAN be ignored, but it does give you the approximate length they’re looking for. The bigger hint is if they say 500w, they’re not looking for 9 pages. 🙂 Personally, I doubt 500 vs. 2 x 500 would make a difference.
Paul
Hi Paul,
I wanted to get your opinion on something. I recently took an exam and I wasn’t sure if I fully understood the instructions. I have two more exams coming up that will test the same skills, and I need some advice.
The questions were presented as scenarios, with a main question and a sub-question for each scenario. Each question ends with “what would you do?” The instructions required answering each question in 400 words. I provided a single 400-word response that covered both questions.
My question is: should I have written 400 words for the main question and 400 words for the sub-question?
The instructions did not seem very clear to me, especially given that I an autistic and that complicates things for me. Am I overthinking this ?
here are the instructions :
You must answer nine (7) questions and four (3) sub-questions. For each question, the competencies assessed are indicated.
3) For each question, we recommend that your answer be between 250 and 400 words.
Thank you in advance for your help.
Hi Marielle,
The short answer is that I have no clue what they wanted. Normally, you would get something like:
SCENARIO 1: blah blah blah, What would you do? Take into account x, y, z.
SCENARIO 2: Blah blah blah, What would you do? Which would you do first?
In a setup like that, it would be 400w per scenario i.e., the sub-Qs are just helping you refine what you need to cover in your answer.
I don’t have any idea what it means by “nine (7) questions and four (3) sub-questions”. I assume when it says “for each question”, it means to answer the main 9 or 7 with 400w. However, it depends I suppose on whether the sub-Q would normally be part of the main Q already. If it said something different like “What would you do” in 1 and the subQ was “what would you avoid”, maybe that would signal another 400w.
Ultimately, it’s just badly worded. No real answer other than to ask them.
Sorry,
Paul
Hi Paul,
I am curious about something. I will be taking several written exams for six selection processes in the upcoming days, and I would like to know if it’s acceptable to use headlines when answering questions.
I understand that I need to structure my answers using the STAR method. While I am not using headlines for the Situation, Task, Action, and Results sections, I would like to use a few headlines to address the “Action” section specifically. I am unsure if this approach might lead to losing points.
For example:
– To Plan Effectively: [my answer]
– Time Management: [my answer ]
– Tools Used: [my answer]
Thank you for your guidance.
Best regards,
Alice
Hi Alice,
Headlines are not only fine, but also highly useful…my only hesitation is that you might want/need a slight intro paragraph ahead of it. So, why are you using To Plan Effectively:, Time Management:, and Tools Used:? If you started with something like, “When I worked at X, I had to regularly stay on task and be organized. To do this, I planned effectively, improved my time management, and made use of specific tools to help me.”
Otherwise, good to go.
Paul
I went through a Selection Process recently. After several tests and interviews, I was told verbally that I was successful and that I will join others who succeeded to start a special training the following month. Two weeks later I received my PRI, but the hiring manager changed and the new hiring manager then called me and told me that I did not make the list! I want to believe that a PRI is a confirmation that I had been offered a job. Is PRI a confirmation of a job offer or not? Should I contact the Head of HR of the Department to protest this denial? Please advice me. Thank you.
Hi Barry,
I have to say this is unusual. You have two issues in actuality…one for making the pool and one for getting a job offer.
POOL: Manager 1 verbally told you that you were successful. That means nothing. You need to get a letter from them telling you that you passed the process and were put in a pool. Until you get that, results aren’t final. The small wiggle room that you have though is that they actually took steps to get ready to hire you. They issued you a PRI, which is not a guarantee of a job offer, but they generally don’t (almost can’t) do that if you didn’t make the pool. To issue the PRI, the HR people would look at the pool, see who they’re planning to hire (might be everyone), and they start issuing the PRIs. It is the first stage to do anything, and they don’t do it if you don’t make the pool. Which isn’t to say there couldn’t have been an error, and if they did make an error, there’s nothing you can do about it. You either made it or you didn’t; an error in issuing or telling you doesn’t mean you make it, it just means they correct it and tell you that you didn’t. But I would be telling them you want an explanation of how you got a PRI if you didn’t make the pool. Now, to be clear, are you SURE that is what Manager 2 told you? Note that there are two definitions of success here — first is that you made a pool, second is that you get a job. Not everyone makes the pool, not everyone who makes a pool necessarily gets a job nor an immediate one. So M1 could have told you that you were successful enough to make the pool, M2 COULD be telling you that you’re not successful enough at this time to be offered a job. Aka you’re in the pool and not their first choice, they’re hiring other people from the pool. So you need to clarify if they’re saying you DIDN’T make the pool or that you’re in the pool but not getting a job offer right now. And to be honest, there’s something odd about it all being by “call”. They have to send you notifications in writing of making a pool or not.
So let’s talk about the verbal job offer. That means nothing. Until you get a Letter of Offer, you have nothing. Lots of “offers” fall apart as the hiring manager said we’re going ahead, and then the budget was cut, or someone who was leaving suddenly isn’t. I’ve had this happen a lot of times with my own staff — they were all good to leave to go elsewhere, and then suddenly something happened, and they aren’t going for 4 more months or something. I recently was trying to fill a gap on my team, the person was supposed to leave a week ago, and I had someone in mind to come in, and now there’s a hiccup with the other process (nothing to do with me or my team) and I have to wait to bring someone in. In your case, manager 1 made verbal commitment, but that is no guarantee of anything. Manager 2 can rescind, you only can count on written offer.
So there is no job “denial” to appeal, that’s a non-starter. You CAN and should follwo up re: making the pool though. And I will toss you a small caution, for what it is worth. M1 is gone from the equation. The only person you have now is M2…while you may be tempted to be frustrated and go hard on the “offer” that was rescinded, if you want to be considered for future jobs from that pool, focus on the problem, not your frustration. It could be an admin error of some sort, or miscommunication (i.e., you may still be in the pool but not getting a job offer yet). I’ve seen a few people go postal on the HR person or manager, turns out it was simple to fix, but the person will never get hired after their handling of the situation. Again, sharing that tip for what it’s worth. Particularly as you have NO idea what happened behind the scenes. Maybe that other manager was completely incompetent and screwed everything up, now M2 is fixing their mess. Your goal in all interactions with HR is to be calm and professional, even if/when you need to be assertive.
Note too that I’m giving you general advice as an employee in the govt based on what I’ve experienced. You could talk to the relevant union that you would have been part of and/or consult a lawyer if you feel there are other issues at play…
Good luck,
Paul
I got a letter of congratulations and I did the security checks as requested. Here is part of the message: “Congratulations! I am pleased to inform you that you have been selected to join our ….Academy: …. We believe that you will make a valuable addition to our team. This offer is conditional upon the individual obtaining a security clearance. Now that you have been selected, we would like to initiate the HR paperwork, with the objective of starting the cohort during the first
week of May. If the target date changes, we will advise you as soon as we know.” What do you think? Thanks.
Hi Barry,
My reaction is generally “hmmm”. That is a pretty clear job offer. Although odd they say they are having you join the “academy”, I have no idea what that means unless it is RCMP? Kind of like going through police academy i.e., you can still “fail out”? Regardless, you should go back and confirm if they are now saying you are in a pool, and might be selected later, or they are now ruling you out.
There is an odd option, I’ll mention just for info. So, some depts if they are “weird” forms of government ministries, they do things like take the top 20 candidates. If so, it’s not exactly a pool. If this was the case here, and they were taking the top 20, and then they had a budget cut and are now taking the top 10 only, they should still explain how/why. You could write the head of HR, but your first stop is usually just the HR contact.
Good luck,
Paul
Hi Paul, I applied for a PM 5/6 position eight months ago, I was invited to a written examination four months ago and last month I was invited for a role-play/oral interview for a PM 5 position. I was asked to bring references, proof of education and photo ID. When I arrived, the HR assistant got me to complete the screening authorization form before the oral interview. She said it takes 5-7 weeks for a reliability status check to be completed. My oral interview was conducted by three people, two were HR staff who were on contracts (retired folks) hired specifically to help with recruitment and the third person was an Indigenous Manager. I was told the process was to create a pool. I walked away feeling very good about the interview and my references were called shortly after. There seemed to be a rush to get my references completed and they asked me to help facilitate because the contract end date of the HR staff was approaching. That was three weeks ago. I followed up with the HR assistant to find out more about my reliability status check and whether I would need to go in for fingerprinting. I didn’t get a response from her but the following day I got an email from the western region HR recruitment centre notifying me that I have been placed in a pool and that I may be appointed for a position at a future date. HR staff from ISC, Northern Affairs and ESDC were cc’d and I was given the name of a Director at ISC to contact should I have questions. Competencies that I was tested on were experience working with FNMI populations, demonstrating integrity and respect, strong oral and written communication, strong knowledge of FNMI issues and how they connect to broader Canadian society and action oriented/achieves results. Can you provide some insight into my chances? I felt strongly that I would be offered a position immediately after especially because a manager was part of the panel that interviewed me. I know I was expecting to be placed in a pool but I still feel disappointed. Appreciate your insight.
Hi Ana,
I can sort of understand your disappointment, but there’s a couple of nuances in there that might have misled you as to “urgency”.
For ANY interview, there is always a hiring manager. Sometimes 2-3. That’s because it’s their authority that is being used to create the pool. HR doesn’t really have that authority, because they don’t manage files outside of HR. Most interview processes like to include an HR person to provide some stability in the hiring process, make sure the manager knows what they’re doing, etc. And they have more info about how HR processes work on the admin side if there are other questions. But generally, the MANAGER runs the process and HR helps. It gets a little tricky in the scoring/grading though. The manager’s score automatically always counts, but it could be one of the HR people’s scores counts and the other was just for admin, or they both counted too, or neither. So the fact there was a manager there gives NO indication of hiring urgency. They’re always there. And unfortunately, they may not even be the one doing any hiring.
For example, there could be a need for 10 people across a branch. A manager stuck their hand up early on and said they need someone, so they took it on to run the process. But maybe they no longer need someone, maybe someone was going to leave and didn’t or they found someone another way. Or they don’t have the budget anymore. Either way, the manager running the pool USUALLY has need but nto always. It could be they’re running the pool for 10 other managers who were too busy. So that manager themselves may not be urgent. Or even if they are, they don’t have the $$ approval yet to offer anyone anything.
And on a similar note, you’re in a pool. That means nothing in terms of guarantee of a job. You made the pool. Could have been 10, 20 or 50 other people who made the pool too (unlikely for a PM-05 level, but assume at least 5). They could have called 3 other people already, just not you. If you go on the Jobs site and search for the process number, you’ll see if anyone else is being pulled from the pool. Note too that if someone else already worked for them as a -04, and they made the same pool, they might snag them first.
You also likely saw some urgency on references etc, but you already know the cause of that — the HR people were only hired for a specific amount of time. When their contract was up, even if the work wasn’t finished, they would have been done most likely and the files transferred to someone else to finish. So they definitely would have been motivated to finish before their time was up.
Making a pool is a big step but insufficient to guarantee a job. Now you have two options:
1. Wait for someone to call you from that pool
2. Market to anyone and everyone that you made a pool and are ready to start
Good luck,
Paul
I appreciate your response Paul and it certainly puts things into perspective for me. As an external candidate, what suggestions do you have for me in terms of networking to let managers know that I am in a pool. I don’t have access to the Jobs site you mentioned. My application for a PM-04 was retained for a similar position in another department. Should I email the contact and let them know that I am in the pool for a PM-5 position and mention the process #? Or the fact that they are different levels would mean that I shouldn’t bother.
Hi Ana,
So this is a more complicated Q than at first it appears, although the answer is generally the same — tell anyone and everyone.
A. If applying for new comp — Note that you are in a pool already and give the reference #, level, date, dept, and if itis fully assessed or partially;
B. If cold emailing someone in dept where you’re in a pool — tell them in the email that you are in a pool, and give the info;
C. Emailing an HR contact to follow up on something — tell them you’re in another pool;
D. ETc.
You can network in various online groups (FB is common), LinkedIn, etc.
Good luck!
Paul
Hi Paul, I guess your advice worked. Last night, I cold-emailed a few managers (4 in total) who work for the directorates I am interested under Indigenous Services Canada. I informed them I was in a fully qualified PM-5 pool and this morning I received an invitation from a manager from my second most desired department for a ‘best fit’ chat tomorrow morning. The caveat is that it’s a term position until March of next year with the possibility of extension. In my application I had mentioned a minimum of a one-year contract, but like many applicants who don’t want to see their efforts go to waste if they are never selected from a pool, I responded with a ‘yes’ for the call.
I have been in my current role for six months at a non-profit as a manager (permanent). I have great health benefits but pension matching won’t kick in until I’ve worked for a year and it won’t be nearly as good as a government pension plan which I believe kicks in after two years. The PM-5 step one will pay 10K more than what I make now. The workplace culture is decent and my plan was to stay here for a year (or until I find something more interesting because I’m comfortable) and then move on because I like my colleagues but the work isn’t engaging enough for me.
Some considerations before I get into questions.
1) I have significant medical costs due to a high cost drug ($2200/month) which are fully covered under my current health plan.
2) The contract will be for roughly seven months by the time all the paperwork goes through if I’m offered the position – that sounds really short to me. Why bother?
2) I’m an external candidate with not too much networking power other than cold-emailing managers.
3) I don’t have a ton to lose if my contract isn’t extended beyond six months but I’ll be annoyed that I left a decent workplace culture with great benefits for nothing to show for in the end. And I’m not sure what my options will be at that time.
4) half of my competencies are specialized to work with FNMI populations and that would further limit my options for other offers ( I think)
So my questions to you are:
1) what questions would you ask the manager in the ‘best fit’ call to get more information on job security?
2) should I take the leap not knowing whether the health benefits will cover my medical expenses?
3) are there any negative implications if my contract ends up being less than six months if paperwork is delayed (I read somewhere that less than/greater than six months matters in some way but I’m not sure.)
4) As an external candidate, what are my odds of getting a permanent position offer from another hiring manager, considering I’ve been in the pool for 3 weeks. The managers I emailed last night are from departments that ‘excite’ me (4 out of possibly 8 managers in those departments). I haven’t emailed the managers from departments that I’m less keen on working in, yet (probably another 10 or so).
5) the term position is in my second favorite department and I feel confident that I’ll enjoy it more than my current job but I have no idea what the workplace culture would be like.
6) budget (are they always cutting?), upcoming elections etc – can you provide some insight into whether these should play into my decision.
Apologies for the lengthy email and looking forward to receiving your response.
Thanks,
Ana
Hi Ana,
Congrats on the cold calls and the early response! I generally agree that conversations are always worth having. Maybe they offer you something and you want it, maybe you don’t; or they don’t offer you something now, but it prompts them about something else. I’ve had it happen that way myself…they talked to me about X, which wasn’t a good fit, but then they thought, “You know, over here, we were thinking of doing something about this but hadn’t got to it yet. Is that something that would interest you?” And two months later they call me and see if I’m still available.
I’ll take my best shot at your Qs, but some of them are really up to you aka what’s most important to you.
a. JOB SECURITY — Basically, about the only question is what are the chances of extension at the end or potentially being made permanent?
b. BENEFITS — That’s a tough one, not much I can help you with on that. Totally your call.
c. 6 months — Generally speaking, when joining public service as employee (not casual), there is a six month delay for a bunch of things to kick in. I don’t have the current list anymore. I think it is still the same that they don’t start doing pension stuff until the 6m mark (it didn’t when I started). I don’t know enough about current benefits or pensions to answer that now. Posting on Reddit will likely give you lots of info.
d. Odds — no one knows, there’s no way TO know. If they have needs and budget and they like your profile, they call; if they don’t, they don’t. It’s a strange metaphor, but it’s like dating. What are the odds someone you liked on an App will like you back? (shrug)
e. Culture — again, no one knows until you get there. You could ask on Reddit to see if anyone in the group works in that department or near where that job would be and can tell you what it’s like. You could also ask the manager, if/when you have an offer, if someone in the team could tell you a bit about the culture (in effect, asking them for a reference, without making it that hard-edged).
f. Budget, cuts, elections — Current rankings in the polls suggest that Conservatives > Liberals > NDP. Roughly speaking. Conservatives don’t like big govt, NDP does, Liberals are in the middle. So if Conservatives get in, there will likely be a large program review to cut staff. Even if it’s Liberals, there will be some cuts. The real question though is if you are going to work in an area that everyone thinks is important or if it’s something that only one group thinks is important or it’s something that is relatively irrelevant as it is more behind-the-scenes (like HR or computers). I would be unlikely right now to want to move to the Carbon Tax area of environment files if I thought the Conservatives would be elected. If I thought NDP would be elected, I probably wouldn’t aim for an area that provides supports to big business. There’s really no way to know. Put bluntly, govt has got too big during the pandemic, and it’s not sustainable. A review is coming of SOME sort. How big depends on the election.
Not sure that helps much, and I can be completely wrong about anything after (a). Good luck…
Paul
6) budget (are they always cutting?), upcoming elections etc – can you provide some insight into whether these should play into my decision.
Hi Paul, I’m going to a new LES interview, and besides the usual abilities and competencies, they listed:
– Demonstrated expertise with social media, such as LinkedIn and Twitter.
– Proficiency in MS-office.
I couldn’t find any references on questions about social media and MS Office. Do you have any guidance on what kind of questions they will be asking for this? Thanks again!
Hi Ram,
I don’t have any insights into the social media side…for Twitter/X, I assume they would want to know about following, @s, hashtags, video, images, etc. Nothing leaps out at me, but I’m not a big social media expert.
Similarly for MS office, I presume they’ll expect you to know Word, Excel, Outlook and Powerpoint. For another person applying for something with Excel, I suggested “basic” to “advanced functions as a way of thinking of how to prepare, for example:
Level 1: Usage
– Formatting (fonts, alignment, etc.)
– Crunching (formulas, sums, etc.)
– Exporting (PDF, printing)
Level 2: Manipulation
– Sorting
– Formatting as a table
– Basic charts or graphics
Level 3: Medium tools
– Conditional formatting, styles
– Filters
Level 4: Advanced tools
– Pivot tables
You could figure out a similar set of headings and functions for the other products too…
Good luck,
Paul
Hi Paul, I am taking a written exam in a few days for an AS-01 position regarding the ability to research, interpret, and apply organizational directives and policies can you advise what kind of questions they will be asking for this? Thank you!
Hi Sarah, someone else must be in same process, had same headings (Meryem below), but they only asked about Excel. So, looking at the guide, you’ll see that you can look at how to do any of those three things in general (research something, what are you main headings? probably identify the issue, consider options, choose something, etc.).
Usually, the test is rather linear. Assuming they didn’t ask for knowledge of specific directives and policies in the knowledge section already (i.e., like knowing the travel rules or something), then they’ll likely give you a topic and ask you to figure something out based on the info they give you. For example, “here’s a table of information about travel rates, and 3 people who are planning to travel, which part applies to each of them?”. It might be about travel, procurement, HR, but likely something that has info you can look up, and apply to a specific situation.
If on the othere hand it said specifically one type of info in the knowledge section (perhaps about HR or finance etc.), then you’ll need to have a bit more knowledge of that area; otherwise, it will/should be generic enough. One test I know had people look up info about a baseball league.
Paul