Before you start reading about how to prepare for individual parts of a competition, it is good to understand the whole process. I know what you’re thinking ā what’s to understand? Somebody has a job, I need a job, let’s go! Not so fast…
The process has a lot of steps, some of which involve you and most of which don’t. Plus, it is very different from the private-sector advice you will find on most websites. Need a quick example? How about cover letters ā lots of websites will tell you to keep them to a single page, which if you do for a government job, you’ll pretty much ensure that you get screened OUT (you’ll see why later).
So, the better you understand the whole process from beginning to end, the better chance you will have of succeeding. Don’t worry, this is just an introduction, most of the applied learning comes later, stage by stage.
Government competitions are governed by legislation
The biggest difference between the private-sector and the public sector is that most government competitions at any level are governed by legislation. This is true for the Canadian federal government, and the legislation is broad enough to encompass a whole host of human resources issues in the huge entity known as the Government of Canada. It also goes into detailed guidance on process, well beyond what a private-sector company has to do to comply with labour law legislation.
While many HR people can debate eloquently about the subtle differences between government staffing and private-sector staffing, there is one singular difference that changes the nature of the process from beginning to end:
While both the private-sector and the public sector argue that hiring is always based on merit, the Canadian government has legislation that defines precisely what merit means for all competitions. Which means a manager must be able to document and substantiate HOW that person demonstrates merit and WHY they are the right person.
Put differently, it is not enough to find the right someone to do the job (fact), but to be able to document the assessment criteria beforehand and to prove the person meets it (fact + perception). After all, that person is going to be paid by the taxpayer. And Parliamentarians, on behalf of taxpayers, want to know that merit is being demonstrated for all hiring.
Considering what merit means in layman’s terms
Before going further, stop and think about the merit requirement from a personal perspective. Suppose you went to university or college. You probably thought hard about which one to apply to, which area to study. How would you demonstrate to someone that you picked the “best” or ārightā program for you? Or suppose you bought a house. Lots of variables, lots of options to consider. How would you demonstrate to someone that it was the āone right houseā?
The short answer is that in both circumstances you probably can’t. Not definitively, at least.
Instead, you could demonstrate that you:
- considered a broad range of options;
- identified a few factors that were important to you; and,
- impartially ranked a few universities or colleges or houses based on those factors.
But, in the end, you are not really demonstrating the āone right choiceā so much as that you had a reasonable, logical approach to your decision. Instead of showing the right decision, you show that your āprocessā was sound and thus led to a ārightā decision. This is basically how government processes prove merit too.
Merit prior to 2003
Up until 2003, the āproofā process was one of the biggest problems with government hiring. When the manager reached the end of a competition, there were numerous appeals where they had to demonstrate the ārightā decision, or in some cases the āperfectā decision, and they couldn’t have anyone start the work until all the appeals were cleared. Managers felt constrained, employees felt it was too bureaucratic, and overall everything took forever. Let’s walk through a general example of how this worked prior to 2003, and then a specific example to make it more concrete (don’t fuss too much about the terminology at this point, I’ll come back to it later).
Managers ran competitions for positions. They set up a list of criteria, they tested everyone on those criteria, and when it was done, the scores were totaled up and a global score was assigned to each candidate. Then, each candidate was placed on an eligibility list in order of their global score (called a reverse order of merit, but that’s not usually important anymore). A cut-off score, established earlier, was used to determine who made the list and who didn’t ā if you were above the cutoff score, you made it; if you were below the cutoff, you didn’t. Sometimes there were five people on a list, or a hundred, and other times, just one. This was called a ācompetitionā or a ācompetitive processā to create an eligibility list. Once the list was established, and all appeals had been heard / addressed, a manager could hire off the list. But s/he had to do it in order ā the person who ranked first got the first offer, the second person got the second offer, etc.
That’s a pretty straightforward process, and is familiar to most people as it looks a lot like academic testing. If you get the most right answers, you get the highest mark. And get the job. A typical process of testing āmeritā.
Now suppose you are a manager needing to hire a computer support person and you test just three things ā software knowledge, hardware knowledge and interpersonal skills:
- Person A gets 10/10 on software and 8/10 on hardware, but their interpersonal skills are terrible, and they only get a 5/10 on the last one. Overall score is 23/30.
- Meanwhile, Person B isn’t as strong on software (2/10), but aces hardware (10/10), and interpersonal (10/10). End result is 22/30.
So Person A beats Person B by one mark, and gets the job. Except the manager is worried ā customer service is a key part of the job, as is hardware. So Person B who is great with people, and even better at hardware, might be a better fit for the team than someone whose strength is mainly software. Under the old system, the manager had no choice ā whoever came first on the scoring was the one who got the offer.
Even if you ignore the above example, we all know people who are great at certain skills or areas but lousy at taking tests. Equally, we all know people who are great at taking tests, but you wouldn’t want to work with them on a daily basis. Having global scores doesn’t ensure that the person who gets the best score on a series of tests is necessarily the best person for doing the work or for fitting into an existing team.
As a result, under the old system, many managers were frustrated ā they would have someone who would rank first on a competition, but be a potentially disastrous fit. Meanwhile, sitting at number 2 on the list was a stellar candidate who missed by one or two marks. In the above example, it was one or two marks out of 30, but a competition might have tested multiple areas with larger scores. For example, on one competition under this system, I was tested on 10 or 12 areas, and beat the second-place candidate by two marks out of five hundred. I got the job. Was there really any difference between her and I on the results, if I beat her by two marks out of five hundred? She could have easily done the job too, but the manager didn’t get to choose which of us was the ābetter fitā, because I had a higher score. The second-place candidate was offered a different job, so she still received an offer, but she would rather have had a chance at my position (she did regularly remind me that I got the better job because I beat her by only TWO MARKS…I guess she forgave me, she did one of the readings at my wedding).
Yet, as with the above example, a manager had no flexibility once the scores were tallied. Ideally, if the manager was planning properly, they would have weighted factors differently. So, in the computer support person example above, they would have assigned 50 marks to interpersonal skills, 30 marks to hardware knowledge, and only 10 marks for the software side. Which, for the above scores would have given person A 25+10+24 = 59/90 and Person B 50+30+2=82/90.
But often, during appeals, those differential weightings were hard to justify ā why is the interpersonal ā5xā the software weight? Why not only ā2xā? Or equal? Equal weightings are always easy to justify, and many managers defaulted to it. In fact, many HR people advised them to do so because it was easy to manage and easy to defend.
There are numerous academic articles about how bad HR processes were in the government at that time, as well as a couple of official government reports. All of them came to the same conclusion ā too bureaucratic, too slow, too inflexible, too “score-driven”.
Merit after 2003
The Canadian government listened to the complaints and passed new legislation to govern human resources management. Called the Public Service Modernization Act (PSMA), it was passed in 2003 and came into effect throughout 2003, 2004 and 2005. Under the PSMA, there are four new or amended acts that encompass the web of rules pertaining to human resources:
- The Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), which covers employment, staffing, and political activities;
- The Financial Administration Act (FAA), which covers accountability;
- The Canada School of Public Service Act (CSPSA), which covers development and learning; and,
- The Public Service Labour Relations Act, which covers collective bargaining, disputes and labour relations.
The first two are the main ones because they affect how competitions are created and who can compete in them. They also changed the way merit would be assessed. According to the PSEA, an appointment is deemed to be based on merit when:
- The Public Service Commission (PSC) is satisfied the appointee meets all essential qualifications including language proficiency; and,
- The Manager also takes into account, potentially, any extra qualifications that might be helpful (but not essential) or operational requirements or organizational needs.
In other words, if the resulting appointee meets all the qualifications, they can be appointed WITHOUT having to rank first in all the essential elements, and the manager may consider some additional skills, needs, requirements that a candidate might meet (like other related experiences, educational training, etc.).
As a result of this change in definition of merit, under the new system (i.e. after 2003), ācompetitionsā have been replaced by āselection processesā and āeligibility listsā have been replaced by āpoolsā. The difference is twofold:
- Each of the elements being tested must be passed individually. If you are strong in one area, but weak in another, you can’t compensate through a global score ā each element is marked separately and a cutoff score assigned for each. Using the computer support person example from above, a manager might set the cutoff for āinterpersonal skillsā as a minimum of ā6/10ā, in which case Person A wouldn’t have passed even though their global score was the highest. Fail one element, and you are āoutā ā because you failed to demonstrate you are qualified for all of the elements. Oddly enough, this process actually means all elements are ranked equally (since you have to pass every element), but managers don’t have to choose whoever ranks “first” in raw score at the end.
- When the process is over, instead of a ranked list of successful candidates, you have a āgroupā of people who are all considered āequally qualifiedā. In other words, they all have demonstrated that they meet the essential elements of each of the criteria being tested. Or, in even shorter words, they can do the job. They have the skills. But since they are all āqualifiedā, a manager can now choose whichever one of them is the ābest fitā for the existing team. Suppose, for example, that you were the computer support manager mentioned above and you had four people already on your team with one vacancy. Perhaps, too, the four people are all really strong with software, but not as experienced in hardware trouble-shooting. After the pool is done, a manager can now look at the āpoolā of candidates and may want to choose one that is strong in hardware to complement his existing team.
As a result, you now have āselection processesā to determine the qualified person(s), and ābest fitā to choose which of the qualified people will meet your current needs the best. The goals of this change in legislation were increased flexibility for the manager, a more streamlined process for appeals (due to some other changes discussed later), and a shorter overall timeframe for the processes. While there is some evidence of the first two, timeframes have not shrunk significantly since before 2003. An average process still lasts approximately six months from job posting to the person starting the job, and there is wide variation in the range (from three months to two years).
** Note that while the formal HR system now refers to āselection processesā, the layman term of ācompetitionā is still used by most employees. As such, I will still use the term competition throughout the book for simplicity’s sake. However, for all current processes, it is technically a āselection processā.
The four legislative acts come into play more when we get to specific areas of the HR process, and I’ll address them where they are relevant in future chapters rather than going into any additional depth here.
Understanding The Selection Process / Competition
In a full selection process, there are eight phases and the candidate will likely only participate in two of them. While many of them are āshortā, and some of them may even be inapplicable in a situation, a variation on them happens in most competitions. Here is the full list:
- Managers identify a āneedā
- Managers formally advertise their needs
- Applicants apply and are screened in / out
- Candidates are tested for essential (and potentially asset) qualifications
- Managers select best fit candidate
- Managers formally state intention to hire specific applicant(s)
- Managers address appeals
- Managers hire the successful candidate
Let’s look at those steps in a bit more detail and see why you might care about all eight phases, even though it looks like you only participate in two of them.
Phase 1: Managers identify a āneedā
Often, the need has been identified because someone has left the division and they want to replace them; other times, the unit’s workload has been growing and they need another body; and still other times, they have a growing or new need for a specialized skill that they don’t already have on the team. But managers have choices in how they meet their needs:
- WORKLOAD: They could eliminate less āpressingā files;
- PRIORITIES: They could postpone this work until someone else can do it;
- TEMPORARY HELP: They can use temporary help to cover off on a short-term basis;
- CONTRACTS: They can engage professional contractors on a short- to medium-term basis to provide specific deliverables; or,
- COMPETITION: They can hire someone on an assignment (borrowing someone), determinate (specified period) or indeterminate (permanent) basis.
If it is a new position, and they are filling it through competition, the manager has to do a full job description and a list of duties to get a position āclassifiedā. The classification process establishes two things ā first, the stream of work (i.e. a Project Management Officer – PM or an Information Officer – IS or a Policy Analyst – EC) and the level of work (01, 02, 03, etc.). The stream generally matches what type of work you will be doing and affects which union you will join, while the level determines the size of your paycheque.
Classification is relatively easy if the manager is just replacing someone who left, as the position and its classification already exist; if not, and it is a ānew positionā, classification can take anywhere from 3 days to 24 months. (Note: That is not a joke ā classification has to be done by the HR branch, as it must be consistently applied across government to ensure pay equity. Unfortunately, there is a significant government-wide shortage of classification experts. As such, some departments are faced with really long waits.) Given that possible delay, many managers will instead try to find existing positions that are sitting empty, and āre-purposeā them for a competition (i.e. borrow a Project Manager or Analyst position from another work unit that is sitting empty). Alternatively, some may use positions that exist but with the wrong classification (i.e. some managers, preferring expediency over form, have hired people into PM boxes knowing that they were going to move towards more EC work over time ā and reclassified them afterwards). This is not a recommended practice for managers, and can be painful for the candidates too (by having them apply for positions that do not match their career goals, for example).
One ātrickā that has sped up classification has been the development of āgenericā job descriptions. For example, at ESDC, there are generic job descriptions for what a Policy Analyst, Level 4 (EC-04) generally does. On the positive side, a manager can create a new position, use the EC-04 generic job description, and classification is near-instantaneous. On the negative side, the job description is generic and may give little to no information to candidates about what they would actually be doing in that position once hired (Social policy? Labour market policy? Learning policy?).
There will also usually be some form of internal approval process whereby a manager will talk to their boss, and get approval (APPROVAL #1) to go ahead with staffing a position. This may be part of an overall HR planning process, or it could be a one-off approval. Either way, the manager will frequently draft a general list of duties that the new position would handle as part of explaining to the boss why the staff is required.
Why do you care about this āneedsā phase if you are an applicant?
Because if the manager is replacing someone who left, they may be looking for someone very similar to the person who left (i.e. a narrow-minded approach to staffing); however, if the manager is looking to cover new or expanding work, the manager may be more flexible on the profile of the successful candidate (i.e. open-minded). Knowing which is the case could tell you how much flexibility you have in how you tailor your application, resume and interview approach.
Because it is good to know that there are other options for hiring besides a competition as it opens up other ways to work for government. Some people have very enjoyable careers doing āgovernment workā without ever actually being a government employee i.e. being contractors/consultants/temps.
Because candidates can and do ask for a copy of the ājob descriptionā that the manager had to develop during this stage of the process, but don’t be too surprised if it doesn’t completely specifyĀ exactlyĀ what the job looks like on a day-to-day basis (it’s extra information though, something most won’t ask about). The SMART candidate will also ask if there is a list of duties available too ā HR and/or the manager may not share it, but sometimes they will. And you can then tailor your answers better in the interview towards the REAL job, not the generic job description! The closer you come to showing you can do the actual duties, the better off you are as a candidate.
Because classifications tend to reflect the type of work you do and it is not always easy to move between classifications, particularly outside of the National Capital Region. Let’s suppose, for example, you want to be a policy analyst. While lots of private sector people will tell you to take any job to āget your foot in the doorā, difficulty switching between job classifications means you may be better off sometimes waiting to get into the stream you want rather than risk getting stuck in another stream altogether.
Phase 2: Managers formally advertise their needs
The Manager starts by writing up a Statement of Merit Criteria (SOMC). This is what most people think of as the ājob descriptionā, as it is what is posted online to advertise the job. However, the SoMC (which most HR people will pronounce as SAHM-SEE) is not the job description but rather the list of skills / competencies on which the manager will test you.
Once the SOMC is written, the Manager submits it to HR to get approval (APPROVAL #2) to post the advertisement. Managers are not HR experts, nor am I. The true experts are the HR people who will review the SOMC and job description to ensure that everything is clear, and, to put it bluntly, to make sure the manager has valid, testable criteria that make sense for the job. No sense in posting analyst criteria for a project manager position. They also serve as gatekeepers to the Public Service Commission website for posting jobs.
Once HR approves, theyāll send the SoMC to the PSC for posting. Most departments don’t do the processing of applications themselves. Nor do they handle āadvertisingā it (except for large scale recruitments like post-secondary recruitments, for example). Instead, they use the Public Service Commission to administer the advertising process and receipt of advertisements.
When the PSC gets the SoMC, they look at the classification and level, and look in their internal database to identify āpriority candidatesā. In general terms, these are people who were laid off earlier by the government, or who relocated because their spouse moved, etc. The unions have negotiated with the federal government to give these former employees priority when positions become available at a similar group and level. So, if you post a PM-03 (project manager, level 03) job, the PSC will check to see if there are any PM-03s in your geographical area who are on a priority list for future PM-03 jobs. The list is a little more dynamic than that, but you get the general approach. The PSC can give managers a list of priorities at two different periods of time ā now, when the manager is first asking to post, or later, when the competition is done and the manager is looking to staff someone. Managers have to assess the priority candidates to see if a competition has to be run at all.
There is one last step to all of this, and some HR professionals will quibble if it is a step at all. The PSC will post the notice. HR wants to quibble, as each department has access to the PSC websites and can āpostā the notices themselves. However, before the notices go āliveā, PSC personnel do review the post and approve it going on their site. As such, it is easier to think of it as the PSC posting the notice.
Why do you care about this āadvertisingā phase if you are an applicant?
Because knowing this is the list of testable items makes you focus on what is important and avoid wasting time on things that won’t be tested.
Because it is one of the first big āchecks and balancesā to ensure that the manager is going to run a fair and transparent process that makes sense.
Because this helps you immensely in knowing where to look for jobs! Rather than having to look at every department separately to see if they have jobs available, you can (generally) do one-stop shopping at the PSC websites (one for internal competitions, one for external competitions). It also adds a high degree of consistency across application processes and streamlines the application process. It also presents some challenges, but those will be discussed later. In addition, the notice gives you two contact information points per competition (a general enquiries person and an HR contact). This can be enormously helpful when following up on an element in a poster, or even just tracking the progress of the process. NOTE: These are NOT people you want to annoy with a multitude of questions, nor call them every day. They are there to help when you have a real problem, not hold your hand…that’s what this guide is for!
Because managers have to āassessā priority candidates against the SoMC to see if they have the requisite experience. If the candidates do, the selection process may stop here ā the manager will offer them the job, and if they accept, you may never even see the notice. However, the lists are pretty broad and often the priority candidates aren’t an exact match to what the manager was looking for; in these cases, the manager may be open-minded and look to hire one of them anyway, or proceed with the original notice. This is not a simple ācheckboxā to be ticked ā the manager MUST assess each interested referral. Only when the manager has demonstrated they have assessed the priority candidates will the PSC give a clearance number to proceed with posting the notice.
Phase 3: Applicants apply and are screened in / out
Finally, the masses of interested people send in their cover letters and resumes!
Then the PSC and/or HR screens applicants for eligibility. The PSC will do a quick computer-based check of your information that you enter to make sure you’re eligible (some positions are restricted to internal candidates, or by geography, or to a single department, etc.) and HR often does an additional check on certain elements.
Once the HR gurus have done the basic tests, the manager (or a consultant) will screen applications for experience and education. This is the first big hurdle for you as an applicant. The relevant legislation that controls the process for all competitions / selection processes requires that YOU prove you meet the requirements. Administratively, this means you will show in your cover letter, with the resume as backup evidence, how you meet each of the experience and education requirements. It is NOT sufficient for you just to say you meet that element, you have to show how.
If a manager has 100 applicants for a position, it may be that they screen out a large number of them depending on how restrictive or open they are with the criteria. For those applicants who are screened out, they have the ārightā to ask for an informal discussion. While I will discuss this in more detail later under ārights of appealā, technically this isn’t an appeal. It’s a chance for a manager and an applicant to correct an administrative error. Suppose, for example, that the manager reads your cover letter, determines you didn’t explain how you met criteria 2, and screens you out. However, you request an informal and it is discovered that for some reason there was a second page to your cover letter that was missing from the printout. The manager can say, āoopsā, reconsider your application and perhaps screen you in. This is NOT a way for you to say, āhere’s more info I didn’t give you previouslyā ā you can’t add anything to your cover letter or resume that wasn’t in your application. However, other times, it may be that the manager misunderstood part of your cover letter for differences in terminology and therefore screened you out. This is rare, as is missed information, but it does occasionally happen. To avoid the candidate appealing the competition later, this is a chance to quickly fix a possible simple error, and proceed with the rest of the competition.
Why do you care about this āapplication and screeningā phase if you are an applicant?
Because this is where you get to DO something ā you know, apply!
Because if you screw up your application and put in the wrong information, the HR people will screen you out, and the hiring manager will never even see your resume. Or, if you’re not eligible, don’t try to āfakeā your way past it ā all this info is verified, and once your application is found to be invalid, you’re out. All you’ll do is waste your time and theirs.
Because if you are screened out, an informal can be a great way to get feedback on why! If you had limited budget experience, for example, and that was one of the requirements for a position, but you applied anyway (I’ll explain later why you might do that), then you know why you were screened out. However, if you did financial forecasting for a year, financial administration for 3 years, etc., and you were still screened out, it’s worth it to ask what they were looking for from candidates. Perhaps they’ll tell you the minimum was five years; or they may tell you that it was too āadministrativeā processing work and they were looking for more āstrategic managementā budgeting. Either way, you know either how to word it next time OR what experience you need to try and get in order to be screened in for these types of jobs in the future.
Phase 4: Candidates are tested for essential (and potentially asset) qualifications
Now that the real process is underway for you as an applicant, managers will now assess the candidates knowledge, abilities, and personal suitabilities. This is the phase where you will be tested on every element in the SOMC. If it said you had to have knowledge of the current trends and issues in reproductive health, they will ask you about the current trends and issues in reproductive health. The manager will use a variety of tools (discussed later) to assess knowledge, abilities and personal suitabilities. And if you fail an element, you’re screened out (and usually don’t proceed any further in the process). At that point, the manager will offer informal consultations to screened out candidates to explain where they went wrong. It is POSSIBLE (but not probable) that the scoring was done wrong, and you did pass an element. So, like with the application, an informal could correct an administrative error and allow you to reinsert yourself in the process. Officially, that is why the āinformalsā exist at these stages, but generally they are used for providing feedback (this will also be discussed in more detail in “rights of appeal”).
In addition to the knowledge / ability / personal suitability tests done by the manager, there will also be assessmentsĀ by HR or the PSC of any special eligibility requirements like language proficiency. For most departments, the PSC is the organization responsible for assessing your ability in your second language. Each position will have a language profile requirement attached to it (specified in the original poster). Near the end of the process, you will be given an opportunity to be tested at the PSC to see if you meet the required levels (your results are good for five years, so if you already have a profile that meets the requirements on file, you won’t be retested; if you have no profile, or if your current profile is less than the requirements, you will be tested).
Why do you care about this ātestingā phase if you are an applicant?
Because if it is in the SoMC, they WILL ask you or your references about it. Somewhere, sometime, somehow. Guaranteed. And here’s the fun part ā if it’s NOT in the SoMC, they won’t test you on it. They can’t ā they have to test what is in the SoMC and ONLY what is in the SoMC. And, if you screw up somewhere, the informal is a great way to find out what you did wrong (spoke too fast, not enough content, drooled on the carpet, missed a question, too much content / not enough synthesis of your content, etc.).
Because you can’t fake your way past any element. If you have no chance of making it i.e. you have little to no french but the requirement is full fluency (CCC), you’re going to go through a lot of work likely for nothing, only to be excluded at the end. There are some SMALL exceptions to this situation, and it will be discussed later, but caveat candidatus ā let the candidate beware!
Phase 5: Managers select best fit candidate
Once all the testing is done, the manager selects the ābest fitā candidate. This doesn’t mean that the candidate with the best smile or the best scores is the one chosen. Once all the āsuccessfulā candidates (i.e. all those who pass every element) are considered together, the manager will decide which one is the best fit for the job, work unit, team dynamics, etc. After all, you’re all deemed “qualified” at this point and thus “merit” is proven.
After choosing one, the manager may then get approval from their boss (Approval #3) to select the candidate. Once the manager has chosen someone, they will likely show your resume to their boss to say āthis is the person I intend to hire.ā They’ll explain how you did in the process, etc, but often they’ll circulate the resume as an intro to their boss. Some managers won’t bother with this step if it is a relatively junior position, but if you are applying for more senior positions that will regularly deal with senior people, the managers will generally show their boss something before formally selecting you. This is also an opportunity for the manager to confirm with the boss that the management situation is still the same as when they started, and to avoid suddenly being caught by surprise if the boss says, āOops, our budget was reduced and we no longer have the money to hire someone.ā
The manager also has to get approval (again) from the PSC to select the candidate (including assessing priority referrals, if necessary; Approval #4). Way back when the posting notice first went to the PSC, managers had to āclear prioritiesā (if any) before proceeding. Now that the manager is at the end of the process, they may have to clear priorities (again, or for the first time). Generally these are ānewā candidates who were added to the priority list after the initial request, but not always.
Why do you care about this ābest fitā phase if you are an applicant?
Because it means that you can come first on just about every element, and not āwinā the job. Why? The manager may be looking for someone who is a strong extrovert to balance out an introverted team, plus a strong oral communicator to give presentations, and someone with superior language skills. Or maybe she was also looking for judgement, interpersonal skills, written communication, initiative, etc., where you excelled, but another candidate has a strong background in making presentations in French as part of outreach programs and is an strong extrovert (as reflected in their communication ability and interpersonal skills). As such, the manager may select the one that ābest fitsā the job and team. It may be you, it may not be. But you need to know this before you start ā it means you are NOT trying to convince the manager that you are the best candidate, but rather the best candidate for a specific job. The more you can find out about the team and the job, the better placed you are to show how you would fit in.
Because while your first intro to the hiring manager was your cover letter ā it’s what they used to screen you in or out ā the first intro to their boss is likely to be your resume. Both have to be ready for prime time ā no skimping on one or the other in your application process.
Because if someone is appointed as a priority candidate, you have almost no right of appeal. They are not considered āpartā of the process, and departments may ācancelā the competition and appoint the person from the priority list. It’s as if the competition never happened, because the priority candidates are āoutsideā the process. Put another way, the course of true love never runs smooth, and neither does HR. Things change, and it may suck to be āleading the packā only to have a priority candidate seem to jump the queue. Foreign Affairs staff had a saying ā āDon’t assume you have the job until you have been doing it for a week, and maybe not even then!ā. Good advice to remember ā it’s not over until you’re appointed, no matter how well things seem to be going.
Phase 6: Managers formally state intention to hire specific applicant(s)
Okay, the manager has selected someone. And they post a ānotice of considerationā that says, āThis is the person we intend to hire.ā Once a week has passed (the duration is usually a week), a ānotice of appointmentā is posted ā this is the formal notice that not only was the person āconsideredā, they are now being appointed to the position.
If you were the person, the hiring department will issue you a āletter of offerā that you and your boss have to sign, and you’re generally āgood to goā. However, note that the appeals process mentioned earlier is not instantaneous. While the department will move ahead to appoint you and have you start, it is theoretically possible that an appeal could be launched, and if successful, your appointment revoked. This rarely happens, and usually would mean that the hiring manager really screwed something up in the process.
Why do you care about this ānoticeā phase if you are an applicant?
Because of two reasons ā if you aren’t the one chosen, this may be the first time you find out the process has ended and you aren’t the āwinningā candidate. YouĀ shouldĀ get a notice from HR earlier to say you were found qualified, but at that point, communication from the department may stop, leaving you scratching your head and wondering, āNow what?ā. This tells you that for you, the answer is potentially ānothing.ā
Because these notices formalize the appeal process, if you are considering appealing. Alternatively, it is also the mechanism for formally announcing that you are the winning candidate if you are the one being selected
Because the most important part for you as the winning candidate is not the appeals process, but the letter of offer. While this includes a whole host of language about values and ethics, etc., it also includes more immediate information for you ā your title in the new position, which division you are assigned to (if it wasn’t clear previously, this could be exciting to learn), what your classification will be (this shouldn’t be a surprise, since you applied for a specific job), and what your level will be (which also equates to a specific pay scale!).
Phase 7: Managers address appeals
Most appeals don’t proceed very far in the formal appeal process for one of two reasons. First, if the appellant’s reasons are sound, and it appears the hiring manager was in error, the department will likely correct the problem themselves long before it gets to a tribunal stage. This may involve screening the appellant into the competition and assessing them from the stage where they were screened out, or giving them an opportunity to try a test that they missed for valid enough reasons to grant an extension.
Second, if the appellant is completely out to lunch, the union will advise them that they have no valid grounds to pursue, and possibly withdraw legal support. The person may complain, but they’ll likely let the matter drop once they get into a formal situation of filing briefs for a tribunal, responding to filings by the Department, etc. Some people view appeals as a waste of time ā like buses, there will be another competition coming along any minute ā and suggest that you just move on. However, sometimes there are grey areas where the appellant and the department do not agree on what was the right approach to take in a given situation (such as a person being tested for language early on in the process, rather than at the end, and getting screened out). In these rare cases, the appeal may go all the way to a tribunal who will decide first if the scope of the complaint is a valid grounds for complaining, and second if the appellant’s complaints prove the grounds of the complaint.
Why do you care about this āappealā phase if you are an applicant?
Because a whole separate volume could address why candidates should care about tribunal decisions, but at this point, note that tribunal decisions help constrain what is appropriate in future competitions and what is not. Knowing what to expect, and what is āout of boundsā, will help you focus on what really matters.
Becaise it is also the way of protecting your rights. Managers are not free to do whatever they want, there are rules in place that have to be followed. So an appeal may overturn a bad process. However, note that a tribunal does not have the power to say “Jane was right, John shouldn’t have gotten the job, the process was flawed, give it to Jane”. Their only power is to revoke John’s appointment. So even if you win, you may not get anything out of it beyond the satisfaction that the process gets tossed.
Phase 8: Managers hire the successful candidate
This may seem like an almost anti-climactic step as you already received your letter of offer at this point. But going back to the beginning, this chapter isn’t about understanding the competition part, it is about understanding the entire HR process from beginning to end. Which includes you actually starting the job, being assigned a set of duties, developing a performance agreement, planning some training, meeting your coworkers, etc.
Why do you care about this āappealā phase if you are an applicant?
Because if you remember those two chapters about knowing yourself and knowing government, this is the stage that will tell you if you actually will enjoy the new job.
Now, having read all the above, you know the eight main phases of a competition for a manager. Let’s drill down on the parts that you do as a candidate.
Hi Paul,
Thank you so much for this guide, I have been using it as my bible for government applications!
I recently failed on the interview stage of one of the competitions I was in. I am wondering about how I would go about receiving feedback on how I scored on the process?
Thanks!
Fred
Hi Fred,
Sorry for the delay, I’ve been off on holidays and AFK for 2 weeks. Sorry / not sorry hehehe
The options for feedback depend heavily on if you are outside the public service or inside. If you are outside, you can ask for feedback but it is completely hit or miss whether they provide it or not (they’re not required to). If you are inside the PS, they are required to give you feedback. Note however they may or may not tell you your score/rank…most managers WILL, because it is easier to explain with a score i.e., “Well you got 4/10 on this one, you were missing this and this and this” rather than “Well, you could have said this and this or this”. The second isn’t very “precise” and can leave the person feeling more confused — did I miss it by a LOT or a LITTLE?
An additional thought though is that in the notification you received, it should have included two things. First, if there was some sort of feedback mechanism, it should have mentioned it. Sometimes they forget, or maybe there wasn’t one, but check to see what it says. Nothing to stop you from asking if it didn’t offer. Second, they should have told you what you missed out i.e., which merit criteria you missed. For example, if they were marking A, B, C, and D, and you failed C, then it will say “You failed to demonstrate C. Initiative” in the email. If it lists MULTIPLE things you missed, it may not be worth doing feedback as it means you really missed the mark. Some people suggest REALLY going when that happens, but I find it usually obvious — most people know they either had no idea what they were doing in the interview and were confused OR the questions (and the position) were above their level. If you miss one thing, feedback is useful; if you miss a lot, you probably already know why.
Good luck!
Paul
Hi Paul,
You helped me once before by answering a question that allowed me prep for an interview, and I have scoured your guide and comments section at each stage of the various processes I’m participating in. I am so grateful for the guidance and insight you offer here.
I have two questions for you about processes I’m in:
First, the interview I mentioned above resulted in my being added to a partially assessed pool (with no immediate hiring), and the pool notification email said that all assessment steps had been done “except attention to detail and the language proficiency.” They had previously asked for–but never contacted–my references, but the language of the pool notification suggests the reference check has been done (since they don’t mention it as an outstanding requirement). Now, this week, I have been added to a second partially qualified pool in a different department, and again references were not contacted but there is also no mention of references in the “steps remaining” indicated in the pool notification email. So my question is, what’s up with this? How can they add me to a partially qualified pool without contacting my references first or at least indicating that this step hasn’t yet been taken? Isn’t that step necessary?
My second question is about the second pool I’m now in. The competition was for 03/04 levels. The pool notification email tells me that I’ve been added to the partially assessed pool for the 04 level only. Should I read into this at all? Like, can I interpret this to mean that I am more likely to get an offer since I’ve been partially-pooled only for the higher level (and they must therefore find me a competent candidate)? Or is that reading too much into it?
Thank you again, Paul! You may be on holidays and not see this–I hope you are! š
Janet
Hi Janet,
Glad you were helped earlier and still find it useful! š
Sooooo, we often skip over some “philosophy of HR” when we talk about processes and things, and your question puts back a slight half-step to better explain it, in my view. In short, a process says their Statement of Merit Criteria includes:
1. Eligibility
2. Experience
3. Knowledge
4. Abilities
5. Personal Suitability
6. Other related qualifications (like language, security clearance, willingness to travel, work overtime, etc.)
The requirement is that they access all 6 things. How they do it is up to them. Sooooo, in your example, they have NOT tested attention to detail nor language proficiency. Let’s say that there was only 1 element for each of the above 6 headings, and “attention to detail” was the only ability for #4 and language the only element for #6. It would mean in everything they have done to this point, they have assessed 1,2,3 and 5. 4 and 6 are still “open”. Now, they create a partially assessed pool at this point. They may have done references, they may not. There’s no reqt to test it that way. They could say “hey, we’ve got this job over here, and we’ll test it through a quick online test”. Maybe they used a ref check for #5, but plan to do something else for #4. We already know they will do language through PSC. But at this point, they have a partially assessed pool and can create it. Suppose someone down the hall from the people running it have a similar position and they don’t really need Attention to Detail as a specific reqt. They can pull you from the pool, send you to language testing, and they’re good to go. They may never check references, and to be honest, there are lots of people who feel that reference checking is a complete waste of time. If you give me the name of someone, they’re going to say good things about you. If they weren’t, you wouldn’t give me their name. Soooo, do I need that? Depends on level of job, depends on whether I think I’ll get a real reference or not (often one of the reasons people insist on last two supervisors is to avoid just getting the names of people who you pick who will say good things). But I have rarely had a situation where I’ve tested the person, interviewed them, and the reference checks came back “NO WAY, RUN!”. Another reality is that if I don’t know the person giving me the reference, I’m not only getting a reference on you, I’m trying to assess whether I think that manager’s judgement is any good. I have made 3 specific hires in my memory where I know the other manager was a nutbar. That was WHY the people were leaving. So I did my ref check, I heard what I expected, the person joined my team, and they were really solid employees for me. Soooo, that’s a long way around to say they don’t have to do ref checks or they could do them later when they move from partially assessed to fully assessed. The only reqt is that if they put it in the SOMC, they have to assess it “somehow”. Often, for partially assessed, they hold off on reference checks for the last one or two elements — that way, the potential hiring manager can actually call and talk to the supervisor/reference and get the direct reference as opposed to some other manager who was running the comp. If you think about it another way, there could be 50 people left in the pool, the person running the comp only wants 1-2, so why do they want to do ref checks on 50? They’ll pick one or two, as will others, to finalize all the elements, when needed.
For your second question, applying to 03 and 04 together, and only being put in the 04 pool, I confess that’s a bit odd. Not uncommon but a bit odd. The usual practice I’ve seen is if you apply, say as a -02, and you make the -04, you will almost always make the -03 as well. There is a situation where you might not…in one scenario I can remember, we had a complicated 02/03/04 process. And while 5/6 criteria were generally the same for all three, there was a slightly different wording for the -02 and -03 than the -04 for an element of research. The “rating guide” answer key was looking for stuff about quantitative research for -02 and -03, but -04 was looking for a bit more qualitative aspects. There were a couple who made the -04 pool but NOT hte -02 or -03 simply because they only talked about qualitative in their answer. A bit odd, but it does happen. So in your -03 and -04, the answers they were looking for on one element could have been slightly different. However, I have also seen HR decide that if you qualify for the -04, there’s no point putting you in the -03 as obviously you would prefer a -04 to a -03, generally. However, that’s a bit of a slippery assumption…if you look like a weak -04, or the -04 pool is large, maybe you would have been happy to be in the -03 pool too so that you have double your chance of getting an offer. On this one, it’s a fair question to follow up on to ask why you’re not in the -03 pool too. There’s no inference to be drawn either way though that you’re likely to get an offer or not. You can infer you did well, you qualified for the -04, and thus should be for the -03 too, but that’s about all you can infer.
Hope that helps!
Paul
Thank you very much, once again, for a detailed and thoughtful reply, Paul! I appreciate it very much!
So far I have only posted in the interview page but I have a question about a bizarre process I am in and this page seemed a more appropriate place to post my question (I have omitted the name of the department):
About two years ago I applied for a position, the language requirements were:
>>>Various language requirements
>>>Bilingual Imperative BBB/BBB, CBC/CBC, CCC/CCC, English essential
>>>Some appointments could be non-Imperative.
A few months later I filled out an online questionnaire for āasset experienceā. Shortly thereafter I was told I met the essential education and experience criteria and was invited to take a knowledge exam. In late 2021 I took the test and got the pass mark for two out of the three levels. In summer of 2022 I was invited to write a second language exam. I told them I was only interested in English Essential and non-Imperative positions. I got the following response:
>>>If you only want to be considered for English essential position, it is your right. However, the majority of the positions are bilingual.
Couple of months ago I asked whether I was in a pool or could be placed in one, the response was:
>>>For the time being you cannot be placed in a pool of qualified candidates. If our clients have future needs for unilingual position we will get back to you to finish the assessments for this process.
To tell a candidate that has gone through all pre-interview screening criteria successfully, āyou have to wait indefinitelyāānearly two years after the application deadlineāstrikes me as not very rational (to put it very mildly).
So, what are my options at this point and which one do you recommend? Is this a common occurrence in the hiring process?
Hi Sam,
As summary, basically at the end, you’re unilingual and they’re only staffing bilingual, so they’re only “completing” the process for those with French. A lot of people seeing this, they get annoyed, think it is about the language, bilingualism, placating Quebec, etc. It happens to be language but could be any criteria. Let’s go with it slightly differently. Suppose instead, you had to have computer experience, and they wanted those with different profiles — some with PCs, some with MACs, some with other GUIs, and some with mainframes. You could be sitting there with mainframes covered, but they’re staffing PC/MAC/other. It would be the identical situation…there’s an element you don’t have, and because there are different streams, it’s basically an asset. What you are in at the moment is a partially assessed pool; they won’t finish assessing until they need someone in that “stream”. Could have been the other way that they had tons of EEs, and no french, but the luck of the draw is they are staffing a lot of bilingual first. Ergo, yep, they don’t need EE right now, so you’re stuck waiting until someone DOES need your profile. Nothing to do about it. They don’t have any needs. They could finish the process and STILL not have any needs, but no sense wasting more money if they don’t have EE needs.
The only dark side though is what level you are talking about. I did a quick search back through previous posts and I don’t recall seeing any indication of level or even category for you. If it is a category or job that deal with people outside the PS, bilingual is almost always required. Equally, the higher you go, the more you need it. The more public / more senior the position, the less likely they will EVER get to the EE positions. If they can take a bilingual person, why bother settling for unilingual if they don’t have to? Lots of departments are struggling right now. They require all manager positions, say EC-07, to be bilingual, preferably CBC but occasionally BBB. And who are they going to pull from to find those new managers? Existing EC-06s. WHich means the -06 has to be BBB or CBC to apply. And if they aren’t, they’re stuck. Nowhere to go without that bilingual profile, and more and more EC-06s EE positions are disappearing under the policies. Yet, is anyone suddenly investing huge sums of money in language training to get their -05s and -06s ready? Nope. It’s definitely a serious issue for the long run…
In the meantime, there’s nothing to do but wait and apply for other stuff.
Paul
The job posting was for EC-03/04/05 (analyst). Two issues:
(1) They explicitly say āEnglish Essentialā is one of the language requirements and that some appointments could be non-Imperative. If the original job posting had said bilingual and nothing else I would not have applied! In effect they have changed the language requirement in the middle of the process.
(2) I find āwait until I get back to you and no I have no idea when that will beā to be frustrating and no way to staff an organization. I donāt understand why they donāt place me in a poolāsay for English Essential positions onlyābecause the email just says they wonāt, no reasons given.
I understand your frustration, but language profiles are no different than any other element. People like to point to them as unreasonable, etc., but the reality is simple. There are, say, 10 requirements for the job. Perhaps 2 Experience, 2 Knowledge, 2 Abilities, 2 Personal Suitability, and 2 Other (security and language).
They’ve tested you on Experience, Knowledge, Abilities, and Personal Suitability. They likely HAVE not done anything on security either, as well as language. So you have 8/10 done. They can’t put you in a pool until all 10 are done. It could have just as easily been that PS were done by reference, maybe they did security and language earlier, and they’re waiting on a reference to finish. They can’t put you in a pool, you only have 8/10 done. You need all 10.
But the point of a pool is to staff one of their positions, not just put you in a pool because you want to be in one and use it somewhere else. That’s not a reason to put you in a pool. They won’t finish the pool for anyone who isn’t being considered. GAC regularly does this for language, for example, on permanent recruitment hires. They create a partially assessed pool but language and security are not done — any manager wanting to hire someone has to finish those steps. HR or some other group has done 80% of the work, but the last step is left to the hiring manager.
As for “no way to staff an organization”, they obviously don’t need you. They want bilingual, and they’re staffing those first. Or more likely, they are pulling people from the partially assessed pool in batches. You haven’t got pulled yet, doesn’t mean no other unilinguals have been staffed yet. Not sure why you assume that a) you’re entitled to be put in a pool or b) that they’re incompetent because they aren’t doing it the way you think it should be done. This is the third or fourth point where you’ve basically said they’re all idiots and they should do it the way you think it should be done. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong. Doesn’t really matter.
What matters is that it is the job of the applicant who wants a job to quack like a duck. Acting like a disgruntled swan is a waste of your energy. You can do it, but it won’t make your process any easier, and it’s relatively clear that you aren’t trying to understand their position on anything, just it is bad that they don’t think like you.
I hate to say it, but if you’re this antagonistic about processes before you even enter government, I’m pretty sure you’re not going to survive long once / if you get in. This is mild compared to the daily world of government.
Paul
GAC regularly does this for language, for example, on permanent recruitment hires. They create a partially assessed pool but language and security are not done ā any manager wanting to hire someone has to finish those steps.
Why canāt the department I am dealing with, do what GAC does?
You havenāt got pulled yet, doesnāt mean no other unilinguals have been staffed yet.
Could be, but what criteria were used to rank unilinguals? While I have the pass mark for both EC-03 and EC-04, I have told them I would be happy with an EC-03. I have also told them that I would welcome a non-imperative bilingual position. Finally, I donāt think EE considerations are an issue eitherā¦
This is the third or fourth point where youāve basically said theyāre all idiots and they should do it the way you think it should be done.
The issue isnāt them not doing what I want, it is the lack of a rational basis. If they said: āWe ranked our unilinguals based on [XYZ], you are not on top of the list, but when you get thereāwhich might take until July 2024āwe will let you know.ā I would not celebrate but it would be rational. You say: āitās relatively clear that you arenāt trying to understand their position on anythingā but their position is āwait indefinitelyā without any additional piece of information. There isnāt much room for ātrying to understand their positionā.
What matters is that it is the job of the applicant who wants a job to quack like a duck. Acting like a disgruntled swan is a waste of your energy.
I quacked and they said it was well done. The problem is since then (Nov. 2021) the process has stopped. And pointing out the problems of an indefinite process (āyou have to wait and we will not tell you for how longā) does not make me disgruntled.
I hate to say it, but if youāre this antagonistic about processes before you even enter government, Iām pretty sure youāre not going to survive long once / if you get in.
I donāt think I am being antagonistic at all. On the interview page we had a discussion and you wrote this:
Those answers both surprised me as you, as a candidate, have a legal RIGHT to enquire as to the status. Once they screen you out, your rights are relatively limited to appeals and stuff. Until then, you have pretty open ended rights, including the right to know if you are still āINā the process. To me? It canāt be impolite to ask if you have the right to do so. But as I said, popular wisdom was not to!
I am inquiring about my status in a selection processānow in its third yearāwhich I have not been screened out of. I have also asked them, once, whether I can be placed in a pool. And you are calling me āantagonisticā and a ādisgruntled swanā!! :-)) I donāt mind, it doesnāt bother me, but I am also not surprised when people (particularly the younger generation) are extremely risk-averse when dealing with the government hiring process.
PS: I used > > > (without spaces) and < < < (without spaces) to indicate a quote. That messed with the editor so I had to edit the post. Once I was done it would not let the edit go through, which is why I am posting this.
Hi Sam, I hope this is the one that you wanted “kept”. š
Let me try a slightly different nuance to explain what I was getting at. I have read hundreds of emails / posts from people saying “I expected A, B, C” and my response is usually “It actually works X, Y, Z”. And they adjust and move on. Some of them are frustrated, some of them are misinformed. Your post however was decidedly different in tone and level. You not only argued that you expected ABC, you argued that it SHOULD be ABC, and that anything else was wrong. You’re entitled to your opinion, more power to you, but this site and my guide are not and never will be about what “should” or “could” be a better process, it is only about what IS the process. You may be right, you may be wrong, I don’t really worry about that aspect.
However, what I was trying to convey is that government tends to deal with a lot of factors that make it operate in a very specific fashion as a result of being taxpayer-funded. It adds layers like an onion to processes that are far simpler in a private sector world. But note that those elements are not limited to affecting HR, they affect all aspects of government. And so I’m flagging for you that if you are this frustrated by HR processes not matching your expectation for how it should or does work, or the lack of transparency, you might really need to reconsider working for government at all. We have WAY worse internal stuff to deal with than how an HR process is run. I say that not as a criticism of you, but to alert you to a “fit” issue…my belief is that life is too short to be doing what you don’t want to be doing or being frustrated. Maybe you get in, maybe you’ll change things for the better, but it will be a long uphill battle, and a war of attrition, not generally sweeping change. And as a I said, I read posts from people in a similar situation to you, dozens a month, and yours was at least twice as strong for frustration and tone. I don’t personally care, I’m not offended, but it strikes me that you have much more normative views of what you expect or think SHOULD be rather than descriptive ones of what IS. Your frustration is evident, and maybe appropriate, but it is on the more extreme end of what I regularly see. Take that for what it’s worth.
1. Why canāt the department I am dealing with, do what GAC does?
Any department can, but there are pluses and minuses to doing that. First, on the minus side, you have “nothing” once you are at that stage. You aren’t even in a full pool after all that work, you’re just in a partially assessed pool. Some other depts won’t even match partially assessed ones. On the plus side, partially assessed is better than nothing for a manager looking to hire. All I have to do is test their language and do security? Ka-ching! Sounds great. Different depts have different philosophies, some like to fully complete any process they start; others view it as a cost savings or at least a cost-sharing if they do partially assessed to a certain point and let the hiring managers finish. If, for example, they want you, the hiring manager will pay for your language testing; if nobody wants you, they don’t waste any money doing security or language. They only do them for those they are likely to immediately hire so that will also reduce wait times. No need to do security checks on 30 people in a pool if you’re only likely to hire 5. There is no “one” way to do it, and lots of contextual variables that will push one department or even one hiring manager left or right in how they handle it. Personally, I prefer fully-assessed pool, including languages, i.e., everything except updated valid security clearances. For me, I avoid doing unnecessary security clearances for both the cost to the dept AND the cost (in time) to the individual. Everything else seems fair game to me. But security clearances (at least for secret or top secret) are pains in the butt to fill out!
2. Could be, but what criteria were used to rank unilinguals?
There is no “ranking”. They can go through and decide they like person 4 because they have a strong writing background and person 6 because they did presentations and person 10 because they worked with the public, and send those three through for further assessment, just picking them from the pile — or meet with the three, and send through only person 6. Generally, it’s a bit more mathematical than that but it doesn’t have to be. [By mathematical, I mean that they often say to the HR people, “Okay, give me everyone who got 9 or 10/10 on writing AND has the asset qualification for making public presentations”.] That’s the point of pools, everyone is qualified so you can take generally whoever you want, they’re already qualified. The manager doesn’t have to justify that person 6 is better than person 10, they just have to justify why person 6 is qualified.
3. The issue isnāt them not doing what I want, it is the lack of a rational basis.
I get why you want a “rational” basis. So you can understand. But here’s the rub. In each of your posts, and this may be stylistic, you seem to say:
a. I don’t know what their rational basis is;
b. They haven’t told me what their rational basis is;
Q.E.D. They have no rational basis.
In this example, you ask what the ranking process WAS and that they SHOULD tell you. I am all for increased transparency, but lack of transparency is not the same as lack of a rational. Just because you don’t know, doesn’t mean it’s wrong or they didn’t have one. See my answer to Q2. You’ve reached a certain point. You may go no further, you may. SHOULD they tell you? Perhaps, but that’s irrelevant to how it WORKS. The question is do they have to tell you? Nope. And to be blunt, they may not know what the next step is. They may have already pulled a bunch of people that they kept going on, perhaps you were not one of them. Doesn’t mean you weren’t qualified, they can even decide on the basis of numbers alone. “We had 50, we sent 10 through.” I would tend to agree it would be better for candidates that they were open with their reasons, but if they’re not, doesn’t mean they don’t have reasons, it just means they aren’t sharing them. Just like the private sector, tbh. Off-hand, I can think of about a dozen reasons why they aren’t moving people forward, any one of them could apply. Doesn’t mean I assume they don’t have any reason, just means they aren’t sharing it for whatever reason (which could be another dozen reasons).
Personally? Any process that takes longer than a year and has gone longer than 6-9 months with no apparent movement is in my view generally dead. Some of that is simple budgeting…when the process was launched, they put people on it, it was part of their main tasks, they devoted time and energy to it. 3 years later? The main hiring manager likely has moved on, the people in HR have run 25 other comps since then, maybe it’s gone dormant, maybe the need has changed. Sometimes that happens after a week, let alone 3y. If I had to guess, they have no one “running” it anymore, so no one to answer your questions other than the admin people who can tell you where it stopped, but not where it’s going. Just my two cents…
But again, the real point I had is that your tone and frustration comes across way higher than most of the emails I get from people in similar situations. Maybe that tells you something, maybe it doesn’t. Just a flag for you to think about…
Paul
Hi Paul,
I recently applied for a EG-04 position. I have a few questions :
Context: I had a virtual screening interview called “Core Competency Assessment” on January 26th from which I got a feedback last week. The e-mail read : “Having successfully met these minimum assessment criteria, you have been placed in a partially assessed pool of candidates”. In the same e-mail, I was invited for a second interview in order to answer additional questions (technical questions). I completed this second interview on March 14th.
Questions:
1- What is the difference between partially and fully assessed pool?
2- Since the first interview allowed me to have my application placed in a partially assessed pool, does this mean that the second interview was done in order to have my application placed in a fully assessed pool?
3- If you get screened into a process like I was, is it because they are looking to fill a vacant position or is it because when you apply for a position you are automatically ask to give this virtual interview?
Thanks a lot,
Marc
Hi Marc,
I’m going to give you two scenarios. One’s a bit theoretical, and I’ll start with that one. Let’s say there’s a job advertised and it has 10 criteria for it (ABCDEFGHIJ). And there’s another job, but it only has 6 (ABCDEF, same as the first six of the other one). A third job might have only 4, perhaps ABCD. Job #2 and #3 may not be advertised, but they’re hoping to pull from #1’s pool. But as you can see, they don’t need EVERYTHING that manager #1 needs. Their requirements are smaller.
Partially assessed means that against the advertised job, they have tested less than the 10 criteria (the full list). Might be only A, might be B, might be AB, etc. Something less than A-J. The reason they might do that is suppose they advertised job 1 for A-J. But they know that they also have this other job #3 that only needs A-D. If they assess A-D early for everyone and “stop” with a partially assessed pool, the manager of Job #3 can take that PA pool and go ahead and start pulling from it. It’s all they need.
The next test, the interview, perhaps it will test E-H. This might put you in a second “partially assessed” pool, and you’re eligible for job 2, but not yet for Job #1. Only when you get through all 10 of the criteria for the post would you be “fully assessed” against the original poster.
The more common scenario is that you have say ABCDEF as the criteria, and E = language profile and F = security clearance. So they test A-D, find you completely qualified, everything “great”, but they haven’t tested your language or security yet. Soooo, they may put you in a partially assessed pool at that point…then any manager who wants to pull you, all they have to do is say, “Okay, great, I want Marc, I’m going to send him on language testing and do his security clearance. If he passes both, he’ll be fully assessed and I will then hire him”. Until the full assessment is done, they aren’t offering you anything yet. They’re still testing you. Or perhaps someone comes along, only needs ENGLISH ESSENTIAL, maybe English is your mother tongue (or french in reverse) and they don’t need to test your language. They can pull you right away, except for the security clearance. It generally is done when they don’t want to fully assess everyone and incur all that extra expense if they aren’t actually going to hire everyone on the list.
It’s expensive to complete full assessments, so lots of depts are doing up to the language test and stopping with a partially assessed pool.
As for the second interview, there’s no official way to know if everyone got invited to the second interview or only those who passed the first part. However, normally, you don’t get invited to the second interview if you didn’t pass the first part. Screenings usually screen SOMEONE out, or why do them you?
Paul
Hello, I am seeing positions where I would be a really good fit, in terms of my qualifications, experience and other merits. I am not yet in a pool with the GoC, and wanted to ask how easy/difficult it is to be “screened in” to a pool. Advice welcomed! Thank you.
Hi Conrad,
As you will already have seen, there are multiple steps to get to a pool:
a. Screened in to a process (experience)
b. Pass a written
c. Pass an interview
d. Pass any elements related to language or security.
e. Make the pool
Soooo, when you ask how easy it is to get “screened” into a “pool”, that is a bit of a misleading term. You’re combining “screening” which is step 1 with a pool which is somewhere around step 5. If you have the experience, getting screened in to a process should be relatively easy if you do it properly (I mention one way in my guide, which has worked for lots of people, not the only way to do it). Lots of people who are external don’t really learn how to apply and get screened out regularly. If you apply the right way, I think initially getting screened in is easy. I have only been screened out of one process in my entire life, and it is because they changed the standard after I applied (I had 5y doing something, they decided they wanted 10y…meh).
Whether you pass the other elements is impossible to say if easy or not. If you are truly qualified, it’s not hard to pass, what might be hard is to know HOW to pass. A lot of the advice I give is often about the “how” part, not the “what” part. Lots of examples in the private-sector don’t really work in govt interviews. So if you use private-sector approaches, you stand a good chance of failing at some point. As you learn what they ask, you learn more about how to respond.
Put differently, you could be the most amazing computer person, and way overqualified for a position, and still fail because you didn’t answer the questions in a way that would allow you to demonstrate you were qualified. My extended metaphor for my guide is that if they are looking for a duck, say quack quack quack. A fantastic swan candidate will not make it through a process to find a duck. Sooo, I can’t really say if it is easy or not. Generally, none of this is rocket-science. It’s knowable, it’s predictable, it’s replicable. To me, that suggests “easy” to crack, but not everyone thinks that way.
Not sure that helps you much…
Paul
**never mind you answered my question in a post below**
Hi,
Are informal discussions only when you do not get the job?
I am currently in a process where I have completed the assessment, participated in an interview, and was asked for references. Now, a week after my references were requested, I have been invited for an informal discussion. I was told in the interview that I might be invited to another interview with my potential manager. Should I assume that this informal discussion is a meeting with my potential manager, so essentially an interview? Or will they be letting me know why I wasn’t chosen for the job?
Thanks,
Hi Jamie,
I thought I had already answered this question, it must have been only in my head! Sorry about that…My first reaction is to say, “welcome to the wonderful world of imprecise language in HR”. So let’s step back for a moment.
Generally speaking, there are three types of “oral conversation” for a formal process:
a. The Interview — generally, no one confuses this, it is usually obvious which it is;
b. A Best-Fit Interview — this occurs after all the stages, usually after a pool is established or VERY soon just before, and often referred to as an “informal” discussion (note the lower case “i”) meaning that you are going to be just talking to the manager or some one, there’s no formal evaluation going on, it’s the stage where they tell you a bit more about the exact job and you tell them if you want it. They’re deciding amongst several candidates who made the pool if you are “the one” they want.
c. An Informal — this is a relatively formal step in a process, where they offer you formal feedback on your performance aka you failed something and they will “formally” offer it to you and then have an “informal” discussion with you. It SHOULD always be of the form “Hey, dude, sorry you failed. However, if you want to request an informal/Informal, you can”. They don’t auto schedule them.
So there in lies the rub. Part B **should** be called Best Fit and will be an informal conversation where you are invited; Part C should be responsive only, where they offer you a formal INFORMAL as part of the process.
Based on your description, you’re still “in”, and this is a less formal conversation with the hiring manager to see if you’re a good fit for the team. In my vernacular, you’ve proved you’re a duck. Now you see if you’re the duck they want…personality, goals, things that interest you, pace of the job, etc.
Paul
Thanks so much!
Hi Paul,
I wrote an EC05 exam in mid November 2022, but I have not heard anything from the hiring committee so far. Is there a chance that I would hear from them even if I did not pass the exam? Or do they only notify the candidates who were selected for an interview and ignore the rest? Thank you so much for this wonderful website.
Responded to most of it already on other comment. But they normally contact everyone as they move to the next stage — invites for those who passed, screened-out emails to those who didn’t.
Hi Paul,
Thank you so much! I appreciate it.
Best regards!
Hi, I wrote a test three months ago (mid November) and I have not heard anything about my status yet. I assume I did not pass the test. Do you know if they let candidates know about the test results either way? Thank you so much.
Hi Orchid,
Sooooo, the short answer is that no answer means no answer. You can assume they’re delayed, you can assume you didn’t make it, you can assume they found someone another way…it’s all just assumptions. You have no additional information to assume anything.
There could have been 400 people writing, there could have been 10 people writing. You don’t know. In addition, MANY processes will wait until everyone who was invited has completed their test. And it’s possible that someone was on leave and they’re waiting for them to return before moving on to the next phase, or there were a LOT of people, and they’re still trying to reschedule everyone. Or they’re out of budget, and don’t have enough people to mark all the results, etc.
Most comps have an internal rule that each “stage” can take no more than a year. At the end of the year, the process dies/goes cold if there is no movement on that stage. Up until then, it’s just a vacuum of information.
But once you get past about a month, there’s nothing stopping you from sending an email to see what the current status is. Just say, “Hi, just following up. I wrote the exam 3m ago, and haven’t heard anything about next steps, etc.”.
You didn’t specify if it was external or internal and if you are already a PS. Internal comps for PS employees have more requirements to notify people of various stages; external ones have a lower requirement. But they normally tell you if you are out of a certain stage, didn’t pass, and they’re moving on without you.
Paul
Hi Paul,
Thank you so much for such a detailed and helpful message! I am truly grateful for this. It is very useful to get your perspective. This is absolutely amazing.
I forgot to mention that I am an external applicant and I am not familiar with the application process, so getting such a thorough response in addition to all the information that you have already presented on your website helps tremendously.
I decided not to bother them about elucidating my status, but focus instead on identifying other suitable applications for my qualifications and on improving my SLE skills.
I very much appreciate all your help!
Best regards
Happy to help. And while I am always in favour of applying for other things while waiting to hear, and continuing to develop, three months is not too early to just nudge them to see what they say for status. If it was a week, it would be too early. A month might be a bit early. 6w-8w is okay, and anything after that is definitely okay to follow up. And perhaps 4-6w later for occasional nudging if you wish.
Paul
Hi Paul,
Thanks again! This is very helpful. Have a lovely day!
Hi Paul!
Thanks so much for taking the time and putting so much effort to create this website for everyone! I personally am so thankful I ran into this website while I was doing my research for preparing for my very first written exam for a position I recently applied for the federal government (fingers crossed it goes smoothly! If not, I will work hard to continue to improve my skills and try again when I find another suitable position)!
It is really interesting to read the differences of the federal government jobs in comparison to municipal and provincial government positions, as someone in their 20s with only experience with jobs at the municipal and provincial level, this website was extremely helpful!
Just wanted to pass on my thanks! š
Karen
Glad it was helpful! And good luck!
Paul
Hello, I have been involved in a number of different applications within the government of Canada. For one of the positions I applied for, I completed written tests, completed an interview, provided proof of education, residence. Lastly, I was given a form to complete my security clearance and was instructed to mail it. The security clearance was received by them roughly 6 weeks ago. Do you think my chances are good for receiving an offer given the fact that I made it to the security clearance process? Thank you!
The short answer is “yes, no and maybe”. Here’s the deal…
For most jobs, everything up to the security clearance is standard. So being asked to do all of those things may just mean they’re completing your file. Some groups will complete references even though you failed an element somewhere along the line, just to complete the files. However, four things after that are usually strong signs of something to come:
a. Being asked for proof of education — this is a “weak” sign in that some will ask for it at the interview stage, just to complete the file. But if it is “after” the interviews and everything else, the reason they normally need it is because they are anticipating a staffing action and that is one of the boxes required to tick — that we actually checked your education. Not just saw it in your cover letter, that we actually verified. If they ask early, just completing a file; if they ask late, could be completing a file or could be because they need it. No way to be sure either way, but never a “bad sign”.
b. Proof of residency — I’m not sure if you mean proof of a city residence (for example, if the pool said you had to live in the Ottawa region but your background looks like BC) or citizenship. If the city, that’s an early step; if citizenship, it is almost ALWAYS a positive sign, but it could be that they are just completing the file, same as education. For education, I would say 50/50. For residency, I would say more like 70/30 as positive sign vs. just completing a file. The “30” could be that there are lots of non-Canadian citizens in the mix though and they want to create a list of both, and it’s worth their time to finalize everything. However, we just did a staffing action and it never came up until the final staffing request — it was the last thing our HR asked for, to attest we had seen proof of their citizenship.
c. Language testing — this is a really lopsided one. In theory, you have to be tested to be put into a pool unless you have valid SLE results. However, in some cases, or maybe even in many cases, HR will create a partially-assessed pool and ONLY send people to full testing if they’re planning on hiring them. Depends a bit how they’re working the pool. If they tell you “you’re in a partially assessed pool” and they send you for testing after that, it’s a VERY good sign; if they just finish references and then send you, still positive or at least not negative.
d. Security clearance — this is a condition of employment, NOT a condition of being put in a pool. Which means they generally WON’T complete a security clearance UNLESS they want to hire you. They do it for those they plan to hire. However, there are a couple of specific types of exceptions. Global Affairs, for example, hires only FS officers with full clearance. So if you make it to the final list, the equivalent of a pool, they will start the clearance for everyone. Even if there are 100 people on the list and they only plan to hire 80, they’ll screen the full 100. It’s just the way they do things. PCO, a few other places also do it, who regularly require higher clearances. But the other wrinkle is it depends on the level of classification. If it is something minor like a Reliability, they can test everyone, it’s cheap. If it is Secret, they usually don’t unless they need a lot of people. If it is Top Secret, they almost NEVER pre screen unless they expect to hire.
So where does that leave you? I would say if they asked you for security, it is a VERY GOOD omen. However, like all such processes, it means nothing until they tell you it means something. It means at least that you are still in the running, which is good. My other caveat though is the timing right now. Many places are continuing to process paperwork just to keep busy but they have no intent to hire anyone any time soon. Many depts are freezing ALL non-critical staffing. They’re still filling out paperwork, still moving things, but when it comes to generate the letter of offer to say “start July 1”, HR may say “Nope, staffing is frozen”.
Hope that helps,
Paul
Dear Paul,
I received a formal Placed in Pool letter today from Health Canada for a CR-04 process. I’m so pleased! I am currently waiting for language testing, but apart from that, references have been submitted and all preceding steps completed.
My question is: is there any way to find out who the hiring managers are for a particular process? In an ideal world, I may have a network connection that may speak on my behalf, noting my strengths. After working in municipal government for 5 years, I am eager to move into the Federal Government for the long haul.
My fear is that despite being in this pool, my resume may not be selected at all. In the interim, I will continue applying externally for various positions.
I look forward to your response. Thank you kindly for your time and guidance re: navigating HR in the Federal Government. (Also, your overall website is a pleasure to read).
Sincerely,
Sherri
Hi Sherri! Congrats…!
My only advice is that you can ask the HR person which manager was running it, if it wasn’t already clear. Often there are a few. However, they won’t give you the list of every manager who COULD pull from the pool. You can ask who it is open to i.e. how wide — all of Health Canada, only one branch, etc. Some people take that info, look through the Government Electronice Directory Service, look up managers in that scope (branch, dept, etc.), find sections that interest them, and cold email them.
The other downside is that many depts right now are all working from home and HR is at an almost standstill. Glad to see they sent you something, but many are cutting back to “critical service” staffing only. Might slow things down, unfortunately.
Good luck!
Paul
Now that the economy is opening up, and after the hiring freeze period, Do you have information on how fast is the hiring process working now ?
Hi Alexandra,
Sorry for the delay in responding, I’ve been on holidays. The short answer is still relatively the same as it always is — it all depends on the individual process. There is no “average”. Generally I would say minimum processes are about 4m (including application, quick review, hiring) if it’s a formal advertisement and up to 2y. If it’s a deployment situation, some are doing it in as short as 4w, but almost all that have Phoenix are saying minimum 10w to ensure no hiccups.
Paul
Hi Paul
I applied for a position in the federal government (IRB) since August 2019 and I was preselected. in December they sent me a test to do at home to be returned by email within 48 hours. Yesterday March 3, I received an email asking me some information if I am an employee of the Federal Government. Since I am not an employee of the federal government, I did not have to send this information. I sent the reply since yesterday. I do not know what to think about it or what stage they are in the process. What do you think? I specify that I am a permanent resident. Do I have to wait for an interview? Thanks already for helping me to see more clearly.
Hi Maelys,
It depends a little bit on the competition you applied for and what they were doing. There are, generally, two types of competitions. The first is the normal one, full process from start to end, and at that end, there are job offer(s) made to some of the candidates. However, the second type is more a pre-screened inventory — it basically does a basic processing now to get people from point A to say Point C in a process that has maybe 7 steps. It may even take you to point F. But when that is done, you are just put into a semi-assessed pool. They do those first six steps so that someone else can come along and say, “I need 3 people”, and run a bunch through the seventh step and THEN give job offers to some of them.
I don’t know which of the two it is. August to December sounds like a full competition, not a simple inventory. So let’s assume that it is a full process, which likely includes:
a. Application — done
b. Initial screening — done
c. Written test — done
d. Interview — possible
e. References — definite
f. Language test — possible
g. Informal “best fit” conversation — likely
If they are doing all the steps, I would say the next is an interview. However, the fact they checked to see if you’re an employee is a semi-good sign, even though you weren’t. It means they were at least interested to see, because in some cases, they can do a deployment, or appoint you, without all the extra steps. Or offer you a term. I presume you applied because it was open to the public, so asking if you’re already in government is just about seeing if they have internal ways to speed things up.
However, I have to tell you that being a PR is often a problem with departments. Officially, they say it isn’t, but then when they go to hire, they have trouble getting a security clearance of the right level, there are time delays, etc. etc. etc. I know of at least one large dept where their internal policy is simply “no indeterminate positions until they’re a Canadian citizen”. Terms only. And even then, it’s a fight to staff PRs. One might hope that IRB would be more open to the idea of PRs, but that could also work against people if they’re afraid of conflicts of interest if you have to deal with other people coming from the same host country. I know Citizenship and Immigration has had that problem in the past, but they generally just assign them to other country desks. It isn’t about a real conflict of interest usually but just a potential perception of one, or if a client complains there might have been one. I wish I had better tips to offer for PRs, but it’s a tough road usually in getting staffed permanently.
Good luck, and be patient of course.
Paul
Thank you for the answer. I have a better idea now. I will continue to do my activities without putting too much focus on this job so as not to be disappointed in case I am not hired. But I will still continue to hope and wait patiently because this job perfectly matches my profile (studies, experiences and skills). For the conflict of interest as you say, if it really is a problem, they would only have to exclude my country of origin from the list of files that I would have to deal with. Being a permanent resident is like an obstacle in this case. Thanks again.Paul.
It is definitely an unfortunate obstacle, and I don’t have much to offer as I said for tips. I think you have a good attitude though…it’s good advice for all of us not to focus only on one solution. š
Paul
Hi Poly,
I was recently placed in an essentially-qualified pool by ESDC after passing two stages exam, succeed in the interview, my reference contacted. My reference gave a positive response.
Iām a permanent residency who just applied for my citizenship.
When will I be issued an offer letter? Will my immigration status affect my appointment?
Thanks,
Emmanuel
Hi Emmanuel, thanks for your question…
So first and foremost, congrats on being in a pool!
Secondly, I need to clarify that you understand what that means. You asked when you will be issued a LoO, and the short answer is potentially never. Making a pool does not mean you’ll get a LoO, it just means you were found qualified. In some cases, there could be 2 jobs available and 30 people in the pool. The two that are the “best fit” will get LoO, the rest will not; if other managers need something similar in the future, they can pull from the same pool. In some cases, if there is enough demand, maybe everyone gets an offer, but in most cases, not everyone will. Depends on level of demand, etc. Essentially you have been found “qualified” but so has everyone else in the pool. Whether you get an actual letter depends on demand and a few other factors.
The second part of your question about your immigration status is a bit more complicated. Your immigration status doesn’t really affect an appointment, per se, but it does affect whether you will get an offer at all. PRs are very hard to staff because many jobs require security clearances and there are extra hoops to jump if the person is a PR. Many PRs cannot get all the paperwork from their country of origin, or it takes a really long time, and the process stalls while waiting. I know a few managers who tried to staff PRs from pools and as soon as they started through the clearances, it was going to be months and months, and they couldn’t wait. So they moved on to another qualified candidate.
I haven’t tried to do anything with a PR appointment, but I know others ran into trouble trying to do indeterminate appointments, so they offered terms instead. Not ideal, but it’s a start, and helps for future when you get your citizenship.
Overall, I would say both answers, unfortunately, are “it depends”. I’ll ask around re: PR, see if I can drum up some other info.
Paul
Hi Paul,
Thank you so much for your insightful and detailed response.
I can now comfortably channel my energy into other ventures.
Warm regards
Don’t give up on it, just don’t only rely on it.
P.
Hi Polywogg! Thanks for the excellent guide, it has been extremely helpful. I just had one question that I can’t seem to find the answer to. When applying for PS jobs some of them have’Results available’ up to a year or two later! What exactly does this mean? Are they able to hire someone before that date, or how does that work? I understand it’s a slow process, but those seem like positions to apply for once you’re in and able to wait it out a bit. Or maybe it’s not like that at all, haha. Thanks for your help!
Not sure which part you are referring to. It likely means more that the results are good for that length of time if you’re writing a set exam. I’d have to see an example to know…
P.
Sorry, I re-read what I wrote and yes, it’s not very clear. What I meant was when you apply for a job and then it tells you “results available 2020-10-10”. Does this mean you have to wait 10 months to get a response? Or it’s possible for certain applicants to get an update before then?
To be honest, I’ve never seen that. It would be odd to take that long unless it is a really large inventory, complicated process. And even then, they usually do it in “chunks”. I’m wondering if they mean the results are good until then.
Sorry I can’t be more definitive.
Paul
The position requires SECRET security clearance. I am guessing if the Director needs someone immediately, then I suppose this approach with me would not work?
K
Hi Kassie,
As you noted, some will do onboarding concurrently. They essentially do a quick enhanced reliability/records check, give you a “conditional” offer with the condition being you obtain a secret clearance, and have you start when the reliability check is done. They then (in theory) don’t let you see any secret materials until you get your final clearance. However, depends a lot on the department. If it is security-focused — CBSA, RCMP, CSIS, etc. — they wait for the Secret clearance.
I wouldn’t fret too much — the manager will know she needs to wait for your clearance and you likely don’t have one.
P.
Hi PolyW
This is a great blog! I do have a question. I was talking to a senior director couple weeks back. She got my resume from a friend of mine and looking to fill a very specialized role that i fit perfectly. After a short conversation, she said she will discuss with HR on what mechanism she could bring me in and fast. She said she will make a case. I am an external candidate. How is she planning to do that? Is that even possible- if so what are the possible options?
Hi Kassie,
If you are an external person, she can bring you without competition (i.e. fast) in one of five ways, although three of them are unlikely:
A. Least likely — Temp agency…if you were already with an agency of some sort, and it isn’t just admin work, they do contract with the agency, can start as soon as ink is dry. But that doesn’t seem likely in your situation, unless you are with one.
B. Not likely — Consulting firm…same deal, just with a formal consulting firm, but you’d have to be with them already, doesn’t really apply.
C. Highly likely — Casual…they all have options to bring people in on 90 day “contracts” per calendar year, non-renewable, 90d and you’re done. Easy to do.
D. Between likely and possible — Term…this is a formal appointment for a set duration of 6m, 1y, 2y, etc. and requires a bit of rationale to do it, but not much. I’ll explain rationale options in a moment.
E. Possible — Indeterminate…this is a formal appointment to being a regular public servant, what we normally consider “permanent” (although there is no such thing anymore). Also requires rationale.
For D&E, the manager has to write a rationale to explain why they aren’t running a competition. D is relatively simple to write as they normally say “well, it’s just a short term, not worth the cost, low-risk, seems qualified, unique need of short duration”. For E, there is more scrutiny, and a greater possibility of appeal, but the prongs for D&E are generally the same:
i. Duration
ii. Timeliness (need someone soon but for E that doesn’t usually fly since there are other options in the short-term)
iii. Unique job (some areas are designated high-need, low availability like computer specialists or veterinarians, that the govt has a hard time hiring them usually)
iv. Experience (usually a former public servant, no longer attached for whatever reason and you’re bringing them in at the same level they left at)
v. Structural move (some people are part of govt but not part of core public admin, and you can’t just deploy them, so you appoint them saying, “Well, if I COULD have deployed them, this would have been the same result for pay and level, so it’s not a promotion, just moving widgets”).
There are other criteria people use, like being in another pool somewhere, pre-qualified, etc. In addition to the above, they also have to justify how you meet each criteria of the job i.e. abilities, experience, knowledge, personal suitability. The longer the duration, the more rationale they need. In some depts, indeterminate options would be limited to life or death appointments i.e. doctors in emergencies, police officers under martial law, etc. Others are more flexible with their rules and procedures.
My guess is they will offer you either casual to start and then a term of 6m to start. The benefit of being a term is that you are then able to apply for everything internally.
Hope that helps!
Paul
Hi Paul,
Thanks for replying. If they offer me term or casual, would I be able to negotiate the duration? The position that they need to fill is a indeterminate spot and the current person is moving onto a new role and they need to fill it urgently as the previous person was the only one leading that file, and I bring those experiences. If I move, I will be moving my family and quitting a permanent provincial government job. Can I negotiate the term/casual position to be 1 year with the Director? its an EC-6 position.
Secondly, if they bring me for a year let say, would I have access to internal jobs? Incase they dont renew my term, do I have an option of finding another position internally? I have build quiet bit of network within the Feds and know few department interested in me but without getting into the pool its hard. I have been trying now and so far have written 5 exams.
Finally, my husband just got into a partially qualified pool (written and interview has been completed). It is not in Ottawa but same city/province as me. Can he email directors/managers in Ottawa for networking and getting the word out there that if they need to fill a position at his level, he is available. does that help?
Please let me know,
Thanks
K.
Terms can be negotiated for length, while casuals cannot. Different mechanism, different rules. Now that I know you are provincial, they stand a chance of appointing you indeterminately based on the fact you are “proven” by being in the provincial govt. The bigger issue would be your equivalent level coming in…if they use provincial experience as the rationale, they are less able to modify the level (i.e. if it is a promotion over your current rate of pay).
If you do come for a year, yes, as soon as you are “in” the door, you are eligible for internal comps. If you are term, you wouldn’t automatically become indeterminate internally without an appointment of some sort (either appointment without competition or pulled from a pool you make). For example, you could be term with division 1, and division 2 says, “Hey, I have a great job you can do”. If you “moved” to it at the end of your term, you would still be term…your status doesn’t change until someone formally appoints you to an indeterminate position. You just have more chances if you’re internal.
For your husband, I don’t want to get your hopes up. Lots of people do cold calls, network, etc. Some of it works. More often than not, I hear it doesn’t. Depends on the category. Depends on how flexible he is for getting “in”. There are no magic formulas for networking, although a few tools available to “self-promote” internally (like a GoC “LinkedIn” network). Some people think it is THE GREATEST TOOL ever; I’m more cynical.
P.
Thanks Paul, These are great information. It will be a lateral move for me as I am already in EC-06 equivalent level with the province.
I am a bit concerned about my husband however. He has very limited job options in Ottawa.
Thank you so much!
Hi P.
So this morning they asked me for my references and SECRET Security Clearances as it is needed for the position, which I do not have as it was never required before by provincial government. I do have clean records in all aspect. I offered to fill in the paperwork but that being said it would take few weeks to months. Can they expedite the process or will this impede my chances of getting an offer? I have heard some departments will do Security Clearance and on boarding concurrently but I am not sure if that is applicable in this case.
Thanks,
K
Trina
Good day,
thank you so much for the explanations.
In my case I have applied online for a a job at National Research Council (CNRC) in August 2019, I was selected for an interview and I passed all the phases of the hiring process: technical and behavioral competencies, presentation, interview, SLE exams (reading, writting, oral), PSCA, fingerprints, security screening. In October the HR mentioned that the managers are travelling for seminars and conferences and they will be back to me with updates. It’s been a month and HR is not answering my update requests. Is this normal? I was selected for the job or I am only part of some pre-qualified list? Thank you
Hard to say for sure, but I would say you have made a pool / pre-qualified list. They won’t do anything until managers are back. Usually though you would get notice saying “Hey you made the pool”. Here’s the problem though…they have to finish EVERYONE’s file. Which means if another candidate was travelling for work, and had a legitimate reason to delay, or couldn’t go in for the language test, etc., they have to wait. Or suppose someone’s references are taking awhile to respond. Still have to wait. Just because YOU’RE done doesn’t mean EVERYONE’S done. A month isn’t uncommon, and if you keep asking for updates, all you’ll do is annoy HR. I would wait another couple of weeks at least before following up again.
Good luck!
Paul
Hi – this is a great article and gives me some much needed insight into the process. I recently was notified that my application was “screened in” for a PM-03 position, and have been asked to set aside a week for the next phase of the process. Any insight into what this means and what stage of the “process” I am at? Is this the interview stage? The job was originally listed as “Anticipatory” and the position is “Additions” to policy analyst. I haven’t worked in the PSC before so this is all new to me. Also, would it be appropriate at this point to ask the HR contact emailing me for the manager’s original job description/ a list of duties available? Thanks in advance for the insight!
Congratulations! After an application phase, you usually end up with a written phase. Not always, but if you go back to the Statement of Merit, and look to see if it mentioned written communications as a criterion (abilities), it almost guarantees a written stage. If not, it could be moving to interview. Easy enough to ask — written or interview? And yes, you can ask for a copy of the job description or list of duties. Surprisingly, it may not be all that helpful, as they usually are generic descriptions covering what a PM-03 does, not what THIS PM-03 does.
Good luck!
Paul
Thank you for your article! It is so helpful!
I have been invited included in the inventory and invited to do a test for an IRCC position. I am unavailable on the testing date and have emailed the appropriate email, but it’s been over a week and I have not heard back. As well, the email asks for “Contact information for at least two (2) recent, including current, work supervisors or managers who have supervised you for a period of at least four (4) months. ” I am not sure if this means we MUST provide our current manager’s contact and when they will be contacted. For obvious reasons I do not want to tell my current manager about this yet. I have asked for more info on this, but have also not heard back. Any insight or tips?
thank you!
Not uncommon for them not to respond right away, as they have to find a suitable back up date, and there is less urgency to confirm you than others who are saying yes now. And yes they want the current manager’s info, with the only reason given not to provide current is if they have managed you for less than four months. As you asked them, they hopefully will tell you when they are likely to contact references so you can tell your boss before someone else does.
Paul
Thank you so much! That’s really helpful. Hoping my current manager takes me asking for a reference well…