Anyone here work for the civil service?

[jobquestioncs]

I'm applying for a civil service job, and I'm diagnosed autistic. There's a box asking if I'd like reasonable adjustments. I'm wondering what is and isn't reasonable? Could I ask to see the questions shortly in advance, for example?

It's worth asking. It's becoming more normal. They might decide to give all candidates questions in advance.

Yes, you could ask but depending on the type of role, as an interviewer I would also be asking supplementary questions to test my understanding of what you’ve said and also ask further questions to probe more deeply into your answers. Those sorts of questions wouldn’t be decided before the interview as they are dynamic. In those instances, it would be reasonable for me to share the main interview questions and provide detail how the interview will be conducted with you in advance.

There’s really good advice here www.scope.org.uk/advice-and-support/ask-for-adjustments-at-interview/#Examples-of-reasonable-adjustments-in-job-interviews-and-tests-click

Also, I’d recommended that you read all the guidance on civil service interviews and watch the you tube videos on what to expect.

Thank you both!

As an interviewer, would you judge someone for asking for the main questions in advance @HMIT? It feels a bit like cheating.

But I also know I've misinterpreted questions in the past and looked really stupid because of it (one example, "tell us about your last job, how did you find it?" "On their job vacancy website." 😳)

Yes, asking for questions in advance absolutely one of the defined possible adjustments for neurodiversity (Scottish civil service anyway) plus other adjustments such as detailed description of process, explicit instructions on finding interview location (if in person, but nearly all will be online and all will have online options). Definitely ask for any adjustments that you would find helpful to make the process equitable for you.

No, no judgement at all. All we want is the right person for the role and if we have to make workplace adjustments to get that person into our role then that’s part of getting the right person.

Thank you @HMIT, that's great to hear, I hope my potential interviewers feel the same way.

@daveyfish good to hear it's normal there!

If it's any comfort, I am neurotypical but would have probably interpreted that question the same way! I think it's a badly worded question and that's on them, not you.

when you are sifted for an interview the panel won’t know you have ticked the box. When the panel get the pack for interviews they will know you’ve requested reasonable adjustments and will contact you to see what would best support you. Common ones I’ve used as an interviewer have been giving questions in a written and verbal format, extra time, meeting someone at a building entrance.

civil service recruitment is quite rigid but the panel should do everything they can to create an environment where you can sell yourself. Good luck!!

It may differ between departments and the specifics on which parts of the application …..

But for recent job applications in the MoD the redacted sift pack that I received did include disability & reasonable adjustment elements
Redacted elements were the personal information of name, contact details etc

I believe all interviewees should have the questions in advance because many people struggle. Probing questions sorts out those who know the subject.

We also ask and paste questions into the chat function and are happy for notes to be taken in.

Interviews are a skill. It doesn't mean those good at them can do the role.

If they’re using strengths as part of the assessment process, they won’t give you the questions in advance.

I have serious problems with the strengths bit of success profiles. I think it’s deeply problematic, inherently discriminatory to a wide range of people and pseudoscientific nonsense. There is no way a panel can get a baseline from a short warm up question in a job interview.

The scoring system is also stupid. People who are enthusiastic but incompetent can score better than someone who is incredibly experienced and competent but isn’t able to get excited about whatever they’ve been asked about. The underlying assumptions for that are dubious and, I’d argue, discriminatory.

If they are using strengths, I’d suggest giving detailed information about how your neurodiversity may influence your responses and the panel’s assessment of those responses and the need for that to be considered in scoring you. Including that the whole exercise is one of springing weird questions on you to assess your immediate response - so it’s setting you up for failure and is likely to impact upon your performance in the behaviour or other type questions too.

Thankfully we don't use Strengths in our department. I'd be doing some serious internal campaigning if we did.

Perfectly reasonable
(It’s not cheating - the interview isn’t a test, it’s a discussion to see how suitable you would be for a job)

For the main part of the interview you will be scored against the ‘Behaviours’ and ‘Success profiles’ with the specific ones required listed in the job advert and links to the guidance should be included in the advert.

It’s common for a question to be “We’ll now ask you about the behaviour ‘working together’, please give me an example on when you have worked together in a team”

Most of the time therefore you can look at which behaviors are in the advertisement and this is what you will be questioned on.

But each interviewer could ask their questions in a different style, and have additional questions.

So do ask for the questions in advance if you wish (it also to a degree shows that you are prepared to be as engaged as possible with the process)
When in the interview there will probably be follow up questions to what you have just told them, so do be ready to have an unexpected question. But you can still ask for it to be repeated, to clarify the question …. and also you can ask if your answer has given them what they wanted

(Particularly with you answering that you had found your previous job on the website - that’s a valid answer to the question. It could have been a sarcastic/comedy answer but it’s also a factual answer to a question where the words asked don’t provide the context of what the interviewer really wanted to know)

I wrote a long and detailed analysis of it, which convinced at least one small part of the civil service that it’s absolutely not fit for purpose.

I actually wouldn’t apply for a job using strengths. There would be no point. I would write to the names contact, enclosing my analysis, to explain why too.

@Tommika. It might not be behaviours based. Some campaigns don’t use behaviours.

It could be experience, technical, ability, strengths, behaviours or some mix. Not all posts use behaviours. The advert will say though.

@jobquestioncs what does the advert for the job you’re applying to say it’s using?

I ask, because the advice and possible adjustments are different depending on what they’re using.

Will it say in the advert if strengths are being used as part of the assessment?

It will always tell you on the job advert what parts of success profiles are being used.

Thank you! Have double checked the ad of a role I am thinking of and it says 'We want to hear your first, unrehearsed, natural response to strength questions, and so we don’t advertise which strengths are being tested.' so that answers that question.

Am still not sure why applying to the civil service is such a dark art...

For example. These are two live adverts.

Some executive agencies etc might be using competencies or something that’s not strengths profiles. It will say on the advert what they’re using.

Yep. Fucking strengths. Awful.

Ironically, with success profiles, the uk has designed a system where people need additional training just to figure out how to apply for bloody jobs successfully. The intention was to make things fairer. But now you have a situation where interview panels say things like ‘they would probably be great but they haven’t scored well on this exercise. So let’s give them feedback so they can perform better at interview if they apply again’.

The system often assesses how good a candidate is at success profiles (particularly if behaviours and strengths are being used) not how good they’d be at the job. A system that is different from any other job they’d be applying for. Experienced professionals from other sectors often fall foul of it - which is so stupid!

And, for all the claims about diversity, the scoring is always based on an idea of what an X-type civil servant should be like.

Ah, thank you to pp for probing about the advert. It has some technical areas relating to the role and also behaviours for

• Communication and Influencing 
• Leadership
... so that's probably a "no" to sharing questions in advance!

I do think interviews are a terrible way to find candidates having been on both sides of the panel multiple times. But I also appreciate that any other way would also have issues.

I don’t think that should be a no. There’s nothing about behaviours or technical that precludes sharing the questions in advance as a reasonable adjustment.

you can find out more about behaviours here: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/717275/CS_Behaviours_2018.pdf

and technical, but there’s much less detail because it’s more like what you’d do for a standard job interview: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/744220/Success-Profiles-Technical-vFV.pdf