'Old evidence' being ignored in civil service recruitment

[Plbrookes]

I work in the civil service. Recently I went for a promotion where I needed to provide evidence against some 'competencies'. I thought I covered them pretty well, but after I was rejected I asked for feedback and the recruiting manager said that the evidence for one competency was good but too old (it was from a job I did about ten years ago).

I've got no complaints about not getting the job as I know the person who did and she's very competent. But I did wonder whether it was OK to dismiss evidence because it was old. It wasn't the case for me, but if a woman was re-entering the workforce after having kids it seems unfair that all their experience could be ignored. BTW, this competency wasn't something that could go out of date like being an expert on popular programming languages or something - it was about working in collaboration with other people. Is this just accepted as how things are done in the civil service?

I went for a civil serv interview and provided a home-family based example for a competancy. I was asked for another that happened at work.

TBH it depends on the recruiter. All my decent examples are old, and the feedback after one interview was that I needed up to date competences. The next one I went to I only went back 5 years for my job history. I didn't use that example on my application but it came up some other way during the interview. Feedback was that it was a very good example but I hadn't put the actual job on my application and they didn't know why (because it was 10 years ago).

I went for a civil serv interview and provided a home-family based example for a competancy.

Surely it's not acceptable to use a home or family as evidence in a job application? Not being goady, just surprised anyone would do that?

DerelictWreck - As well as being a failed applicant in this process, I've also been an assessor (and was not told to disregard old evidence but not told it was OK either!). I'd have had no problems accepting evidence from non-work sources as such (often with new graduates, they point to stuff they've done in Uni Societies, or non-graduates pointing towards voluntary activities). Tbh I wouldn't take 'I'm a mum of 3' as being good evidence of organisational skills but if someone explained how this was relevant to what the job description asked for I definitely would take the evidence on its merits.

WeaselsRising - thanks for the reply - it's really frustrating that with something as important as this it seems up to the whim of the recruiter as whether we're wrong to quote evidence from eg 10 years ago, or stupid not to do so.

Sorry to post 3 messages in a row! Just to add to my reply to DerelictWreck - I have done sifts and interviews (years ago) but the training I got was little neighbouring non-existent so I'm definitely not saying that what I thought is what the civil service wants us to do.

Was the interview using the old style competencies, or the new Success Profiles?

If it's the latter, they prefer to see recent examples of how you meet the required behaviours.

Two4Tuesday - I didn't get an interview (I was sifted out) - it was on the old style competencies. So if the new method prefers recent examples, how is that fair to women re-entering the workforce (again, this wasn't my situation, but I thought it would be unfair to those who do)?

That's a good question. Success Profiles was only rolled out across the whole CS a couple of months ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if that emerges as a criticism of the new system.

In theory, it's a much less rigid recruitment method in that applications now don't focus solely on competencies. The idea is to ensure the best people for the job are hired, not^^ the people who have the best competencies. How that will work in reality though, especially in scenarios like the one you describe, I'm honestly not sure. It may be something that needs looked at, or it may be down to the panel's discretion whether they accept old examples.

Tricky one here I think. I interview a bit and do tend to prefer more recent competencies. Ten years feels very far in the past.

Lots of recruiters in CS do look down on old examples, I disagree totally.

If you have a recent work history, I think your examples should be as recent as possible. However there is no policy on this in the recruitment guidelines and you shouldn't be marked down simply for the age of your examples - as you say, this is unfair to people who have been out of the workforce for whatever reason.

I've never marked anyone down because their examples were old. Had someone in the last campaign who used 20 yr old examples - unfortunately the examples didn't stand up at interview though, because they were too long ago and he couldn't remember the details! That's why I think your examples should be as recent as poss.

interview script/blurb we use specifies that examples can be from any area of your life.