Civil Service job application frustration

[IPartridge]

I've been applying for lots of CS jobs that are well within my capabilities, I'm mid 50s and applying for EO roles. But I'm just getting rejections.

The latest one, I scored better than 98% of candidates on the test, have a CV that shows I would be a perfect match, but all they looked at was the Personal Statement which obviously wasn't good enough. I've read things about using the STAR method, which I tried to do, although there were 6 different criteria that I had to show I met so it wasn't easy to cover everything.

I'm really disheartened as I was made redundant earlier this year and thought this was my chance to try something different. I've also applied for non CS jobs, that just require a CV and no luck there either.

Does anyone have any tips/advice?

She must work for ALBs. Because none of the three (MOD, CO and FCDO) depts I’ve worked in has used recruiters. HO don’t either.

But FWIW, I just had a G7 job up (internal candidates only) and you had to get straight 6’s to even make it to interview. Excellent candidates, including several with desirable language skills (which was relevant) didn’t even make it to interview. So to say the quality of candidates is low, is a massive generalisation.

Yes locations across the country to be fair so we cast a wide net.

I'm CS. I've been through the promotion interviews and personally think it's too rigid on STAR and the process. I also sit on panels and it drives me mad when I can see great candidates score ok but not high. I've seen 'weaker' candidates boss the scoring system

Overall I have to say having just been involved in a huge recruitment campaign and now working with those people it does work. But I interviewed some str

I interviewed some strong candidates on paper / experience that didn't concrete examples. I also sifted CV with little detail. I sifted statements that were vague etc Over 100 of them

IME EO-level recruitment can be the most competitive. CS is sought after, and certainly in my area the pay is often seen as fairly decent for the level of experience required. Recruiters will probably really have to look at people who are demonstrating significant experience against all the essential and desirable criteria. Huge numbers of applications can also mean a sizeable chunk that meet the disability confidence interview criteria.

My main gripe with them is also the rigidness and especially for interviews it feels like I have to learn a whole new language. I tried for a while but had to give up because I simply don't have the time to do the amount of prep work required, i.e. have two examples for every behaviour that I can recall in perfect STARR format. I've got the relevant experience, 'normal' job interviews where I can loosely do STAR as appropriate are not an issue. It's not comparable to the bit of prep of looking at the job spec, researching the company, anticipating some general questions. That being said, at least it's not a 7 part interview quest that a lot of the private sector seems to command currently.

I think this is my frustration too - there’s so much rigidity around the system and the amount of prep needed is considerable, especially when coming as an outsider.

The Civil Service application and interview process is a flawed system which is suited to a particular group of people, who work (think, act) in a certain way.
Someone up thread said it - being able to apply and be interviewed for these jobs is a skill. Some people have developed this skill and some just won't manage it.
I've worked in both Civil Service and private sector and have done a lot of recruitment in both. I really notice the difference in applications, interview performance, performance of chosen candidate.
In my Civil Service recruitment I'd get some great applications from those who know the system, and these candidates would then ace an interview, then once they start work I'd quickly notice that it was the process that they were good at, not the job - so frustrating. Whereas private sector recruitment, largely based around a CV as application, I'd also get some great candidates but it would be a lot clearer as to what their specific experience was in, and once starting work this would be proven in their performance.
Personally, I'd always rather be offered a job based on my work experience and skills, rather than on my ability to apply in a certain way.

I think the rigidity also means it's possible for someone else to write an applicant's responses for them - for application and interview.

Possibly for the application- but surely the same could be said for any job application? For the interview, you would just use the exact same responses as used in the application so, yes, someone else could write it. If the candidate was cheating though they'd be rumbled if any follow up questions were asked.

I agree it's not a perfect system by any means. The way the application process is designed means the successful candidates are those who can "talk the talk" rather than "walk the walk" I've seen many colleagues who are so knowledgeable with fantastic skills unable to progress because they just can't "do interviews" and others who have managed to blag their way to the top by sheer bullshittery. It's not fair at all. I haven't been around long enough to have experienced it personally, but I think the CS moved to the competency based process and a scoring system based on the behaviours to make the process as open and fair as possible. Previously I think there was a lot of cronyism. Both ways have their pros and cons.

I think it is true that writing CS job applications and succeeding at interview is a skill, but I do think it is a skill that most people can learn if you accept that this is just how it works and you have to play the game. There is a guy called Jac Williams who has posted a lot of useful content on YouTube about CS behaviours - worth having a look. If you want some direct feedback on your applications OP then I'd be happy to have a look for you - I'm going on holiday next week but feel free to send me a direct message if you want someone already in the CS with experience of the process to look at your examples.

That never works at interview. It’s incredibly obvious at interview when someone has prepared answers as they try and shoehorn them into questions where they don’t fit. And when you ask probing questions, they can’t answer them!

From what I understand of CS interviews is that they have to ask the same questions of all candidates and they all relate to the competencies eg tell me about a time when you had to make a difficult decision.

They don't look at your CV or personal statement and ask you specific questions about your experience or knowledge.

I work for the local authority (not CS) and recently had an interview. It was exactly as you say, competency only. There were no direct questions at all about experience etc... but you're expected to weave your experience into your answers. 7 competency question, it was a nightmare in terms of preparation and I still don't feel confident I grasped the concept exactly. But the good news is, I got the job! And I'm 62!
It's the paper sift you need to keep going at, don't give up.
Keep at it and good luck!

The CS recruitment process is only successful for a certain type of individual, therefore the CS is full of the same types and only getting worse and hence why many things are grinding to a halt - it’s just too far up its own buttocks.

hopefully eventually they’ll reach the lowest common denominator and they’ll realise that they need a lot of different personalities, not just one type, to actually get stuff done rather than the current paper pushing routine.

Yes, but a decent recruiter will have good questions and good follow ups.

Those who fail are often those who have their one or two examples for X behaviour/competence/criteria and doggedly trot it out, even with gentle guidance they can't get themselves off it, even if it doesn't come close to answering the question actually asked.

(I'm not saying the CS recruitment process is perfect or even good - far from it. But even within that structure you can tell the scripted candidates, and they don't do well.)

When I have interviewed candidates from the civil service - they are always quite long-winded, I can't remember a single one that was succinct - is this the style that gets you through - keep talking till you have hit everything in the checklist?