Why do the Force not interview SP for appointments?

  • Thread starter Deleted 60082
  • Start date
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
Unless it has changed in the last couple of years, very few service personnel are interviewed prior to being assigned. There are a few exceptions - for outer-office/MA/ADC appointments candidates are generally interviewed by the principal to assess compatibility. This is in stark contrast with almost all areas of public service, and of course, in industry and academia.

In my near three-decades of service, I was interviewed only twice in connection with my career - once to change branch and try for air crew and secondly, in competition for a Defence Fellowship.

I see, in contrast, how my part of the public sector does things. Competency-based applications, followed by an interview panel, and more often than not, done by skype. In my experience over the last couple of years, it means that senior managers can build up a team of who they want and with the right skills to tackle the tasks.

Why, oh why do we still use a steam-driver archaic system based on that thin tissue of lies called OJARs or SJARs?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unless it has changed in the last couple of years, very few service personnel are interviewed prior to being assigned. There are a few exceptions - for outer-office/MA/ADC appointments candidates are generally interviewed by the principal to assess compatibility. This is in stark contrast with almost all areas of public service, and of course, in industry and academia.

In my near three-decades of service, I was interviewed only twice in connection with my career - once to change branch and try for air crew and secondly, in competition for a Defence Fellowship.

I see, in contrast, how my part of the public sector does things. Competency-based applications, followed by an interview panel, and more often than not, done by skype. In my experience over the last couple of years, it means that senior managers can build up a team of who they want and with the right skills to tackle the tasks.

Why, oh why do we still use a steam-driver archaic system based on that thing tissue of lies called OJARs or SJARs?
I've asked the same (before I signed off, and in my leaving interview). The response was a sigh, and 'it's the way we've always done it'.

Not exactly a comforting response - there is much that needs change in the MS world; we just need th people who are willing to push it through.
 

jim30

LE
Excellent topic and one that frustrates me intensely. There are some very good people out there, and others who have gone into posts and been deeply damaging / borderline dangerous. As someone who managed military, the idea that I'd get no say over who was coming on my team, and had no chance to identify if they were the right fit, wanted to be there and why they wanted the job was depressing - I have seen teams of Civ/Mil ruined by the appointment of people patently unsuitable for the role.

Giving people control over who is appointed would be fabulous - even if it is a case of 'here are X candidates, speak to them, take the one you want' because you can take the person who meets the wider teams needs, not the wrong person at the wrong point in the teams cycle.
 
The role goes with the rank and sometimes a qualification. If a person meets these requirements there is no need for an interview.

If someone subsequently fails in their position then the appropriate action should be taken against them - trouble is most people are too lazy and prefer to tolerate the two or three years they have to put up with them.
 
Excellent topic and one that frustrates me intensely. There are some very good people out there, and others who have gone into posts and been deeply damaging / borderline dangerous.
I have just spent an immensely frustrating 10 MTDs trying to sort out the IM/IX mess left behind by an MoD CS C2 Business Support Manager in an operational HQ. The Regular SO3 that I was working with wanted to go upstairs and kill the bloke, who is now a C1 and in a position to inflict even more incompetence upon people. The idea that MoD teams are ruined by inappropriate Military appointments does not stack up in my (fairly extensive) experience in this particular work area. We have a new MoD CS C2 coming in imminently, but I remain to be convinced if she will be any better and, in any case, CS Resourcing have ****ed up the recruitment process. It's going to be interesting!
 
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
Excellent topic and one that frustrates me intensely. There are some very good people out there, and others who have gone into posts and been deeply damaging / borderline dangerous. As someone who managed military, the idea that I'd get no say over who was coming on my team, and had no chance to identify if they were the right fit, wanted to be there and why they wanted the job was depressing - I have seen teams of Civ/Mil ruined by the appointment of people patently unsuitable for the role.

Giving people control over who is appointed would be fabulous - even if it is a case of 'here are X candidates, speak to them, take the one you want' because you can take the person who meets the wider teams needs, not the wrong person at the wrong point in the teams cycle.
My last Sgt who worked for me would have looked very good on paper (seemingly correct Qs and experience), but just 5 minutes spent in her company demonstrated how unsuited she was to work in a predominantly civilian environment overseas. She soon alienated everyone and had a drink problem that eventually adversely affected her health and thus ability to do her job. Her stentorious approach would have soon become apparent in interview.
 
My last Sgt who worked for me would have looked very good on paper (seemingly correct Qs and experience), but just 5 minutes spent in her company demonstrated how unsuited she was to work in a predominantly civilian environment overseas. She soon alienated everyone and had a drink problem that eventually adversely affected her health and thus ability to do her job. Her stentorious approach would have soon become apparent in interview.
Where was this?
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Unless it has changed in the last couple of years, very few service personnel are interviewed prior to being assigned. There are a few exceptions - for outer-office/MA/ADC appointments candidates are generally interviewed by the principal to assess compatibility. This is in stark contrast with almost all areas of public service, and of course, in industry and academia.

In my near three-decades of service, I was interviewed only twice in connection with my career - once to change branch and try for air crew and secondly, in competition for a Defence Fellowship.

I see, in contrast, how my part of the public sector does things. Competency-based applications, followed by an interview panel, and more often than not, done by skype. In my experience over the last couple of years, it means that senior managers can build up a team of who they want and with the right skills to tackle the tasks.

Why, oh why do we still use a steam-driver archaic system based on that thing tissue of lies called OJARs or SJARs?
I agree that this system is probably better, but for various reasons the FCO has just started to go the other way. At the latest board they've moved from 100% interview to only interviewing for some jobs, while also removing the assessment centre method of promotion and basing it on OJARs instead.

They haven't gone the whole way to our clusterfúck of a system but there are disadvantages to a pure interview and application system - principally that it leaves gaps all over the place as you accommodate people's needs. It'll be interesting to see if FCO retention drops in the wake of these changes though as that'll create gaps all by itself.
 

theinventor

Old-Salt
Nobody wants to address the obvious outcome: what to do with the people that nobody chooses to be "on their team".

Offering redundancy would give those who want out a too-easy option. But we also don't have a culture where you can just terminate employment because there's no immediate next role.
 
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
Nobody wants to address the obvious outcome: what to do with the people that nobody chooses to be "on their team".

Offering redundancy would give those who want out a too-easy option. But we also don't have a culture where you can just terminate employment because there's no immediate next role.
They go back to Regimental Duties?
 
My last Sgt who worked for me would have looked very good on paper (seemingly correct Qs and experience), but just 5 minutes spent in her company demonstrated how unsuited she was to work in a predominantly civilian environment overseas. She soon alienated everyone and had a drink problem that eventually adversely affected her health and thus ability to do her job. Her stentorious approach would have soon become apparent in interview.
Naturally you shitcanned her after the first couple of months?
 
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
Slightly tongue in cheek. But for 'customer facing' roles ie defence engagement, there are some people much better at it than others. And it's important when you are trying to stare down an uppity Johnny Foreigner...
 
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
Naturally you shitcanned her after the first couple of months?
That may be possible in your world of the field army, but when you receive someone after almost 18 months training, it will take almost that long to have a SQEP replacement. Even the vetting process is 6 months. How many SPS Sgts do you know who are 'free to move' with an enhanced DV, Strap and TK clearances? Oh, and can converse in the vernacular...
 
That may be possible in your world of the field army, but when you receive someone after almost 18 months training, it will take almost that long to have a SQEP replacement. Even the vetting process is 6 months. How many SPS Sgts do you know who are 'free to move' with an enhanced DV, Strap and TK clearances? Oh, and can converse in the vernacular...
So you put up with an individual who wasn't up to the job instead? There your answer why things will never change.
 
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
I have just spent an immensely frustrating 10 MTDs trying to sort out the IM/IX mess left behind by an MoD CS C2 Business Support Manager in an operational HQ. The Regular SO3 that I was working with wanted to go upstairs and kill the bloke, who is now a C1 and in a position to inflict even more incompetence upon people. The idea that MoD teams are ruined by inappropriate Military appointments does not stack up in my (fairly extensive) experience in this particular work area. We have a new MoD CS C2 coming in imminently, but I remain to be convinced if she will be any better and, in any case, CS Resourcing have ****ed up the recruitment process. It's going to be interesting!
I have seen some real belter CSs appointed, albeit at a relatively low grade, over which there is almost no control.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
So you put up with an individual who wasn't up to the job instead? There your answer why things will never change.
OK....deep breath...the appropriate measures were put in place, she was counselled, referred back to the UK, we spoke to the manning staff at Glasgow, but still she remained in post for over 2 years before we managed to get a replacement. Ultimately she was repatriated on compassionate grounds just as her replacement became available, but as you well know, there just aren't SNCOs lying around waiting to be posted, and the role could not be gapped. Sadly her replacement - a good bloke - PVRd shortly thereafter because of extenuating circumstances at home, so we were augmented by a Reservist Major for 6 months. My tour was then up.

This is by no means an isolated case. DAs have made numerous representations over the years asking to conduct interviews for DDAs, ADAs and Spt Staff. The problem is getting a tri-service agreement. An embassy environment is almost unique because of the culture within the FCO and across the PAG is altogether different from what most SP have ever encountered.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The role goes with the rank and sometimes a qualification. If a person meets these requirements there is no need for an interview.

If someone subsequently fails in their position then the appropriate action should be taken against them - trouble is most people are too lazy and prefer to tolerate the two or three years they have to put up with them.
Disagree. Vehemently!

You "punish" someone because they/he/she/it finds themselves within an organisation, "management" structure . . . . so inflexible; so far up its own ARRSE; incapable of recognizing "talent" - let alone managing it; incapable of communicating with/explaining to those for whom it is now responsible; and, universally abhorred by all those (subordinates) who had been working satisfactorily, efficiently and effectively for the previous hierarchy!! :( .

. . . and, breathe ;) .

This - of course - relates to a "management team" who (on rotation), are imposed upon the established, longer serving, knowledgeable, staff of an operational Headquarters.
 
Last edited:
I see, in contrast, how my part of the public sector does things. Competency-based applications, followed by an interview panel, and more often than not, done by skype. In my experience over the last couple of years, it means that senior managers can build up a team of who they want and with the right skills to tackle the tasks.
I work in for a local authority that uses - competency based applications - absolute twaddle, in my experience those people who think that they are the bees knees are usually not so good as what they like think they are - however they usually end up with the job

Plus Managers make a decision based on their first impressions and cannot see through the bluster

There is an appraisal system in place however it is totally meaningless, crap at your job - no sanction - brilliant at your job - no reward

Archie
 

Latest Threads

Top