Job Applications – Selection Criteria

Don’t you hate applying for jobs?

Let me rephrase that. Job applications are just fine when you can present you skills and experiences for a position you think might suit you down to the ground. The prospect can fill you with excitement and anticipation of working with your dream organisation, maybe in a great position, and with a marvellous salary to boot. But when you’ve mailed your hundredth application addressing selection criteria that have been poorly worded the letter writing experience takes on an entirely different perspective. Here’s an experience from the other side of the table that relates to selection criteria.

I was working in the state government, and the section in which I worked was in the process of recruiting a new staff member. I wasn’t involved initially, but I was interested, because whoever was employed would be serving in a backup roll to me. I wasn’t involved in the selection process from the start, but was drawn into it. I didn’t see all the applications, nor was I involved in short listing applicants, but I was asked if I would be able to sit on the interview panel. Sure I said, and a small bundle of applications came my way. I spent some time studying the applications, and pretty soon the day of interviews was upon us. It was at that point my supervisor, who was also on the panel, appeared to be in some obvious turmoil.

The position was not an IT position in the conventional sense, as you might envisage the duties of a computer programmer or analyst, but it was certainly an IT related job. The job was described locally as a ‘data’ position in so far as the successful candidate would be working with data, spreadsheets, and databases. It was more of a technical position with some administrative work. And the reason for my supervisor’s agitation was that the selection criteria included a statement on candidates’ policy experience.

The inclusion of a policy component in selection criteria with the public service is a common enough criterion, but this particular position had no policy responsibilities. None at all. The dilemma my supervisor now wished to share with the other two panel members was what sort of policy question we might devise for the interview. My solution at the time was rejected: Just drop the question, I suggested, but no, that was out of the question. My supervisor’s dilemma was that the interview questions had to match the selection criteria. For every item listed on the selection criteria, there had to be a relevant interview question.

So there we were, the three of us, trying to rack our brains to formulate an interview question which enquired into candidates’ policy experience when the job had no policy component. Is this not dumb? You wonder how the recruitment process could have got to the job ad stage, and someone had to write the selection criteria, and after all that, the problem was only noticed the day before interviews were due to take place. So much for the well oiled wheels of big government. I squirmed inwardly when the policy question was put to each of the candidates.

Postscript

• I wonder how much time applicants had wasted writing a section on policy in their application, that was never acknowledged.
• I wonder how many potentially good applicants didn’t apply because they had no policy experience.
• In hindsight, it’s easy to imagine how this occurred. It was probably a cut and paste job that went wrong; probably from some other position that was assumed to be similar.
• And the moral of this story: If you don’t fit all the criteria: don’t worry, apply anyway.
• There are other lessons, and if the cap fits, wear it.