How to win a public service job has long been a mystery to both newbies and insiders. Given a long record of unnecessarily complex and protracted recruitment processes, you’d think the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) would want to know if the one-page pitch works better than responses to selection criteria. With eight years’ usage across multiple agencies, the pitch remains unquestioned as a ‘best-practice’, merit-based approach to recruitment. But is it open, fair and competitive?
Merit problems with the pitch
The pitch is dubious when checked against merit principles.
Limitations on reasonable opportunity to apply
Merit means ‘all eligible members of the community are given a reasonable opportunity to apply’, yet those who lack strong English skills may struggle to comprehend role descriptions and effectively edit responses to meet word limits.
The APSC’s recruitment guide suggests a role description should be ‘clear, concise (avoid using jargon) and accessible (agencies might consider running the text through a readability tool to ensure it is accessible to the majority of candidates)’. Do any agencies apply this test?
Assessment basis unclear
Merit means ‘the assessment is based on the relationship between the candidates’ work-related qualities and the qualities genuinely required to perform the relevant duties’. Compared to when selection criteria were used, the basis for assessment is now often unclear due to the multiple components mentioned in role descriptions.
While some agencies make clear that selection is based on the ‘ideal candidate’, others ask applicants to also consider the APS Work Level Standards, the Secretaries’ Charter of Leadership Behaviours, the Integrated Leadership System or in-house capability frameworks, the role, key duties, desirable experience, all within 750 words. An impossible task!
Some pitch requirements continue to ask applicants to explain why they are the best person for the job. Surely this is the selection panel’s task rather than the applicant’s.
Plus, applicants’ writing skills may be judged on their application even though the pitch’s marketing style is atypical of most public service writing.
Information not always readily available
Merit means ‘information about the selection process is readily available to candidates’.
While this information may be included in the role description, there continue to be job advertisements where application requirements are unspecified, may only be found in the application preview function, or may require creating an account to access this fundamental information.
Most job advertisements draw applicants’ attention to the APSC’s 2019 guide, Cracking the Code. This publication, ironically described by some as ‘an excellent guide to applying for jobs in the APS’, has never provided useful information beyond what is already stated in role descriptions. If Cracking the Code is the best guidance on offer, applicants will continue to struggle with recruitment.
Cracking the Code specifies that the contact officer ‘can tell you more about the job, the roles and responsibilities, the agency and so on. They are there for the specific purpose of answering your questions’.
But contact officers continue to present challenges. Apart from being unavailable, they may be unwilling to share useful information, claiming it would be ‘unfair’ to those applicants who don’t bother asking questions. So much for initiative!
Role descriptions may refer to internal, organisational changes, but often this information is not mentioned, even though relevant. Again, contact officers may be unwilling to explain these changes, claiming it would be ‘unfair’, despite an internal applicant’s knowledge advantage.
Insist on integrity assessment
The Public Service Minister, Senator Gallagher, has focused on four pillars of APS reform, one of which is building a strong culture of integrity. The 2020 Report into consultations regarding APS approaches to ensure institutional integrity recommended identifying the integrity framework knowledge required by APS employees soon after entry. But why wait until after entry? Why not insist that selection panels include integrity assessment? After all, many role descriptions refer to the importance of staff complying with and upholding the APS Values, the Code of Conduct and Employment Principles.
Another theme explored in the report is uncertainty about how well-equipped staff are to identify and act on integrity concerns. Given efforts to cut outsourced labour, applicants for contract management and procurement roles should demonstrate their integrity credentials. Applicants for all leadership roles should surely have some assessment made of their capacity to foster a pro-integrity culture.
The Australian government has released multiple documents about the value and risks of artificial intelligence (AI). Concerns include legal, privacy, security and ethical risks and their impact on public confidence and trust. Another reason for making integrity assessment compulsory during recruitment processes.
Review the Merit Protection Commissioner’s role
Merit Protection Commissioner documents make clear that the test of whether there are ‘serious defects’ in a selection process is a high standard. Most selection and recruitment decisions are not eligible for review. The Commissioner has no authority to identify procedural issues or suggest how to improve a recruitment process. Given identified problems with the pitch and recruitment practices, it’s time to review the Commissioner’s role.
Assess selection panels’ skills and knowledge
The APSC’s recruitment guide includes a section on candidate care and lists some merit-related considerations. Are selection panel members assessed to confirm their candidate care competence?
The guide also states that: ‘Agencies are encouraged to consider the importance of having a skilled and capable selection panel, and what benefits this can bring to a process’. Four considerations are listed concerning panel diversity, training, external members, and Affirmative Measures. Where is the evidence that selection panels consistently adopt these considerations and that panel members, delegates and contact officers are well-trained?
Being a model employer: Recruitment practices need evaluation
Being a model employer is another pillar of APS reform. Given the various flaws in the pitch, in-depth evaluation of recruitment practices is essential to building a competent workforce.
Recruitment performance measures include recruitment cost, cost per recruit, offer-acceptance rates, turnover and retention rates, probation reports, feedback and candidate satisfaction. But these measures are not enough as they don’t assess the core of the application process – namely the pitch. While evaluations of pitch-based recruitment and selection practices remain unavailable (or non-existent), it is difficult to have confidence in their validity.
The Public Service Minister needs to include evaluations of the pitch in further work on developing ‘best practice recruitment and selection options’. With 87 agencies identifying critical skills shortages, ‘getting it right’ means convincing us that the pitch is indeed open, fair and competitive.