Location, Location, Location!

[Waffle]

For those of you who have been through the interviewing experience with SSA, may I pose the following questions:

1)  Will we be informed during the interview of which geographic location(s) we are being interviewed for?
2)  Is it possible we might be asked to prioritize our previously submitted geographic location selections?
3)  Will they ask us, "If you could pick just one of the various locations you indicated, which would be your top pick?"
Bottom line: will we have any opportunity to indicate where we would really like to go?

I am truly happy to go to any of the places I selected. However, if given the opportunity to pick one, I certainly would have a preference.

Thank you in advance for any insights you may have on this matter. Happy New Year and great interviewing to ALL!

[shadow]

Great questions, I'll be looking forward to any answers. . .

I'm in the same frame of mind - would be happy to go to any one of the 71 locations on the cert, but absolutely do have preferences, if asked. Thanks for the post Waffle.

[aljsouth]

waffle said:

For those of you who have been through the interviewing experience with SSA, may I pose the following questions:

1) Will we be informed during the interview of which geographic location(s) we are being interviewed for?
2) Is it possible we might be asked to prioritize our previously submitted geographic location selections?
3) Will they ask us, "If you could pick just one of the various locations you indicated, which would be your top pick?"
Bottom line: will we have any opportunity to indicate where we would really like to go?

I am truly happy to go to any of the places I selected. However, if given the opportunity to pick one, I certainly would have a preference.

Thank you in advance for any insights you may have on this matter. Happy New Year and great interviewing to ALL!

No to all. Consider yourself under consideration for all locations you selected that match the 71 on the FEIA. Basically your input into location is now over, unless you foolishly turn down an offer.

Look at the tread what to expect at the interview to help prepare.

[hooligan]

waffle said:

For those of you who have been through the interviewing experience with SSA, may I pose the following questions:

1)  Will we be informed during the interview of which geographic location(s) we are being interviewed for?
2)  Is it possible we might be asked to prioritize our previously submitted geographic location selections?
3)  Will they ask us, "If you could pick just one of the various locations you indicated, which would be your top pick?"
Bottom line: will we have any opportunity to indicate where we would really like to go?

[/b] [/quote]

The piece of the puzzle that has you confused is that the people doing the interviews are not the people who will be doing the selections. The interviewers will not know how the mechanics of selection will apply to you. All they can do is rate your suitability for selection.

[mongo]

I would not be surprised if the interviewers do ask where you would like to be stationed, as I've recently spoken to a sitting ALJ regarding her interview and she said that the interviewers did inquire as to her geographic preference. SSA does not like having to deal with the transfer list, and it's better for the agency to put an ALJ somewhere he/she will stay rather than somewhere he/she will be trying to get out of ASAP, and it takes no time at all to ask the question and make note of the response for future reference. IMHO and in my experience with SSA, the better performing offices are those that have a low turnover rate with regard to staff, especially ALJs and managers, so it's in the agency's best interest to place people where they will stay.

[morgullord]

Candygram for Mongo!

You, sir, are correct; however, the transfer list is only an occasional concern for SSA. To the best of my understanding, the transfer list is not something that SSA consults unless and until it is in the agency's interest to do so.

[chris]

I have a different take on that question. If they ask where you want to go, there is only one correct answer. That answer is "everywhere I checked". If you give any other answer I wouldn't be surprised if the interviewers do put a note in your file. You may be saying "I love Cleveland" but what they write down is "confused about cities, now says she doesn't want to work anywhere other than Cleveland" . So when it's a close call for who they are going to place in Pittsburgh, the Cleveland lover gets eliminated. I cannot see any way at all that changing your list of cities in the interview room is going to help you. I can see ways that it will hurt you.

Everyone had an opportunity to say where they really wanted to go when they checked their cities for OPM and then again when SSA asked them to narrow down the cities. The attitude of the interviewers is likely going to be that you have already had two chances to list your cities. They are not going to respect a third response in the interview room.

My prediction is that the people who will be trying to sort through the scores, the listed geographic availability and the interview rankings, to try to place 450 people into 150 positions, are not going to pay any attention at all to who really wants to go anywhere, because their job is already way too complex and because everyone has already told SSA where they really want to go when they reconfirmed their cities. Adding in city preferences just makes their job more difficult. It certainly might be different when SSA is interviewing 30 people for 10 positions, but I can't see any way that they are intentionally going to make their current task more difficult by trying to factor in a candidate's subjective and often fleeting feeling about where they prefer to live.

And that's another reason why SSA doesn't care what people put down. People change their minds and frequently don't know what they want anyway. Trying to predict who might want to transfer, and why, is a fruitless endeavor. People will change cities because of a successful romance or a failed one. And if you've never lived in a city there's a good chance you don't know how you really feel about it anyway. On the old board there was some guy who was certain he wanted to live in some large east coast city but he had never lived on the east coast at all, only the west coast. Will he like the east? Who knows. He certainly didn't.

The idea that people would be happy and not transfer if they got their first choice of city seems unlikely to me. Transfers are not going to go away simply because someone got their first choice of city. People will find out that despite their lifelong dream to live in San Francisco that they can't deal with the housing problem or the commute. People will discover that as they get older their interests change and they are tired of dealing with cold weather. People from the Midwest and South will discover that people in the East and West are not as friendly, at least not superficially. People from the South will discover that NASCAR is not a universal passion elsewhere.

I can't tell you how many people I have met in my life who once longed to live in the Pacific Northwest but then couldn't stand the weather. Visiting a place on vacation is not the same as living there. I've met people who thought they would love to live in Phoenix or Las Vegas until they actually had to stay through an entire summer. I also know a half a dozen people who thought Hawaii was perfect until they actually had to live there and then left ASAP. People soon discover that no matter how much they like a city they will not want to stay there if they don't like the office they are in. People will also find out that despite their initial reluctance to live in places like Paducah that the people are great, their kids love the area, the office is well run and the commute is awesome.

The best performing offices aren't necessarily the best because they have a low turnover rate. In fact it may be exactly the opposite. They have a low turnover rate because the offices are well run and people don't want to leave, something that no one knows when they are selecting a city based on personal geographic preference alone.

So considering the complications I have set forth above, how much weight will SSA give to someone's supposed preference for a city? Probably none. But is it possible that exhibiting a preference in the interview room can hurt you by making you appear inconsistent or indecisive? Absolutely.

[doctorwho]

chris said:

I have a different take on that question. If they ask where you want to go, there is only one correct answer. That answer is "everywhere I checked". If you give any other answer I wouldn't be surprised if the interviewers do put a note in your file. You may be saying "I love Cleveland" but what they write down is "confused about cities, now says she doesn't want to work anywhere other than Cleveland" . So when it's a close call for who they are going to place in Pittsburgh, the Cleveland lover gets eliminated. I cannot see any way at all that changing your list of cities in the interview room is going to help you. I can see ways that it will hurt you.

Everyone had an opportunity to say where they really wanted to go when they checked their cities for OPM and then again when SSA asked them to narrow down the cities. The attitude of the interviewers is likely going to be that you have already had two chances to list your cities. They are not going to respect a third response in the interview room.

My prediction is that the people who will be trying to sort through the scores, the listed geographic availability and the interview rankings, to try to place 450 people into 150 positions, are not going to pay any attention at all to who really wants to go anywhere, because their job is already way too complex and because everyone has already told SSA where they really want to go when they reconfirmed their cities. Adding in city preferences just makes their job more difficult. It certainly might be different when SSA is interviewing 30 people for 10 positions, but I can't see any way that they are intentionally going to make their current task more difficult by trying to factor in a candidate's subjective and often fleeting feeling about where they prefer to live.

And that's another reason why SSA doesn't care what people put down. People change their minds and frequently don't know what they want anyway. Trying to predict who might want to transfer, and why, is a fruitless endeavor. People will change cities because of a successful romance or a failed one. And if you've never lived in a city there's a good chance you don't know how you really feel about it anyway. On the old board there was some guy who was certain he wanted to live in some large east coast city but he had never lived on the east coast at all, only the west coast. Will he like the east? Who knows. He certainly didn't.

The idea that people would be happy and not transfer if they got their first choice of city seems unlikely to me. Transfers are not going to go away simply because someone got their first choice of city. People will find out that despite their lifelong dream to live in San Francisco that they can't deal with the housing problem or the commute. People will discover that as they get older their interests change and they are tired of dealing with cold weather. People from the Midwest and South will discover that people in the East and West are not as friendly, at least not superficially. People from the South will discover that NASCAR is not a universal passion elsewhere.

I can't tell you how many people I have met in my life who once longed to live in the Pacific Northwest but then couldn't stand the weather. Visiting a place on vacation is not the same as living there. I've met people who thought they would love to live in Phoenix or Las Vegas until they actually had to stay through an entire summer. I also know a half a dozen people who thought Hawaii was perfect until they actually had to live there and then left ASAP. People soon discover that no matter how much they like a city they will not want to stay there if they don't like the office they are in. People will also find out that despite their initial reluctance to live in places like Paducah that the people are great, their kids love the area, the office is well run and the commute is awesome.

The best performing offices aren't necessarily the best because they have a low turnover rate. In fact it may be exactly the opposite. They have a low turnover rate because the offices are well run and people don't want to leave, something that no one knows when they are selecting a city based on personal geographic preference alone.

So considering the complications I have set forth above, how much weight will SSA give to someone's supposed preference for a city? Probably none. But is it possible that exhibiting a preference in the interview room can hurt you by making you appear inconsistent or indecisive? Absolutely.

If they ask, I suggest you answer truthfully. Based on information I've gleaned from this board and information I've gathered from sitting SSA ALJs, the questions will be the same for everybody involved, so, if they ask, it is highly likely that they want to know. You could, of course, answer "I am willing to go anywhere (or, substitute whatever cities you picked). I am particularly partial to . . . " Like that, you cover all bases. But, don't withold information when you don't necessarily know what the actualy outcome is unless your absolutely sure it's going to bite you in the arse.

[aljsouth]

Chris is correct in his analysis. In another thread I said that the questions asked at the interview will reflect the fears of SSA/ODAR. If you are asked about preferences it will NOT be because SSA wants to place you where you want to be. This has never been a concern of SSA. It WILL reflect the concern and fear of SSA that you might be a "problem" always angling for a transfer instead of working on case production.

In the past SSA actually used the desire for a transfer to push up production -- after you produce 70 cases a month for a year they would consider your transfer. With the transfer list this carrot is gone and can only be used for people taking HOCALJ jobs in order to move, or for "hardship" transfers, which are abused by the agency. SSA does have a problem with judges wanting transfers from the first day on the job and it does really bug them when judges at the training sessions spend half their time asking to be transferred, or trying to swap cities with the other new judges. It isn't allowed but every class has a few of these.

As Chris said, the only correct response is I will be happy in any city on my list. The people at the interview are not the ones making the selections (as pointed out above). If SSA really wanted to know your preferences it would allow you to rank the sites, but it does not allow this. The question will ONLY reflect the concerns of SSA about problems, not a concern for your preferred placement.

[jagghagg]

Chris - a thoughtful and complete response as usual. (It is what we have come to expect of you! Thank you.)

I think your observation that SSA has a huge enough - complex enough - job just dealing with the interviews, working out the VP, and putting names in a location for which they indicated acceptance is dead-on. I think ALJSouth and Hooligan are correct - that the people doing the interviewing are only going to list their selections for job offers; they are not going to be the people actually making the job offer. Their job will be, as Hooligan notes, to determine judicial "suitability." Job offers are going to come from some dark cavern at main SSA.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if they aren't going to use the information then why would they ask ? And while we don't expect them to ask, if they do - why would our answer indicate we are "confused" about cities ? A better answer is to say, "I indicated availability for all and am happy to go anywhere I can serve the needs of the Social Security Administration. That being said, if you asked me what opportunity I would pick from all that are available, why, I think I'd like to go to Paducah." No confusion; answering the question put; stating your preference.

On a side note, it is SOOOOOOOOO true that you never know where you want to be until you get there. ("Wherever you go, there you are.") I wasn't all that fond of Browns Mill, NJ or OKC, OK - but my jobs there in the military were fantastic. I hated my job situation in Alaska, but absolutely adored living there. Which was better ? The better job. Hands down.

(BTW, I am from the Pacific Northwest and - hey - it's only water!)

[sta]

Just remember when you commit to a particular location, this could be a near permanent assignment. While you may request a transfer after two years under the transfer list procedure, there is no guarantee the agency will refill a location in a reasonable time. Even if a vacancy is filled, it might be filled under a vacancy announcement for a HOCALJ, which involves merit competitive procedures

[chris]

[/quote]

If they ask, I suggest you answer truthfully. Based on information I've gleaned from this board and information I've gathered from sitting SSA ALJs, the questions will be the same for everybody involved, so, if they ask, it is highly likely that they want to know. You could, of course, answer "I am willing to go anywhere (or, substitute whatever cities you picked). I am particularly partial to . . . " Like that, you cover all bases. But, don't withold information when you don't necessarily know what the actualy outcome is unless your absolutely sure it's going to bite you in the arse.[/quote]

The question is what do they want to know if they ask that question.

I'm sure they don't care about your geographic preference. So why would they ask the question? To ferret out people who are perceived to be potential problems. Many of the questions asked by OPM, by SSA and by other employers are what you might call "trick" questions. They are not asking the question for the reason you think they are asking the question.

Despite your perception that revealing a preference during the interview is honest, if you exhibit a strong preference when they ask this question, they may perceive that you were dishonest regarding your initial geographic availability and that you will be looking for a transfer if you don';t get your first choice. Your concept of honesty is not necessarily their concept of honesty. Further, what you perceive as "covering all the bases" may be what they perceive as inconsistency or flakiness. The perception of management, in almost all things, is usually different than the perception of those being managed. And even if they consider you to be honest, they will still see you as someone who will be looking for a transfer if you don't get the city you want.

[doctorwho]

Sorry y'all, maybe I'm a bit of a polyanna, but I think that if someby asks you a question at an interview, you owe it to them to answer truthfully. Aside from the whole truth bit, jagghag extends on my earlier point in her post by stating that there are ways of making you point plain without indicating confusion.

To each, his/her own. This place is good for hasing out all sides of the argument -- we all need to decide how we will address the question individually.

[chris]

jagghagg said:

Chris - a thoughtful and complete response as usual. (It is what we have come to expect of you! Thank you.)

I think your observation that SSA has a huge enough - complex enough - job just dealing with the interviews, working out the VP, and putting names in a location for which they indicated acceptance is dead-on. I think ALJSouth and Hooligan are correct - that the people doing the interviewing are only going to list their selections for job offers; they are not going to be the people actually making the job offer. Their job will be, as Hooligan notes, to determine judicial "suitability." Job offers are going to come from some dark cavern at main SSA.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if they aren't going to use the information then why would they ask ? And while we don't expect them to ask, if they do - why would our answer indicate we are "confused" about cities ? A better answer is to say, "I indicated availability for all and am happy to go anywhere I can serve the needs of the Social Security Administration. That being said, if you asked me what opportunity I would pick from all that are available, why, I think I'd like to go to Paducah." No confusion; answering the question put; stating your preference.

On a side note, it is SOOOOOOOOO true that you never know where you want to be until you get there. ("Wherever you go, there you are.") I wasn't all that fond of Browns Mill, NJ or OKC, OK - but my jobs there in the military were fantastic. I hated my job situation in Alaska, but absolutely adored living there. Which was better ? The better job. Hands down.

(BTW, I am from the Pacific Northwest and - hey - it's only water!)

They are going to use the information, but not for the reason you think. They absolutely do not care where you want to work. They ask the question for other reasons. And by the way, that is not the only question they will be asking for less than obvious reasons.

Aljsouth understands exactly what they are doing. If you don't believe me, read his posts carefully, and repeatedly.

[chris]

doctorwho said:

Sorry y'all, maybe I'm a bit of a polyanna, but I think that if someby asks you a question at an interview, you owe it to them to answer truthfully. Aside from the whole truth bit, jagghag extends on my earlier point in her post by stating that there are ways of making you point plain without indicating confusion.

To each, his/her own. This place is good for hasing out all sides of the argument -- we all need to decide how we will address the question individually.

That's certainly an interesting approach since they will not be honest with you about much of anything. I would suggest however that if you take the route of honesty that you be aware of the limits of that approach. Do not give them an honest analysis of the testing process, the interview process, the SSA disability system, or SSA management. Giving an honest analysis of any of those topics will insure that you never become an ALJ.

[doctorwho]

chris said:

doctorwho said:

Sorry y'all, maybe I'm a bit of a polyanna, but I think that if someby asks you a question at an interview, you owe it to them to answer truthfully. Aside from the whole truth bit, jagghag extends on my earlier point in her post by stating that there are ways of making you point plain without indicating confusion.

To each, his/her own. This place is good for hasing out all sides of the argument -- we all need to decide how we will address the question individually.

That's certainly an interesting approach since they will not be honest with you about much of anything. I would suggest however that if you take the route of honesty that you be aware of the limits of that approach. Do not give them an honest analysis of the testing process, the interview process, the SSA disability system, or SSA management. Giving an honest analysis of any of those topics will insure that you never become an ALJ.

Chris, we simply disagree, o.k.?

[workdrone]

I concur with ALJSouth and other's analysis that the only safe answer is "I'm available for all the cities indicated on my preference sheet and will happily serve in any of them." The Agency has been burned in the past by ALJs who spent more time trying to get a transfer from day one than doing work, so this is potentially a loaded question and I'd advise caution in answering it.

[jagghagg]

Peeeeejaaaaaay!!!!

How are you doing ? Thanks for weighing in!
(How did DOL go ?)

[chris]

doctorwho said:

chris said:

That's certainly an interesting approach since they will not be honest with you about much of anything. I would suggest however that if you take the route of honesty that you be aware of the limits of that approach. Do not give them an honest analysis of the testing process, the interview process, the SSA disability system, or SSA management. Giving an honest analysis of any of those topics will insure that you never become an ALJ.

Chris, we simply disagree, o.k.?

Doctorwho, I keep posting in response to you not in an attempt to change your mind, or even to argue with you, but to give another viewpoint to others here who might think there is some validity to your approach. If you make decisions that lessen your chances at becoming an ALJ that is your concern and I have no problem with that. Good luck to you. You will live or die based on your choices. But if your posts might encourage others to hurt their chances at becoming an ALJ, I am going to post to alert them to the possible problems with your approach. I respect your dedication to your viewpoint, which is the perspective many employees have with respect to interviews, but I don't think you fully understand the management perspective regarding interviews.

[jagghagg]

chris said:

If you make decisions that lessen your chances at becoming an ALJ that is your concern and I have no problem with that. Good luck to you. You will live or die based on your choices.

Easy, guys, easy --- put your hands down and back awaaaay from the keyboards..... we are all of above-average intelligence; most of us have some experience we federal service; there seems to be a healthy dose of paranoia available for everyone who wants one. Although it is far and above my favorite form of communication, there is not a lot of need to get sarcastic. We've said our part and people may take from it what they may.