|
|
Post by 71stretch on Sept 11, 2015 21:58:36 GMT -5
I served on our office's hiring committee for several years. Our office prohibited us from having any further contact with interviewees after the interview was concluded. Hiring committee members frequently received e-mails from unsuccessful applicants politely asking us to share constructive criticism so that they could improve their interview skills. I dutifully forwarded those e-mails to HR and deleted them without responding.
There have been times when I wish I could have said, "you did great in your interview and we'd be lucky to have you working here, but you were edged out by another candidate with specific experience in litigating X types of cases." Of course, there were also the times when I wanted to say, "you spent the whole hour talking about your volunteer work with the Possum Rescue, which caused the 'Danger, Will Robinson' alarm to echo in my head." Sometimes candidates look great on paper - top of their law school class, years of litigation experience, and stellar references - but after spending an hour with them in an interview, the only possible ratings they could earn are "no," "hell no," or "go peddle crazy somewhere else, we're all full up around here."
I think that's how I view the OPM vs agency interview process here: the OPM screening/testing makes you eligible for an interview, but the agency interview is where your future employer determines if you're going to fit in at their agency or in that office. Are you going to play well with others? Or are the support staff going to cry/go on strike/call in sick because you're a mean SOB? Hiring the smartest person in the world to work in my office does me no good if I have to spend time every day dealing with the fallout from Smartie's obstreperous personality.
Of course, that's just me - someone who just last week managed to live through the LBMT/WD and SI but won't know for months whether I achieved the minimum score to earn an NOR....much less a spot on any register.....and not anywhere close to an agency interview. At best, a call from Bob / Mellinda is probably two years off for me, if ever. So please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong! Assuming you make the register, you are a lot closer to an agency interview than you think, depending on your GAL. I hop you get that Bob/Melinda call too, and it could be a lot less than two years from now. |
|
|
|
Post by cafeta on Sept 11, 2015 22:00:49 GMT -5
I served on our office's hiring committee for several years. Our office prohibited us from having any further contact with interviewees after the interview was concluded. Hiring committee members frequently received e-mails from unsuccessful applicants politely asking us to share constructive criticism so that they could improve their interview skills. I dutifully forwarded those e-mails to HR and deleted them without responding.
There have been times when I wish I could have said, "you did great in your interview and we'd be lucky to have you working here, but you were edged out by another candidate with specific experience in litigating X types of cases." Of course, there were also the times when I wanted to say, "you spent the whole hour talking about your volunteer work with the Possum Rescue, which caused the 'Danger, Will Robinson' alarm to echo in my head." Sometimes candidates look great on paper - top of their law school class, years of litigation experience, and stellar references - but after spending an hour with them in an interview, the only possible ratings they could earn are "no," "hell no," or "go peddle crazy somewhere else, we're all full up around here."
I think that's how I view the OPM vs agency interview process here: the OPM screening/testing makes you eligible for an interview, but the agency interview is where your future employer determines if you're going to fit in at their agency or in that office. Are you going to play well with others? Or are the support staff going to cry/go on strike/call in sick because you're a mean SOB? Hiring the smartest person in the world to work in my office does me no good if I have to spend time every day dealing with the fallout from Smartie's obstreperous personality.
Of course, that's just me - someone who just last week managed to live through the LBMT/WD and SI but won't know for months whether I achieved the minimum score to earn an NOR....much less a spot on any register.....and not anywhere close to an agency interview. At best, a call from Bob / Mellinda is probably two years off for me, if ever. So please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong! Excellent post Pumpkin, thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by Recalcitro on Sept 12, 2015 2:08:05 GMT -5
It was my understanding that following an interview you are either recommended or not recommended by SSA. If you are not recommended, you should be told so. No need to tell why, just no, because the way the system is set up, OPM will keep putting you on a cert even though SSA has already decided it will not hire you. Yes is great, no is disappointing but that is just a fact of life. It's the void in between that's maddening.
|
|
|
|
Post by saaao on Sept 12, 2015 5:03:55 GMT -5
It was my understanding that following an interview you are either recommended or not recommended by SSA. If you are not recommended, you should be told so. No need to tell why, just no, because the way the system is set up, OPM will keep putting you on a cert even though SSA has already decided it will not hire you. Yes is great, no is disappointing but that is just a fact of life. It's the void in between that's maddening. Something that hasn't been discussed that much, is sometimes the Agency gets to the point where they have no choice but to hire a "not recommended" candidate. It has happened in the past, especially towards the end of the last register. It's not advisable to alienate someone you might have to turn around and offer a job to later, particularly if that person will be getting a de facto lifetime position. And since we are on the subject, I don't think most people who have been passed over at this point are not recommended, no matter what noises are being made in the OCALJ offices spaces. I do think that they chose the people they wanted the most, and are waiting to see what the next round of testing and GAL expansion produces. Then I think they will start stacking the new people against those they have looked at previously. |
|
|
|
Post by pubdef on Sept 12, 2015 5:44:56 GMT -5
Hey guys! Just wanted to add my 2 cents and actually defend the whole process. Before fingers point at me that I'm too cheerful because I have made it to the end, let me remind you that my end was not a cheerful one. Allow me to introduce myself, I'm Pubdef "Class of 2015 WD whatever failure code they use for that".
Going all the way back to the beginning of the OPM process I know people who were knocked out for errors they made in their applications, I know people who didn't get to go DC (now a lot of them are) based on the second phase, and I know people who didn't make it on the register because of the WD, the SI, or both. There was little transparency, but I don't think it was arbitrary. I'll also add that these people are people who would be good ALJs.
I walked out of the WD feeling like I did not do so well, but I hoped that I could pull off a hail mary. As my name pretty much says, I am an attorney who is in courtrooms every day. I file some motions but rely more on arguing, persuading juries, and fighting for my clients than I rely on my writing. I was worried that it showed. A couple days later I sat down at the SI and walked out knowing I had hit a home run. Fast forward through a long time of waiting and my fears came true. Fast forward further and my appeal was denied. Game over. I believe OPM knew what they were doing and that particular day I didn't do as well as many other people.
So the OPM process sucked for me, I felt bad about it, but I don't think it was arbitrary. OPM devised something for coming up with scores that gets good candidates to interviews with agencies that need ALJs. I think I would be a great candidate, but I wasn't on that particular day I sat down to take my WD. There is no conceivable way for them to see my achievements that I know qualify me -- they are looking at a snapshot. I'll wait for the next time and try again. This time I'm getting ready by improving my writing skills in my daily legal practice and hopefully getting a better snapshot to them on the day I take the WD.
Had I moved on to the interviews with the agencies, I don't think what they are doing is arbitrary. In fact, the empirical evidence seems to be they put a lot of thought and effort into selecting the right fit. That doesn't mean that people passed over wouldn't be a good ALJ. It just means you weren't the right candidate for the spots they were filling.
I don't think OPM or anyone would owe me transparency into why I am not on the register, nor do I think the agencies owe it to people who interview. It all just needs to be a fair process for the applicant and, even more so, for the agencies so the public can get the best ALJs possible. I think that from the results I have seen, the ALJs I have met, and even the people I met in DC, the process is working very well. I'm amazed at the caliber of applicants who go through this process and the people ultimately picked.
It's a long process and if you still have skin in the game you're in a good spot. I wish you all the best of luck and hope you can remain positive about it. Hopefully when there is a refresh or a new application, I will see you in training as you teach me. Best wishes everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Sept 12, 2015 6:14:29 GMT -5
It was my understanding that following an interview you are either recommended or not recommended by SSA. If you are not recommended, you should be told so. No need to tell why, just no, because the way the system is set up, OPM will keep putting you on a cert even though SSA has already decided it will not hire you. Yes is great, no is disappointing but that is just a fact of life. It's the void in between that's maddening. There are 3 categories: highly recommended, recommended, and not recommended. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 12, 2015 8:16:05 GMT -5
During my years with the federal government, I have hired and promoted hundreds of applicants. For every applicant not hired or promoted, there have been maybe four or five, or more who didn't get what they were seeking. So, I have dealt with well over a thousand individuals seeking office or promotion (sometimes it seems as though it has been 10,000, but I think that is bit of an overstatement).
As to new hires, I never followed up to explain why that person wasn't hired. Many times it was just a feeling the person wouldn't be a good fit for the job. Often, it was based on the resume or answers to questions at the interview. As to promotions, that is a different situation. If the person is local and someone I know, my policy is to talk to her and tell her she didn't get the job before I make "the call" to the successful applicant. Sometimes they will ask why, and I try as delicately as possible to tell them. I find it an awkward discussion and is the downside to being the "Selecting Official."
Often an employee feels entitled to a promotion, but doesn't have the skills or the work ethic to do the job or to deserve the promotion. These are the most difficult to talk with and the ones most inclined to file a grievance. I prefer lack of transparency in the hiring process because of this. Not only do feelings get hurt, but sometimes those hurt feelings translate into a grievance, especially if the employee feels there is nothing to lose. The less an employee knows, the lower the chance for a successful promotion grievance. Of course if a grievance is filed, my reason for not promoting will then be known to the employee. It normally isn't pretty. Usually that employee is lost as a productive member of her office by that point. And I have lost hours and hours of potentially productive time in dealing with the grievance or complaint.
OPM and the SSA have been around the block more than a few times with disgruntled employees, non selectees and passed over ALJ candidates. It is time consuming and expensive to deal with, even if the individuals are unsuccessful, as the vast majority are. Better to have an opaque hiring practice than to put it out in the open and give unsuccessful candidates theories for a lawsuit. Those of you who have been in litigation know how illuminating discovery can be, and how the process gives ammunition for your lawsuit. Why give it up if you don't have to?
Those are my thoughts from a management/OPM/agency perspective. Your mileage may vary, depending on your personal perspective. Pixie.
|
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Sept 12, 2015 9:29:09 GMT -5
In my experience there is a distinction between internal and external candidates. At a number of my former workplaces, it was not unusual for inside applicants to get specific feedback if not promoted. It might not have been the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - but it at least had the ring of truth. For example, somebody who had a bad reference from a supervisor might be counseled about why and about strategies for repairing relationships. Somebody turned down for lack of a specific skill could work to develop it. Someone with no chance of promotion for reasons beyond their control might have a chat about how to expand or develop their position so that they could make it more rewarding and/or lucrative. Others might use the feedback to make an informed decision to seek greener pastures. Soundbites like "better qualified," "different skills set," etc. were not the norm. Overall, I think that was a healthy process. Some organizations view it important not only to select the right candidate, but to do so in a manner that lessens the damage to those who are left behind. It's not easy to be a part of a process like that. Decisions are made with a different, broader view of the organization's needs and selection decisions are more complex. The excitement of making "the call" is balanced with the responsibility of having the other conversations as well. I'm not saying it fits within the federal scheme of things. I am simply responding to the broad statements that unsuccessful candidates NEVER get feedback as to why they were not selected and it's unreasonable to expect it. Some employers make it happen as a part of their corporate culture.
I did not mean to suggest that SSA is missing the boat by not doing things this way. It's not an approach well suited to hiring hundreds. I was simply surprised that so many of the comments seemed to assume feedback is never part of any hiring process.
It's best to never say "never", but "very rarely" is certainly true, and I'm pretty comfortable with "never" when it comes to government hiring when it comes to real feedback and not just "government speak". |
|
|
|
Post by Justgladtobehere on Sept 12, 2015 22:57:37 GMT -5
I just want to confirm that, yes, I do know how the system is set up, fully understand the regulations and made all certs since I made the register. None of my comments here were ever intended to impugn anyone's integrity. The earlier suggestion that ODAR tell those who have not been recommended the truth about their status would be awesome. Is it so selfish to want to know why?
I am truly sorry to have started such a dust up. Not my plan. Best of luck to all who still wait and congrats to all who made it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Sept 13, 2015 9:42:46 GMT -5
I did not mean to suggest that SSA is missing the boat by not doing things this way. It's not an approach well suited to hiring hundreds. I was simply surprised that so many of the comments seemed to assume feedback is never part of any hiring process.
It's best to never say "never", but "very rarely" is certainly true, and I'm pretty comfortable with "never" when it comes to government hiring when it comes to real feedback and not just "government speak". Actually one of the organizations I referred to was a large government agency, not federal, but with a similar civil service system. But to loop back, all I wanted to do is point out that not all organizations, law firms, corporations, and - at least one government agency - have a different philosophy about feedback. Having been the lawyer/participant in the equation, I was surprised that it actually resulted in fewer rather than more EEO complaints/grievances than I expected and had experienced in settings where silence was the rule. Maybe they were just lucky. |
|
|
|
Post by saaao on Sept 13, 2015 12:58:42 GMT -5
It's best to never say "never", but "very rarely" is certainly true, and I'm pretty comfortable with "never" when it comes to government hiring when it comes to real feedback and not just "government speak". Actually one of the organizations I referred to was a large government agency, not federal, but with a similar civil service system. But to loop back, all I wanted to do is point out that not all organizations, law firms, corporations, and - at least one government agency - have a different philosophy about feedback. Having been the lawyer/participant in the equation, I was surprised that it actually resulted in fewer rather than more EEO complaints/grievances than I expected and had experienced in settings where silence was the rule. Maybe they were just lucky. I'm not surprised there were less complaints. There is something to be said for a clean break. Setting someone to stew in radio silence does nothing to improve the mood or temper litigious impulses. Though I think in the current situation, it is just something that can't be helped. |
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on Sept 13, 2015 13:21:56 GMT -5
I think it very much depends on the individual. I served as the chief attorney for a large municipality (in Oklahoma terms) for several years, responsible for a department of 30 to 40 people (both lawyers and non-lawyers). Whether it was hiring, promotion or reviews it seemed that the people who had little (or no) ability to accept there might be someone better or ways to improve their work performance were the ones who were just itching to file a grievance. I had a long background in employment law so strongly believed in providing information to help people improve or, failing that, to help them out the door. There were a few who just refused to believe they weren't perfect and chose to believe that I just didn't understand how wonderful they were.
|
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Sept 13, 2015 13:41:04 GMT -5
After the fallout from the Adzell litigation, I can understand why OPM and SSA would be reluctant to have a completely transparent process. I was amazed that OPM reported to unsuccessful candidates whether it was the SI or WD that didn't meet the minimum cut off. What an advantage to the candidate who decides to re-test.
I can't decide whether pubdef's or Pixie's response was my favorite. Pixie, of course, is the Board goddess and it doesn't hurt to suck up to her a little whenever presented with the opportunity. Beyond that, I really appreciate the overview of the practical aspects of being a hiring official. In another lifetime, I was a nonlegal businessperson. The one thing that was drilled into our heads was, do not give feedback to unsuccessful candidates. Even if someone called to check references, we were only to confirm the dates that person had worked and salary level. No detail about the circumstances of separation. Why? Fear of lawsuits (d;)mn lawyers). So I am always surprised and amused when unsuccessful candidates demand feedback on why they weren't hired. Someone owes you explanation? Really?!? My guess is that is your problem right there: lack of maturity and introspection.
pubdef -- I am in awe. You have the best get-back-on-the-horse attitude I have seen in a long time. You may even rival JudgeRatty in positivity. Your attitude reflects maturity, introspection, and honesty. I daresay those are character traits that comprise a large part of the much sought-after judicial temperament. I have no doubt we will see you in a future class.
|
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on Sept 13, 2015 13:56:05 GMT -5
After the fallout from the Adzell litigation, I can understand why OPM and SSA would be reluctant to have a completely transparent process. I was amazed that OPM reported to unsuccessful candidates whether it was the SI or WD that didn't meet the minimum cut off. What an advantage to the candidate who decides to re-test. I can't decide whether pubdef's or Pixie's response was my favorite. Pixie, of course, is the Board goddess and it doesn't hurt to suck up to her a little whenever presented with the opportunity. Beyond that, I really appreciate the overview of the practical aspects of being a hiring official. In another lifetime, I was a nonlegal businessperson. The one thing that was drilled into our heads was, do not give feedback to unsuccessful candidates. Even if someone called to check references, we were only to confirm the dates that person had worked and salary level. No detail about the circumstances of separation. Why? Fear of lawsuits (d;)mn lawyers). So I am always surprised and amused when unsuccessful candidates demand feedback on why they weren't hired. Someone owes you explanation? Really?!? My guess is that is your problem right there: lack of maturity and introspection. pubdef -- I am in awe. You have the best get-back-on-the-horse attitude I have seen in a long time. You may even rival JudgeRatty in positivity. Your attitude reflects maturity, introspection, and honesty. I daresay those are character traits that comprise a large part of the much sought-after judicial temperament. I have no doubt we will see you in a future class. What?!? Why didn't you like MINE best?!?!? LOL |
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Sept 13, 2015 14:01:59 GMT -5
After the fallout from the Adzell litigation, I can understand why OPM and SSA would be reluctant to have a completely transparent process. I was amazed that OPM reported to unsuccessful candidates whether it was the SI or WD that didn't meet the minimum cut off. What an advantage to the candidate who decides to re-test. I can't decide whether pubdef's or Pixie's response was my favorite. Pixie, of course, is the Board goddess and it doesn't hurt to suck up to her a little whenever presented with the opportunity. Beyond that, I really appreciate the overview of the practical aspects of being a hiring official. In another lifetime, I was a nonlegal businessperson. The one thing that was drilled into our heads was, do not give feedback to unsuccessful candidates. Even if someone called to check references, we were only to confirm the dates that person had worked and salary level. No detail about the circumstances of separation. Why? Fear of lawsuits (d;)mn lawyers). So I am always surprised and amused when unsuccessful candidates demand feedback on why they weren't hired. Someone owes you explanation? Really?!? My guess is that is your problem right there: lack of maturity and introspection. pubdef -- I am in awe. You have the best get-back-on-the-horse attitude I have seen in a long time. You may even rival JudgeRatty in positivity. Your attitude reflects maturity, introspection, and honesty. I daresay those are character traits that comprise a large part of the much sought-after judicial temperament. I have no doubt we will see you in a future class. What?!? Why didn't you like MINE best?!?!? LOL It's not you, it's me. I'm just not in an OK place right now. I was looking for something else. I decided not to read a post after all. I decided to not go in that direction after all. I need to work on me before reading any other posts... |
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on Sept 13, 2015 14:03:47 GMT -5
And that is why I love your sense of humor! :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Sept 13, 2015 17:06:49 GMT -5
Actually one of the organizations I referred to was a large government agency, not federal, but with a similar civil service system. But to loop back, all I wanted to do is point out that not all organizations, law firms, corporations, and - at least one government agency - have a different philosophy about feedback. Having been the lawyer/participant in the equation, I was surprised that it actually resulted in fewer rather than more EEO complaints/grievances than I expected and had experienced in settings where silence was the rule. Maybe they were just lucky. I'm not surprised there were less complaints. There is something to be said for a clean break. Setting someone to stew in radio silence does nothing to improve the mood or temper litigious impulses. Though I think in the current situation, it is just something that can't be helped. I agree with the last sentence of this comment. When I originally posted, I was just trying to stick up for people who (it seemed to me) got jumped on for expecting or wishing for a reason they have not been hired in hopes of getting closure. I thought perhaps, because of their backgrounds, they had been conditioned to expect a reason so I spoke up. I practiced labor and employment law for my entire career prior to joining the agency. I see the pros and cons of different approaches. To those of you who suggest that there's only one right way to do this, I respectfully disagree. What works in one situation, will not necessarily transfer to another. There are undoubtedly some members who were told why they didn't make partner or General Counsel or Deputy State's Attorney and were expecting similar feedback here, given the time and money and maybe even emotional investment. We are a diverse group, with lots of different experiences that shape our expectations, as this discussion shows and as Pixie pointed out in her post. Perhaps the Pandora's Box I seem to have opened has served to better inform everyone of how these things work in various organizations, including SSA. |
|
|
|
Post by ibnlurkin on Sept 14, 2015 14:39:42 GMT -5
Since you get a trophy nowadays just for showing up (even if your cleats are on the wrong feet)......why shouldn't we be entitled to a detailed justification for our non selection ?? ... seriously I could see where a high number of reasonably self aware people could handle the strong medicine these explanations might provide .... thereby reducing the amount of post application remedy seeking....( let's face it some of us suck and don't know it... wouldn't it be better if we did?) . but how could they possibly have time for it
|
|
|
|
Post by nj4096 on Sept 14, 2015 14:49:15 GMT -5
Since you get a trophy nowadays just for showing up (even if your cleats are on the wrong feet)......why shouldn't we be entitled to a detailed justification for our non selection ?? ... seriously I could see where a high number of reasonably self aware people could handle the strong medicine these explanations might provide .... thereby reducing the amount of post application remedy seeking....( let's face it some of us suck and don't know it... wouldn't it be better if we did?) . but how could they possibly have time for it |
|
|
|
Post by nj4096 on Sept 14, 2015 14:50:28 GMT -5
Since you get a trophy nowadays just for showing up (even if your cleats are on the wrong feet)......why shouldn't we be entitled to a detailed justification for our non selection ?? ... seriously I could see where a high number of reasonably self aware people could handle the strong medicine these explanations might provide .... thereby reducing the amount of post application remedy seeking....( let's face it some of us suck and don't know it... wouldn't it be better if we did?) . but how could they possibly have time for it |
|
