Careers

Has anyone taken those situational tests for the PSC of Canada?

  • Last Updated:
  • Dec 31st, 2023 3:18 pm
Tags:
None
Member
Oct 21, 2011
245 posts
45 upvotes
NEPEAN
PublicServant wrote: Thanks so much to both of you for responding. A couple of quick comments:



Re: "very specific competencies" --> I wonder if this is in the process of being phased out? For one of those myriad writing tests (I won't say which competition), I was exposed to Blueprint 2020. As part of that initiative, it looks like there's a specific action to mitigate this. From this website:



~~~~~



Aha -- central vs. core. Looks like I was conflating the two. (Thanks for that!) It looks like the three you mentioned are the only ones that are considered part of the central agencies. I found a couple of interesting links. Here's one from the Library of Parliament in 2009 (er, it also includes the PMO as a central agency, bringing the total to four, but I've seen plenty of other references to just the three you named). Here's another PPT (in the form of a PDF -- I've linked to the cached version, otherwise it would have auto-downloaded upon clicking) in 2015.

I'm likely going to land in the EC classification, so I, too, don't know about classifications like CS or PG.

I wonder if you have any thoughts about folks who start as EC's in the core public admin and move to the a separate agency (into an ES classification) or someone who starts at a separate agency (ES classification) and moves into the core public admin (EC classification). From what you're saying, it sounds like experience at a central agency might help one move to whichever department/agency they wish, but moving into a central agency from another department might be more challenging. Might it be even more challenging for someone coming from a separate agency to a central agency?

As I write this message, I guess what I'm trying to shine a light on is the internal culture around the perceived hierarchy of EC (core) and ES (separate) [Note: I highlight perceived because I vaguely remember there being a discussion on here before about the prestige around working for a central agency and I want to be clear that my perspective about this is more sociological/anthropological -- i.e. I'm just trying to understand the culture to which I'm about to enter and not place any judgment on right/wrong or worse/better]. For the most part, what I've been able to find is similar to what you've said (there's a perceived difference between a central agency and the core public admin for EC's), but I haven't been able to find anything about whether there's another difference when considering ES (separate). The folks I've talked to offline aren't EC's, so they're not entirely sure about any perceived difference and I'm starting to suspect that my lack of ability to find anything about it might point to the fact that I'm looking for something that doesn't exist.
The writing tests won't stop, especially for internal competitions. I hope the multiple choice insanity that is the PSC/PSRS goes by the wayside.

You seem to have a lot of confusion between central agency vs core vs separate agency vs department.

The "core" public administration are the departments found in schedule 1 and IV of the Financial Administration Act. Essentially, they are the departments (GAC, IRCC, Health, PWGSC...). The core public admin also includes Treasury Board and PCO. Central Agencies are Finance, TBS, PCO and PMO. PMO, however, is staffed with political appointments so it is not really part of the public administration. Don't expect to see job openings at PMO: expect them at PCO. Separate Agencies are outlined in schedule V of the FAA. Department has a long definition. What you are thinking, it sounds like, is a line department. Line departments are the main departments of the public administration.

About 5 years ago, the EC classification was created to replace the ES category. The ES category is not a category that has a collective agreement with Treasury Board . Some of the separate agencies' staff have collective agreements with TB and others do not.

If the ES positions are similar to the ones that predate the EC, there would not be too many issues switching between the two. There isn't any hierarchy between the two because they do not coexist, as far as I know.

Central agency experience is definitely highly valued; however, you need to be able to return to the department. For example, an FS cannot work at a central agency and simply decide to work at GAC. There are other parts of the core public admin where the experience is highly valued (OAG, for example)
Sr. Member
Dec 2, 2014
629 posts
225 upvotes
Ottawa, ON
PublicServant wrote: Hey All,

I've been mulling over a number of questions (translation: asked colleagues in the public service, mined forums/Google, etc.) and I thought it might be productive to have a discussion about some of them on here (i.e. I suspect others might be curious, too). I've edited/pared down a couple of times, so hopefully that helps to focus things.

Internal vs. External Competitions
  1. What are the biggest differences between internal and external competitions? I understand that with internal competitions, if you aren't selected, you can request an informal discussion, but I was wondering if there might be other big differences -- maybe shorter timeframes? :lol:
  2. Is there a stigma/disadvantage or an advantage when trying to move from the Core Public Administration to a Separate Agency or vice versa? For instance, let's say someone is trying to move from an EC (core) to an ES (separate) or vice versa -- is one thought of as more desirable to hiring managers or colleagues?
Core Public Administration vs. Separate Agencies
  1. Does "Core Public Administration" mean the same thing to everyone? Somewhere along the way, I've heard that some departments carry a different weight (Treasury Board, Global Affairs, etc.?) and I thought that was folks referring to the "core departments," but that term seems to have a specific definition.
  2. Following on that first question, is there a stigma associated with working at a Separate Agency? (FYI -- I totally didn't realize that 67% [!] of the 60,000 public servants who work for separate agencies work for the CRA. The next highest is the CFIA, 10%.)
Internal competitions are, usually, shorter, if not solely due to less applicants comparatively. Other advantages are, at least if it is within your department, that you have a much better finger on the pulse type situation. You can check in and get answers usually when you want, which is tougher for external competitions.

Personally, unless it's the ideal job for you, I'd avoid swapping between the Core Public Service and Separate Agencies, especially for the EC to ES thing. Reason being is your pay can vary quite a bit and administratively it's a bit of a nuisance to be switching. The work itself is much the same though (or can be, since I've seen ECs used for all sorts of stuff lately to the point where the classification has no real focus beyond the basic educational requirements anymore).

Core Public Service/Administration mean places where Treasury Board is the employer.

Some departments do carry different weights (real or perceived is a debate plenty of people will have with you). Since this seems to be all about the EC classification then I'll give my bit about this based on what I've seen so far.

Central agency experience is highly valued in basically any department. There are plenty of reasons for this, but mostly because you understand (or should understand better than others) the machinery of government at that central level. When you're an EC you write a lot of TB Subs and MCs, which flow to the central agencies for review and approval. Knowing how their processes work first hand can allow you to produce better products that won't have them coming back to you with things to fix or change or think about.

That last sentence is kind of why there is this notion of "prestige" for those working in the central agencies. They are gatekeepers and in general their jobs are more of a review and analysis role of things coming from others. They don't really develop or create from scratch for the most part but instead build, break down, and refine what others do. This can sometimes (especially at TBS) mean basically dictating down to people at line departments that something they did was wrong etc. That will give anyone a sense of prestige. I worked at a central agency at the provincial level and that's how I felt most of the time (some things that would come to us were so bad my Director would literally have us just leave out valid criticisms so we didn't have too many going back down which could create a feeling that we were picking on them). Another nuance of government that no one ever really mentions until you see it.

The entire concept of the Advanced Policy Analyst Programme is to pump out EC-05s with central agency experience for departments, so the mere existence of the program shows there's a need for people with these skills at a high level.

In reality, most people either don't care or if they do care they dislike the people at TBS because they can't handle criticism or the folks at TBS were actually being unreasonable. It depends. A lot of people seem to want to work at the central agencies, but if they don't it isn't like they sit there dreaming and gossiping how amazing it would be. Everyone moves around in the federal government (in the NCR at least), so where you work now is, ideally, not where you'll be in 5 years time.
Deal Addict
Dec 8, 2008
1887 posts
225 upvotes
GTA
ES=EC, but just older and irrelevant.. It's simply an outdated classification, which I thought was obsolete by now (at least that is what our union told us). I guess some independent agencies still use it, but how many ES jobs do you see compared to EC? ES vs EC => not impt.

I said central agency experience is very relevant for ECs, not because everyone wants to work there, but because said experience gives you an edge when you wish to leave the specialist level and go to the manager/director level (Ec-07 followed by Ex-1). I'm not saying you must work at fin/pco/tbs or else you are doomed as an analyst; plenty of people get to ec-07 and ex-1 while working at different line depts or even staying with one dept forever (e.g. Look at statcan people). But you just become a more rounded EC and you have better chances of becoming EX with central agency experience on your cv.
Newbie
Nov 12, 2015
32 posts
7 upvotes
PublicServant wrote: I wonder if you have any thoughts about folks who start as EC's in the core public admin and move to the a separate agency (into an ES classification) or someone who starts at a separate agency (ES classification) and moves into the core public admin (EC classification). From what you're saying, it sounds like experience at a central agency might help one move to whichever department/agency they wish, but moving into a central agency from another department might be more challenging. Might it be even more challenging for someone coming from a separate agency to a central agency?
Take this with a grain of salt as I have not yet started my career with the federal service, but this is based on conversations I've had with others who work there, experience at the provincial level, and reading of the literature. As OscarWilde38 mentioned, experience in central agencies is quite highly valued for EC's given the exposure to the broader machinery of government process. From my understanding, it is desirable for an EC to maybe go and do a secondment with a central agency for a year or two as that experience would help them do their job in a line department more effectively.

I would also highlight that there are differences among central agencies as well. From what I understand (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), Finance tends to be much more insular than PCO and particularly TBS. It seems like there are many more 'lifers' at Finance than the other two agencies and that they really groom their recruits to stay in Finance. For instance, I find it illustrative that their University Recruitment program is organized outside of the broader PSR process organized by the PSC.
OscarWilde38 wrote: Central agency experience is highly valued in basically any department. There are plenty of reasons for this, but mostly because you understand (or should understand better than others) the machinery of government at that central level. When you're an EC you write a lot of TB Subs and MCs, which flow to the central agencies for review and approval. Knowing how their processes work first hand can allow you to produce better products that won't have them coming back to you with things to fix or change or think about.

That last sentence is kind of why there is this notion of "prestige" for those working in the central agencies. They are gatekeepers and in general their jobs are more of a review and analysis role of things coming from others. They don't really develop or create from scratch for the most part but instead build, break down, and refine what others do.
I also have some central agency experience at the provincial and back this up 100%. Depending on where you are, you may not feel that you really "own" anything and are in more of a review and coordination role. From my experience, people tend to differ in what they like. There are some who much prefer the work in a line department because it really allows them to sink their teeth into issues and follow them for years, whereas I think others enjoy being closer to the center of the decision-making process.
Newbie
Aug 5, 2013
74 posts
7 upvotes
Here is our new hope:

*More variety in hiring processes;
*Agile approaches to staffing and policies;
*More room for managers to apply their judgment when staffing; and
*Increased focus on outcomes, including the quality of the person hired, and less on process.
Sr. Member
Dec 2, 2014
629 posts
225 upvotes
Ottawa, ON
Lozoot wrote: Take this with a grain of salt as I have not yet started my career with the federal service, but this is based on conversations I've had with others who work there, experience at the provincial level, and reading of the literature. As OscarWilde38 mentioned, experience in central agencies is quite highly valued for EC's given the exposure to the broader machinery of government process. From my understanding, it is desirable for an EC to maybe go and do a secondment with a central agency for a year or two as that experience would help them do their job in a line department more effectively.

I would also highlight that there are differences among central agencies as well. From what I understand (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), Finance tends to be much more insular than PCO and particularly TBS. It seems like there are many more 'lifers' at Finance than the other two agencies and that they really groom their recruits to stay in Finance. For instance, I find it illustrative that their University Recruitment program is organized outside of the broader PSR process organized by the PSC.



I also have some central agency experience at the provincial and back this up 100%. Depending on where you are, you may not feel that you really "own" anything and are in more of a review and coordination role. From my experience, people tend to differ in what they like. There are some who much prefer the work in a line department because it really allows them to sink their teeth into issues and follow them for years, whereas I think others enjoy being closer to the center of the decision-making process.
Aside from writing an MC for our own office, everything I did while at a central agency was looking at other people's work and providing my take on it. It was interesting sometimes because I'd see a different MC every couple of days that touched on an entirely different policy/program area, but that is a double edged sword; for every MC that is about a topic that interests you, there's another, very long one, about something immensely boring.
Member
Oct 21, 2011
245 posts
45 upvotes
NEPEAN
Yakutka wrote: Here is our new hope:

*More variety in hiring processes;
*Agile approaches to staffing and policies;
*More room for managers to apply their judgment when staffing; and
*Increased focus on outcomes, including the quality of the person hired, and less on process.

Ok. I can't see GAC being "innovative" like Finance (or DND) and not using the PSRS.
Sr. Member
Dec 2, 2014
629 posts
225 upvotes
Ottawa, ON
leoben wrote: ES=EC, but just older and irrelevant.. It's simply an outdated classification, which I thought was obsolete by now (at least that is what our union told us). I guess some independent agencies still use it, but how many ES jobs do you see compared to EC? ES vs EC => not impt.

I said central agency experience is very relevant for ECs, not because everyone wants to work there, but because said experience gives you an edge when you wish to leave the specialist level and go to the manager/director level (Ec-07 followed by Ex-1). I'm not saying you must work at fin/pco/tbs or else you are doomed as an analyst; plenty of people get to ec-07 and ex-1 while working at different line depts or even staying with one dept forever (e.g. Look at statcan people). But you just become a more rounded EC and you have better chances of becoming EX with central agency experience on your cv.
EC is the classification where Treasury Board is the employer now. ES is still the classification used by the CRA for mostly the same type of work. Different unions represent EC's and ES's, but they are basically the same thing, just organized differently due to who the employer is. Being one or the other is not important in the big picture, but there are minor issues that arise when switching between them versus moving up within them.
tclimie wrote: Ok. I can't see GAC being "innovative" like Finance (or DND) and not using the PSRS.
I've got to be honest, Finance and DND are not "innovative" in their selection processes that forego the whole PSEE etc. They are simply more restrictive (in the case of DND for their Policy Officer program, they still use the PSRS to solicit and accept applications). By restrictive I mean they require graduate degrees, specific courses to be taken, minimum academic averages, as well as targeted essential/asset questions. By doing this, they give themselves an applicant pool size which is manageable to then conduct their tests (like DND's two week take home) followed by an interview. If they didn't at a bare minimum set that graduate degree threshold (and the average criteria where they can top down sort by average to weed it down if need be) then their systems for recruiting would not function and they'd be just like everyone else using the PSEE and random selection to weed people down.

APAP does a similar thing. They require a graduate degree by June of the year you apply, make you write a short essay, answer a few experience questions, AND you have to have graduated within the last 2 calendar years. To put this into context, they got over 300 applicants when only people with graduate degrees earned within the last two years could apply. The reality is that any competition that is open to undergraduates that doesn't require experience doing exactly what the job is (defeating the point of it being an entry level process) needs to use these large scale tools to sift out people. It's just the only way to manage it that I can see.

I think this kind of begs the question: What would be an innovative way to do these things differently that still achieves the goals and aims in a realistic way?
Member
Oct 21, 2011
245 posts
45 upvotes
NEPEAN
OscarWilde38 wrote: The reality is that any competition that is open to undergraduates that doesn't require experience doing exactly what the job is (defeating the point of it being an entry level process) needs to use these large scale tools to sift out people. It's just the only way to manage it that I can see.

I think this kind of begs the question: What would be an innovative way to do these things differently that still achieves the goals and aims in a realistic way?
Decouple it from the post secondary recruitment; take a look at the CV of a candidate; have more strict essential requirements; require the completion of a meaningful exam (like the two week DND exam; I took one look at that exam and decided not to write it); hold an internal competition that is open to current government employees that do not already work for GAC; be reasonable in language requirements (if someone has there two years of Mandarin but not the required French, take a year to teach them French); avoid the public service commission; be objective and not subjective (to me, the SJT and the IAA are subjective)...
Sr. Member
Dec 2, 2014
629 posts
225 upvotes
Ottawa, ON
tclimie wrote: Decouple it from the post secondary recruitment; take a look at the CV of a candidate; have more strict essential requirements; require the completion of a meaningful exam (like the two week DND exam; I took one look at that exam and decided not to write it); hold an internal competition that is open to current government employees that do not already work for GAC; be reasonable in language requirements (if someone has there two years of Mandarin but not the required French, take a year to teach them French); avoid the public service commission; be objective and not subjective (to me, the SJT and the IAA are subjective)...
That's not really an innovative or realistic way to do it to achieve their goals. These are designed to be entry level positions for recent graduates and most of your suggestions are "Don't make it entry level or for recent graduates," more or less. That's not achieving the goals of GAC or any of the PSR participating departments at all. In fact, at a time when they are trying to bring in more younger people, bumping up the experience requirements or education requirements beyond undergraduate degrees is exactly what they don't want to do for most of these processes. It's a step backwards, not an improvement.

To be innovative in their hiring processes is to find a way to improve the process, experience, and results and still achieve their goals and aims while also making their hiring manageable and realistic. It's not an easy problem to solve from my point of view, which is why it isn't solved yet.

The French training issue is a temporary one due to budgetary restrictions, not a structural problem with the hiring process, so that's not a macro-level problem to be solved in this case.

The SJT and IAA are subjective, sure, it's a judgment test. Judging anything is naturally subjective. But in the scenarios they give you there's very rarely a case where the best answer or two are difficult to ascertain if you possess good judgment.
Member
Nov 23, 2009
462 posts
149 upvotes
I am shocked to find out that I got 80% on the IAA - mostly guessed my way through and didn't really read the prep docs as I had planned.
The pass mark was 66%! It seems standards have gone down ;)
Sr. Member
Dec 2, 2014
629 posts
225 upvotes
Ottawa, ON
maximem wrote: I am shocked to find out that I got 80% on the IAA - mostly guessed my way through and didn't really read the prep docs as I had planned.
The pass mark was 66%! It seems standards have gone down ;)
I don't want to discourage you, but the 66% is the pass mark for the test as a whole (just like 50th percentile is the max possible "pass mark" on the PSEE). Previous pulls from the 2014 process have indicated 82% as the screen in mark to move forward. We will see if that is still the case. I cannot imagine the competition would be considered fair if it was not the same for all candidates who applied.

I was skin of my teeth. 82% (they must round up, which means 49/60 for me).
Member
User avatar
Dec 2, 2010
418 posts
105 upvotes
Prairies
OscarWilde38 wrote: I don't want to discourage you, but the 66% is the pass mark for the test as a whole (just like 50th percentile is the max possible "pass mark" on the PSEE). Previous pulls from the 2014 process have indicated 82% as the screen in mark to move forward. We will see if that is still the case.

I was skin of my teeth. 82%.
Congrats! You both did better than I did (78%). I was hoping for at least 82, but it is what it is I guess.

Okay, this is the line from the email:
The pass mark established by the selection committee for this selection process is 66%. If you have been successful, the next steps will be communicated by the Human Resources Division.
I thought the reference to "this selection process" indicated the pass mark had gone down (and considerably which I found surprising). That led me to believe that GAC might have a target for how many people they want to interview and they adjust the pass mark up or down to bring in that many.

I guess time will tell.
Jr. Member
Oct 16, 2015
145 posts
13 upvotes
Part of the email from GAC. "I noticed that you ordered the book Cross-cultural Effectiveness–A Study of Canadian Technical Advisors Overseas. However, sometimes, we are also asked for the book A Profile of the Interculturally Effective Person (IEP). Again, this is not a tool to prepare an individual to take the IAA, however some candidates have requested it in the past." Any thoughts?
Jr. Member
Oct 16, 2015
145 posts
13 upvotes
I think the ultimate problem for the hiring process is that the PSR is the only way for people outside the department to get in. All candidates (different background, education, age, expertise etc.) have to go through the only door which is available. I can be wrong.
Sr. Member
Dec 2, 2014
629 posts
225 upvotes
Ottawa, ON
Corwsnest wrote: Part of the email from GAC. "I noticed that you ordered the book Cross-cultural Effectiveness–A Study of Canadian Technical Advisors Overseas. However, sometimes, we are also asked for the book A Profile of the Interculturally Effective Person (IEP). Again, this is not a tool to prepare an individual to take the IAA, however some candidates have requested it in the past." Any thoughts?
...Could you provide that in full text context? And how did you do? That's a bit weird. I ordered the books too and never got a message like that.
Jr. Member
Oct 16, 2015
145 posts
13 upvotes
OscarWilde38 wrote: ...Could you provide that in full text context? And how did you do? That's a bit weird. I ordered the books too and never got a message like that.
"Please note that the Intercultural Adaptation Assessment (IAA) is a situational judgement test for which there is no real preparation. It is a psychometric test that presents candidates with realistic work related scenarios and candidates identify the response that best describes what they would do to address this situation. The IAA is made up of 20 short scenarios. We do not provide sample questions. You can find sample questions for a situational judgment test on the website of the Public Service Commission of Canada’s Psychology Centre. It is not exactly the same thing, but it gives you an idea of the test style.

http://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca/ppc-cpp/psc-te ... js-eng.htm

Also, when invited to complete the IAA, some people ask us to register them to CFSC’s The Fundamentals of Intercultural Effectiveness (FUN 101). This three-hour online training is helpful for becoming more aware of the skills, knowledge and attitudes that make a person more adaptable and more interculturally competent. It is not linked to IAA preparation. It is designed to prepare people who are going to work overseas or who are working in a multicultural environment at home.

I noticed that you ordered the book Cross-cultural Effectiveness–A Study of Canadian Technical Advisors Overseas. However, sometimes, we are also asked for the book A Profile of the Interculturally Effective Person (IEP). Again, this is not a tool to prepare an individual to take the IAA, however some candidates have requested it in the past."
Member
Apr 15, 2014
340 posts
81 upvotes
Ottawa
Thanks to everyone for chiming in on some of the questions I posed and continuing the discussion. I feel like I have a much better understanding of the machinery of government (and the EC/ES classification). In fact, it's helped me clarify a bit about where I'd like to make an impact in the government.
tclimie wrote: [...] You seem to have a lot of confusion between central agency vs core vs separate agency vs department. [...]
Thanks for the redirect back to the FAA. I'd been there a few times before, but it was good to revisit the schedules.
OscarWilde38 wrote: [...] Personally, unless it's the ideal job for you, I'd avoid swapping between the Core Public Service and Separate Agencies, especially for the EC to ES thing. Reason being is your pay can vary quite a bit and administratively it's a bit of a nuisance to be switching. [...] Everyone moves around in the federal government (in the NCR at least), so where you work now is, ideally, not where you'll be in 5 years time.[...]
I guess I was under the wrong impression (re: variability in pay). From my understanding (and this 10-year old page from TBS), I thought that -- in most cases -- a switch from one EC/ES (or vice versa) wouldn't have one's salary decrease. Of course, I could be very wrong.
leoben wrote: [...] ES=EC, but just older and irrelevant.. It's simply an outdated classification, which I thought was obsolete [...]
My understanding, yes, is that ES (within the core public service) is obsolete -- as EC is the combination of SI and ES, but as OscarWilde38 mentioned, ES is still used by some of the separate agencies (for essentially the same work).
Lozoot wrote: [...] this is based on conversations I've had with others who work there, experience at the provincial level, and reading of the literature. [...] I would also highlight that there are differences among central agencies as well. [...]
Re: reading of the literature -- I'd be very interested to know the literature to which you're referring. :D

Re: differences amongst central agencies -- I can't speak to the different cultures, but that PPT that I shared yesterday really highlighted the differences in work.
OscarWilde38 wrote: EC is the classification where Treasury Board is the employer now. ES is still the classification used by the CRA for mostly the same type of work. Different unions represent EC's and ES's, but they are basically the same thing, just organized differently due to who the employer is. Being one or the other is not important in the big picture, but there are minor issues that arise when switching between them versus moving up within them.
Re: differences -- yeah, I noticed when I was looking at the two different pay scales, the ES pay scale (at the CRA) is quite a bit higher depending upon the level (vs. EC pay scale). For instance: ES-05 (step 1 = $85,564; step 6 = $103,178) and EC-05 (step 1 2 = $77,118; step 6 = $88,764).
Member
Oct 21, 2011
245 posts
45 upvotes
NEPEAN
OscarWilde38 wrote: That's not really an innovative or realistic way to do it to achieve their goals. These are designed to be entry level positions for recent graduates and most of your suggestions are "Don't make it entry level or for recent graduates," more or less. That's not achieving the goals of GAC or any of the PSR participating departments at all. In fact, at a time when they are trying to bring in more younger people, bumping up the experience requirements or education requirements beyond undergraduate degrees is exactly what they don't want to do for most of these processes. It's a step backwards, not an improvement.

To be innovative in their hiring processes is to find a way to improve the process, experience, and results and still achieve their goals and aims while also making their hiring manageable and realistic. It's not an easy problem to solve from my point of view, which is why it isn't solved yet.

The French training issue is a temporary one due to budgetary restrictions, not a structural problem with the hiring process, so that's not a macro-level problem to be solved in this case.

The SJT and IAA are subjective, sure, it's a judgment test. Judging anything is naturally subjective. But in the scenarios they give you there's very rarely a case where the best answer or two are difficult to ascertain if you possess good judgment.
  • Decouple it from the post secondary recruitment: most people look for a job as part of the post secondary recruitment. Departments, such as Finance and DND, recruit outside of the PSR and, arguably, have had better results
  • Take a look at the CV of a candidate: I know this does not seem innovative, but departments don't really look at the CVs. It is more important how a candidate responds to the essential criteria. While a candidate must meet the essential criteria, the ideal or best fit candidate may have something on their CV that does not fit into an essential or asset criteria that would be of value to the department.
  • Have more strict essential requirements: DND and Finance still hire entry level positions that require a post graduate degree. A masters degree takes an additional year; it is not particularly onerous and would limit the number of applicants that would be eligible.
  • meaningful exam: no government work is multiple choice exams. While writing skills can be evaluated in the response to questions or the CV, giving an exam that is practical and something that would be required by GAC would demonstrate an ability to write on relevant topics. The DND Policy Officer exam was 6 questions and 6000 words on topics related to defence policy.
  • Internal competition: I have never understood why GAC holds internal competitions for entry level positions where only current GAC employees can apply.
  • Subjective exams: sure, it's easy enough to identify the best answer or two, but the situations and the responses are not relevant. What I would actually do is rarely listed.
My suggestions were aimed at decreasing the number of applications, which, would hopefully, make it easier for GAC.

Perhaps I am bitter that when I was entry level and a recent graduate, GAC was never hiring. It is virtually impossible to get into GAC any other way except the PSR. I remember reading somewhere that the average age for entering the FS at GAC was somewhere north of 30. The positions aren't necessarily only for recent graduates.
Newbie
Nov 12, 2015
32 posts
7 upvotes
PublicServant wrote: Re: reading of the literature -- I'd be very interested to know the literature to which you're referring. :D
Haha since leaving school I guess I've gotten lazy when it comes to citing my sources. :razz:

Finance's power in the public service is pretty pervasive in Canadian public administration literature. A good place to start would be Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, edited by Dobuzinskis, Howlett, and Laycock, for a broad overview. David Zussman's Off and Running: The Prospects and Pitfalls of Government Transitions in Canada also provides an interesting look into some aspects of the machinery of government.

However, the work I think I was cribbing from in my post was Good's The Politics of Public Money. He notes that the vast majority of senior officials at Finance (DM, Assoc. DMs, ADMs) are typically groomed and have made their careers in Finance.
The pattern has been similar for assistant and associate deputy ministers in the Department of Finance. The recruitment for most positions at this level is from within the department... Up and coming junior officials are brought along quickly, sometimes 'farmed out' to a policy oriented department or moved 'up the street' across from Parliament Hill to be 'rounded out' in Privy Council Office
Versus:
In contrast, secretaries to the Treasury Board do not spend their careers in the Secretariat... [they] pursued their careers and developed their skills in the rough and tumble world of departments - Industry, Foreign Affairs, etc... Similarly, most TB budget officials do not make their careers in the Secretariat. Typically, they come to the Secretariat for a short period of time and once there they are rotated quickly through several positions... After a two- or three-year 'tour of duty,' they typically return to a spending department or agency.
I could talk machinery of government all day haha. But I'm sure this is already more info than you were expecting/interested in :twisted:

Top