Hi there
Does anyone agree with me when I say the interview process for social work posts in LA's are a waste of time? I recently went for a post in a children's team (fieldwork) the interview process consisted of a presentation on the CAF assessment followed by 6 various questions. I wasn't sucessful. They told me that I had a very strong interview, they were very impressed by my presentation and manner, however I didn't 'score' enough during the questions process. They said that I obviously had alot of knowledge of adult mental health but explaining how the skills I had developed through this experience were transferable wasn't enough and basically I didnt say the 'standard' things they were looking for. I just feel really let down and annoyed by the whole process. At no point during the interview did they ask me of my personal experience or where I had been on placement and prior to starting the course - how can they possible build up a picture of whether I am capable of doing the job??
I do have experience of childrens services, but this was not statutory experience. The questions required me to talk about statutory experience (which in my case is a CMHT), so I answered them explaining how the skills and knowledge I had learnt were transferable to children's services.
Its really frustrating when time after time you see in SCR's that practitioners do not take an holistic approach to assessments and often do not have the knowledge of mental health issues for example, and that multi agency working and info sharing has failed. I feel mental health services gives you the best possible experience of multi agency working and risk assessing situations, and regulary come across child protection issues.
I have just qualified at university achieving a high 2:1 result, while I do access that to be a good practitioner isnt all about being strong in terms of academia - what I can't accept is that a point scoring system selects the best people for the role - surely it should be about your ability to learn and your experience.
Any comments much appreciated
The reason for the prevelance of points based systems in recruiting is mostly due to having to demonstrate fairness in the process. Its very easy for unsuccessful applicants to challenge employers on the grounds of discrimination and the employer has to be able to show a consistent system was used. Therfore the points based system of 'magic answers' takes prevelance and then if there is more than one approprately scored candidate things like experience and personal qualities are then taken into consideration.
Thats how I believe it to work anyway, I'm not personally involved in recruitment.
Thank you Joanne that's really useful. It makes me so annoyed how they work. I'm also aware that often they already have people in mind for the job- but just have to advertise for legal purposes. I also discovered today that they are recruiting through many different agencies (for the same advertised post) and are willing to pay £30 per hour! It makes me so annoyed. Prior to social care I worked in finance and so have a working nowledge of how much money is spent on agency recruiting, it seems so unfair when there are people like myself WITH experience wanting to work for half that price! What makes it more disheartening is that it is my local authority - I have a passion for the area and really wanted to get my teeth stuck in. Up and on I suppose I just feel for the service users really, not blowing my own trumpet but I always give everything I do 100% and its a shame that myself and many others are missing out just because we may not score points to there closed questions.
I have interviewed numerous social workers over the years. As a team manager I always had a senior manager present and it was that person who took the lead on how the interviews were conducted. They can be very different. The last senior manager I interviewed with relied solely on the 'scores'. To be honest, the people marking can decide the score given to any answer depending on their own person preference. I have also sat on PQ panels and found the same takes place. One person may find an answer fits the question another may not. I have heard people twist and turn answers so they do fit the question. There is something much more complex operating here. Social care is a human contact profession dependent on the attitudes, values and attributes of individuals working within it. We see this all the time in the decision making process involved in many aspects of the work. You have experienced it during an interview.
In one interview I was involved with (which also included intelligence testing by an accupational psychologist!) one manager refused to accept an individual purely on the basis that the person was considered to be an 'academic genius'. Yes, the person was highly academic and intelligent but also had the potential to be an excellent social worker. I made sure that person was offered a post in my team.
In social work training more emphasis should be placed on raising awareness of how our own values influence our perception of a situation and the decisions we make.
I have been involved in recruiting qualified and unqualified social staff in the past. To be really honest, if we thought someone was perfect for the job, we would rate them higher. There is no way that you can rule out discrimination completely and it is important to allow managers to use their judgement as well as the figures. We were honest in our feedback though. Good luck for the future
Hi all
Thank you for all the comments they are really useful. I have formal feedback tomorrow so hopefully that should shed some light on where I went wrong. The funny thing is that the team run a rolling recruitement basis so in effect tomorrow I wil find out what i 'should' have said and then will probably have the chance to re-apply...that makes alot of sense...
I will let you know what happens - thanks again
I hate interviews and hope that I never have to do one again. I currently work for about two thirds or less of my worth on a self employed basis in a school and have worked there for four years with nothing but a gentleman's agreement. It is one of the best jobs that I ever had with me being able to create a working model that has helped hundred's of children and which I am now trying to take nation wide. My Headteacher has been marvelous and has turned from a non believer to a believer and supports moving my model nationally.
We have had journalists visit school and both Tim Loughton and Professor Sue White and yet I bet if I went for an area social work job and interview I would fail.
No longer can I answer questions the way that they want them answered I have a conscience and cannot stand hypocrisy and have told Michael Gove too.
I am so glad that things are changing and I will celebrate the first authority that gets away from this rigid robotic form of interviewing and sees real people.
Rachel Bramble
creator of AERO www.aero-evolving.com
It's hard I know ...but you have to try.....go on
I would suggest you consider requesting a copy of all your interview records, which you can do under the Data Protection Act. You can also request a copy of the actual interview questions and forms used to record responses under the Freedom of Information Act. If needed you can also request copies of any references provided, whilst the author of a reference can refuse to provide a copy the recipient cannot.
Do you have to give a copy of a reference you have received from someone else? If you hold the reference in a way that means it is covered by the Act, you must consider a request for a copy under the normal rules of access. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/references_v1.0_final.pdf
You can also ask for the scores of all the other interview candidates and your own identified one, as well as an anonymised summary of other candidates qualifications and experience. This sort of request is mentioned in an ICO decision notice served on Leicester Council. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50184888.pdf
As a manager local authorities often prefer to use Agency Workers, because they can be easily dispensed with and the interview process is of course quite different. In fact it is not uncommon for Agency Workers to be interviewed by one person and all of the interview records and questions get destroyed immediately after any interview, so claims for discrimination would be difficult. Agency Worker may seem to cost more, but the local authority will not have to worry about sick pay, have a need to offer or consider flexi-time, pay or contribute to any pension, pay toward or consider parental leave, provide any training, provide only basic case supervision and not professional development etc
I went for formal interview feedback last week - was very interesting. Basically the team manager explained they mark the questions by saying whether they were answered fully, partly or briefly. If the candiate receives a briefly they cannot put you to the next stage. I had one breifly, which automatically stopped me going through. All the other quations were marked fully and partly. However I was told that my presentation was excellent and I could not have done anything alse to improve on that. What I find really strange is that I was told to reapply as they want me in their team?? they explained I was the type of person they wanted and would strongly advise I reapply. It just confirms my original thoughts that they do not use their discreation when interviewing, it seems a waste of their time and my own. Im now left with the dilemma of whether I want to reapply and go through the whole process again??
Any advise would be welcomed
Th
tiamaria: Hi all Basically the team manager explained they mark the questions by saying whether they were answered fully, partly or briefly. If the candiate receives a briefly they cannot put you to the next stage. I had one breifly, which automatically stopped me going through.
Basically the team manager explained they mark the questions by saying whether they were answered fully, partly or briefly. If the candiate receives a briefly they cannot put you to the next stage. I had one breifly, which automatically stopped me going through.
Being stopped sounds quite odd. There can never be a situation of not using discretion, maybe not in terms of how scoring is calculated. But if a candidate is not doing so well there is nothing wrong for an interviewer to restate the question or facilitate a more in depth discussion. What seems to be missing from interviews, in my expreince. is the unwillingness to engage in dialogue, in the way any 'normal' interview would be conducted.
When I do not succeed at an interview stage I now always request a copy of the questions, which can be released under the Freedom of Information Act, on occassion the questions I see are not the one's I thought I was asked and they are often the one's I did poorly in. So I do suggest that candidates ask fro permission to be given each question in writing, fro me this is partly because of hearing difficulties, but it took me along time to work out how easily I missed key words. You can also get a copy of your interview responses, scoring and the interview evaluation methods by asking for such udner the Data Protection Act and Freedom of Information Act.
I AGREE THAT INTERVIEWS ARE A BIT OF A FARCE. THE IMPORTANT ISSUES ARE EXPERIENCE, QUALIFICATIONS, SICKNESS RECORD AND WILLINGNESS TO LEARN IN ANY NEW/DIFFERENT SITUATION. THERE IS NOTHING OBJECTIVE ABOUT THE 'POINT SCORING' SYSTEM, AS IT MOSTLY RELIES UPON PEOPLE USING CERTAIN 'BUZZ' WORDS OR HITTING TOPICAL SUBJECTS, AND UPON THE PREJUDICES OF THE INTERVIEWERS. ANYONE WHO CAN CRITICALLY ANALYSE WHAT IS DEEMED TO BE THE LATEST 'FASHION' IN POLICY WOULD NEVER DARE TO DO SO IN AN INTERVIEW.
UNFORTUNATELY I THINK THAT TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN AN INTERVIEW, AND IN SOCIAL WORK GENERALLY, YOU HAVE TO KEEP UP WITH WHATEVER IS POPULAR IN MANAGEMENT CIRCLES, USE POINTLESS JARGON, AND OTHERWISE KEEP YOUR HEAD DOWN. NEVERTHELESS, I THINK YOU WILL FIND SOME PEOPLE WHO DO ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT WHAT THEY DO, AND I HOPE YOU ARE LUCKY ENOUGH TO FIND A JOB AMONGST SUCH PEOPLE.
Couldn't agree more. The whole system is a joke. Its infested with a 'jobs for the boys' culture. Too many people in highly paid senior positions (who are doing very little that actually impacts on the ground) are being kept on because its too expensive to make them redundant. No...it is much cheaper to let go of the dynamic new person who has just joined the organisation.
Those in HR and senior managers who have not been at the front line for so long have completely lost their understanding of which jobs need a social work qualification. Our risk averse culture has led LA's to dictate that every job in children's services needs a SW qual. A ridiculous and counter productive strategy! Infact...only a very few roles actually need a qualified worker ... so lets ringfence those for the best, reward them better, recognise their speciality and give them better status. But lets also recognise that there are so many roles out there that don't need a qualified worker...experience is often so much more valuable!
Personally I've had enough. I'm off to see a professional careers advisor next week to look at a complete career change. I just can't handle this risk averse, petty, status obsessed, service led environment anymore.
I agree with everything you say Joanne. It really is a shame that the profession is losing people like you. I know a number of people who are leaving the profession and who can blame them?
Good luck for the future.
They had someone else lined up for the post. That's the only reason you weren't offered it. This happens all the time and its a complete waste of everyone's time but HR insist they go through this due to equal opps!!!!
tiamaria: Hi all I went for formal interview feedback last week - was very interesting. Basically the team manager explained they mark the questions by saying whether they were answered fully, partly or briefly. If the candiate receives a briefly they cannot put you to the next stage. I had one breifly, which automatically stopped me going through. All the other quations were marked fully and partly. However I was told that my presentation was excellent and I could not have done anything alse to improve on that. What I find really strange is that I was told to reapply as they want me in their team?? they explained I was the type of person they wanted and would strongly advise I reapply. It just confirms my original thoughts that they do not use their discreation when interviewing, it seems a waste of their time and my own. Im now left with the dilemma of whether I want to reapply and go through the whole process again?? Any advise would be welcomed
It really depends on how much you want to work for that particular team, I work with with an org that has a very comprehensive recruitment process. As a recruiting manager I do tend to use my discretion, sometimes appointment is about what the team needs at a particular time in terms of a good balance of skills, experience and knowledge. I might find, for example that I have two equally strong candidates with very different experiences or strengths - in that situation I pick the one I think will balance the team out the best at the time and my feedback to the other is very often that I would welcome them applying again in future.
It may be that you couldn't have done anything differently but there was a candidate who brought more of what the team needed at that particular time. It sucks but I would take the invitation to reapply at face value and decide whether you want to work with them or not.
tigglette: tiamaria: It really depends on how much you want to work for that particular team, I work with with an org that has a very comprehensive recruitment process. As a recruiting manager I do tend to use my discretion, sometimes appointment is about what the team needs at a particular time in terms of a good balance of skills, experience and knowledge. I might find, for example that I have two equally strong candidates with very different experiences or strengths - in that situation I pick the one I think will balance the team out the best at the time and my feedback to the other is very often that I would welcome them applying again in future. It may be that you couldn't have done anything differently but there was a candidate who brought more of what the team needed at that particular time. It sucks but I would take the invitation to reapply at face value and decide whether you want to work with them or not.
tiamaria:
.............. a very comprehensive recruitment process?
So there we have the evidence which shows that your full economic well being will depend upon the level "discretion" a recruitment manager has?As a manager myself, interviews never take place with less than two interviewers and whilst two candidate may be employable, we can only prefer the candidate who performed best and achieved the highest scores for interview tests, written exercises and questions, to do otherwise is to invoke discriminatory and illegal "discretion".We also keep copies of job applications and the interview records for six months, as this is the time period allowed for a legal challenge could be made by an unsuccessful candidate. After a recent ruling by the ICO we also have to provide anyone with copies of all candidates interview scores, which allow for candidate comparison.If two or more candidates have been shortlisted for interview, that usually means they just need to perform well at the interview stage and if the process follows good Equality and Diversity principles, interviewers don't collude, the scoring system is good. Then discriminatory "discretion" should be mitigated against.If "discretion" is to be a deciding factor in the recruitment of Social Care Workers, then the psychological trait of choosing people in one's own image will be the biggest influence. And service users may get little opportunity to be supported by workers that are reflective of their own backgrounds and community.The idea "discretion" being able to identify a teams gaps in skills, knowledge and experience could well negate policies founded on diversity.So lets say one candidate get a score of 60 out of 100, but they have a particular needed skill. But the other candidates does not have the same verbal skills to show they also have the equivalent particular skill level but they do get a score of 75, who should get offerred the job? What discretion would be illegal or permissible?Job offers are normally subject to satisfactory references and such references may suggest that the skills offered by interview candidates are not as good as assessed at interview, so basing recruitment on the nebulous concept of "discretion" seems to be a road to self-delusion.Skills, knowledge and experience are not static concepts and that is why orgs have a legal duty to train staff and also provide them with opportunities to improve, though if they are managed by a system of paternalistic "discretion", then team and workers professional growth is likely to be compromised.
tiamaria: Basically the team manager explained they mark the questions by saying whether they were answered fully, partly or briefly.
Basically the team manager explained they mark the questions by saying whether they were answered fully, partly or briefly.
Not sure what advice to give but the scoring evaluation system sounds odd. It suggests the following scores:
fully ( 2 points )
partly ( 1 point )
briefly ( 0 points )
With such a limited scoring technique what happens if two people have the same score? Which to me seems to be highly likely anything that only gives a score of 1 or 2. I have never come across a system that stops a candidate when ever they give a 'briefly' answer.
If I read your comments correctly the interview process was in two stages?
I would be inclined to suggest walking away from this one. The inability to be able to use discretion might be (though not necessarily) reflected in what they expect from the successful candidate - in other words that you rigidly follow process and in the meantime disconnect your higher brain functions.
Of course if that appeals - working in a department where process rules, that might indicate they are spot-on. But for me, being a hamster never works; there's always some instance when there is no process or standard and you absolutely have to use your discretion, or think of a workable solution.
Fredrick
Yes it consisted on a presentation and 6 questions - however the presentation was also marked fully, partly and briefly. My presentation was marked fully. The question I got as a briefly for was name a piece of research that has affected social work practice. I chose to speak about multi agency working and related it to the khyra ishaq - but unfortunately this is what let me down.
Dalamar
I appreciate your post, however I must say I disagree. Forgive me for saying but you do not sound like you are coming from a social work background...HR background maybe? It seems that you follow process rather than 'discretion'. Social work is about working with people not machines and process. It really does annoy me when people recruiting within the social care workforce are preoccupied by thinking about 'legal challenges' than the person who is best for the job.
As for using team managers not using 'discreation' in interviews really does worry me. The social work profession is based around using our professional discreation and without this being reflected at manager level I must ask myself - 'Do I really want to work in this team?'
Your next comment again I must say I also disagree with-
If "discretion" is to be a deciding factor in the recruitment of Social Care Workers, then the psychological trait of choosing people in one's own image will be the biggest influence. And service users may get little opportunity to be supported by workers that are reflective of their own backgrounds and community
Again I wouldn't like to think any manager within social care/work would ever select someone based on their own image?? And whats to say that the recruiting manager has experienced what a service user has experienced? Not sure what you are impling here?
Yes 'discretion' shouldn't be the deciding factor, however feedback suggested that I had very nearly passed the interview. The manager explained she did want me in her team - and urged me to re-apply. Here I believe that 'discretion' should have been the deciding factor. It me it seems sensible - as by re-applying I am taking another interview slot and spending more of my own time and their filling out their lengthly apllication form. So 'discretion' seems to be the better option.
All the occupational psychology researchn highlights the poor reliability and validity of using interviews to recruit. Assessment centres are seen as the gold standard but are costly. However the Prison Service uses these for their psychology staff. The issue of 'cloning' is valid and interviews are social interactions in which we look for others more like ourselves.
RachelL: I would be inclined to suggest walking away from this one. The inability to be able to use discretion might be (though not necessarily) reflected in what they expect from the successful candidate - in other words that you rigidly follow process and in the meantime disconnect your higher brain functions. Of course if that appeals - working in a department where process rules, that might indicate they are spot-on. But for me, being a hamster never works; there's always some instance when there is no process or standard and you absolutely have to use your discretion, or think of a workable solution.
Dalamar: So lets say one candidate get a score of 60 out of 100, but they have a particular needed skill. But the other candidates does not have the same verbal skills to show they also have the equivalent particular skill level but they do get a score of 75, who should get offerred the job? What discretion would be illegal or permissible?
So lets say one candidate get a score of 60 out of 100, but they have a particular needed skill. But the other candidates does not have the same verbal skills to show they also have the equivalent particular skill level but they do get a score of 75, who should get offerred the job? What discretion would be illegal or permissible?
Dictionary definition of Discretion
Synonyms 2. judgment, wisdom, discrimination, sense.
I have no problem with critical commentary, but please do explain how a "hamster" like me who apparently does not have "higher" brain functions can use my discretion to recruit the candidate who got 60 points rather than the one who got 100 and if I preferred the 60 point candidate how do I get the two other interview Panel members and my HR dept to collude with me?The manager who is using "discretion" seems to have the unchecked Power to assess job applications, shortlist candidates and recruit without regard to anyone else, this never happens in Public authorities or Orgs of any repute.
Please note that my response was based on the fact that rel="nofollow">tiamaria had gone through a process based interview, that cannot be bypassed by "discretion" and appears to use a complex set of procedures (rules) and therefore flippant commentary would not offer the advice being sort.
Concepts of "discretion" are too simplistic. But as indicated some seem to recruit at their sole "discretion"
tiamaria: Hi there Does anyone agree with me when I say the interview process for social work posts in LA's are a waste of time? I recently went for a post in a children's team (fieldwork) the interview process consisted of a presentation on the CAF assessment followed by 6 various questions. I wasn't sucessful. They told me that I had a very strong interview, they were very impressed by my presentation and manner, however I didn't 'score' enough during the questions process. They said that I obviously had alot of knowledge of adult mental health but explaining how the skills I had developed through this experience were transferable wasn't enough and basically I didnt say the 'standard' things they were looking for. I just feel really let down and annoyed by the whole process. At no point during the interview did they ask me of my personal experience or where I had been on placement and prior to starting the course - how can they possible build up a picture of whether I am capable of doing the job?? I do have experience of childrens services, but this was not statutory experience. The questions required me to talk about statutory experience (which in my case is a CMHT), so I answered them explaining how the skills and knowledge I had learnt were transferable to children's services. Its really frustrating when time after time you see in SCR's that practitioners do not take an holistic approach to assessments and often do not have the knowledge of mental health issues for example, and that multi agency working and info sharing has failed. I feel mental health services gives you the best possible experience of multi agency working and risk assessing situations, and regulary come across child protection issues. I have just qualified at university achieving a high 2:1 result, while I do access that to be a good practitioner isnt all about being strong in terms of academia - what I can't accept is that a point scoring system selects the best people for the role - surely it should be about your ability to learn and your experience. Any comments much appreciated
I have no problem with critical commentary, but please do explain how a "hamster" like me who apparently does not have "higher" brain functions can use my discretion to recruit the candidate who got 60 points rather than the one who got 100 and if I preferred the 60 point candidate how do I get the two other interview Panel members and my HR dept to collude with me?
Okay, that's a tad scary; the reference to hamster is for a worker who follows repetitive, process-driven tasks. The reference to "higher brain functions" is precisely related to that; a worker whose cognitive functions are underused in repetitive work.
You did read the original post didn't you? Please tell me you did.
Regrettably I come from an environment were discretion is a 'feature'. Yes it has the risk of introducing a racist or sexist element into the matter (something the HR rep would normally be wary of) but ultimately humans are not automata. Opinion though can be garnered by experience, by prejudice, but it can also be influenced by instinct, by knowledge and contact with other humans. An interview based on answers might reduce subjectivity, and it will certainly identify people who are good at answering questions in interview situations, but will such questions identify who will be good at the job? Answering questions may be a perfectly good criteria for judging if someone is right for the job. But how do you know if the questions asked are right for the job?
I'm not talking about disregarding scoring systems or about appointing a lower scoring candidate - we have no fewer than 5 people involved in the recruitment process (a fairly full assessment centre using presentations, role play, written work and group discussion as well as interviews) which makes it a pretty difficult process for anyone to "fix" in favour of any candidate.
You did read where I spoke about "two equally strong candidates"? As other have indicated, it's not unusual to have two candiates that end the process with identical scores overall but who have possibly scored more highly in one area (eg presentation) than they did in another (eg role play) or who had the same interview scores but scored more or less highly on particular questions. In that situation I can either keep interviewing them in some kind of "tie breaker" process or I can look at how they scored, decide which areas fill particular gaps in the current team and appoint the person that best fills those gaps - I tend to go with the latter as both have demonstrated they are appointable to the role. The feedback the unsuccesful candidate would get is exactly that - you were appointable, there was a stronger candidate on this occasion and I would welcome another application should a post arise. That's what I mean when talking about discretion in the recruitment process.
Don't get me started at A*'s!!! In my days an A was THE grade to aim for! What next? A**? Eventually leading to A* recurring??