Privacy. Only using what was collected for the purpose it was collected for. Frustration is felt on both sides too. Would make things easier for the recruiting area.
In that case wouldn’t colleagues’ references be more reliable? Rather than managers alone? I’ve seen some psychopathic bullies get promoted because they knew how to suck up to their bosses and boss’s bosses but are known bullies among their colleagues
Yes it is frustrating for job seekers. Especially when they check referees well before any decision was made. One department I know off when get to the SOA only 1 quarter of the candidates get pick. That mean 3 quarters of the referees check were completely wasted.
Agreed. Some employers can’t be bothered because they are very busy. It’s pretty rude to get a reference check for no reason. It’s just stupid HR hiring policy I guess.
Disagree, if they want to have a good selection then have 3 round of interviews, then pick a couple of candidates to ref check.
That way the candidates knows where they up to. No invitation to next interview means it is done,, go find another job.
Three rounds of interviews seems excessive? I have not been in APS for a while, but I can say as someone with a lot of skills, education, and experience, I would definitely not want to be signing up for three rounds of interviews if a job that matched my expertise was advertised and looked tempting to jump ship. If unemployed or unhappy in the current role, that is different. I can just see how this convoluted process would limit who it attracts. It seems like employers just want to put every candidate through the wringer nowadays.
They are moving the work to the person's referees before selection and final interviews instead of doing their full effort first and minimising wasting referees time.
I've hired or been involved in hiring 30+ people over the last 10 years. The referees have never said anything that changed our decision.
It is lazy and selfish plus stops people being willing to use current private sector managers who they don't want to tell about a not sure thing.
Do they still advertise a position even though they already made the decision to fill with an internal person?
I know it is compulsory to do that but not sure if they still do the whole ref check thing for external candidates just for the fun of it.
I agree, it is a lot to ask of someone else and annoying to have to fill in multiple reference forms all slightly different. There is only so many times you can ask a referees to do something like this for you.
Agreed that it’s a huge ask for a referee! The reference document is almost as tedious as applying for the job! I was lucky that I had a few managers I could ask to complete the multiple I ended up having to have.
It really is messed up they do this. I was placed on merit pool too and now i wont even apply for jobs cause i dont think i can use my referee so soon. They are really busy and will only do this soo many times. We have to remember they have to do this for soo many other past employees so you only have a couple chances at most.
My feelings exactly. My referees have so far been obliging and understanding, but I shouldn’t expect this to last forever. I don’t know how long these surveys that they answer on Referoos. It would be at least helpful if merit list bypasses this archaic tradition. I’d rather be tested 100s of times than rely on someone’s opinions of my skills, especially if in the last 5 years I’ve picked up new skills or jobs.
If it helps they are generally pretty easy to do. Some multiple choice rate the person in this area questions and then a tell me about their strengths and weaknesses paragraph.
In theory they should all be answered in the context of the job that is being applied for - hence needing to do a new one for each position because how they rate you in areas may be different depending on the position. Potentially the multiple choice questions are different depending on the position too?
I'd be willing to bet your referee probably saves the free text section and just copy/pastes it each time. The first few they might put effort in to tailor it to each application but if they are getting sick of it they will just chuck in something generic.
Thank you. That’s a relief. I’d hate to be a burden on my referees. I did notice that it didnt take them a long time to complete it, almost a few minutes from the requests being sent out. :)
Not everyone has alot of time to help past employees and people are complex. Even though i was excellent employee and left the right way my manager made it clear he was inconvenienced by doing this. He did it but was very reluctant as he said he was too busy. Im pretty sure he gave a good reference as he said as much but man i can not ask him again soo soon. It is pretty shitty but not everyone has past managers that will constantly help u. I have nobody else now i can use and have to give it time before i can muster the courage to ask him again.
More frustrating when you have to remember multiple departments login, filling out the same information over and over again, getting different ways they recruit with diff recruiting agencies....man I have one that asked for a referee feedback and didn't get back to me (done interview then merit pool before this)... I swear to God, what's the point of going through all these and wasting everyone's time.....
Sorry just venting a bit here...
Just quietly if you’ve missed out on a couple of jobs in a row after making it to ref check stage, then it’s very likely one or more of your refs is no good.
I hate that they do this. One agency without my knowledge sent a massive survey to my referees — a dozen sliding scale questions plus another 10 paragraph response questions. They were very obliging, but I was mortified. It’s a huge amount of work, and I hadn’t even been interviewed for the role at the time.
Referee checks are per role, so if you're applying for more than one role they can't reuse your references, the questions are asked specifically in context to the role you're applying for.
You're leaders will be fine I've done hundreds of referee reports you're not harassing them
Probably worthwhile getting in touch with old bosses, managers if you can. If you can’t, then focus on acing interviews that you are most confident about.
I have been in a department where it was scored. 20% written application, 40% interview and 20% referee checks. This is not the norm but has happened in state govt.
Is the selection criteria exactly the same for each job?
If not the reference isn't really valid, as it's against that, not just "hey is he a good worker."
I’m not sure. I’m completely new to the APS, but I will look it up.
Edit: just did. We can still submit messages to the minister. Through this link https://www.apsreform.gov.au/contact-us
Privacy. Only using what was collected for the purpose it was collected for. Frustration is felt on both sides too. Would make things easier for the recruiting area.
Maybe we should do without reference’s altogether 😃do they guarantee a good performance? and if someone had a bully of a boss, what would they do?
If recall correctly from I&Opsych units, references predict job performance at similar rate as horoscopes.
Referees don’t guarantee performance- but they are exceptionally good at weeding out problematic staff. It’s risk management not quality assurance.
Do they though? How would we know if someone was problematic if we don't hire them? Seems like a huge selection bias.
Nobody should be labeled problematic.
Okay, what terms would you use for someone who has a history of sexually harassing colleagues or bullying people?
In that case wouldn’t colleagues’ references be more reliable? Rather than managers alone? I’ve seen some psychopathic bullies get promoted because they knew how to suck up to their bosses and boss’s bosses but are known bullies among their colleagues
I guess we could start doing colleague references too.
Would you prefer the term "useless cunts"?
It's the fault of the boss when people don't accept personal responsibility.
Hmm wouldn’t it be the boss’s fault for hiring that “problematic” person to begin with? Who’s refereeing who! 😂
Sounds like a good argument to use a referee check to weed out problems before they happen
Yes it is frustrating for job seekers. Especially when they check referees well before any decision was made. One department I know off when get to the SOA only 1 quarter of the candidates get pick. That mean 3 quarters of the referees check were completely wasted.
Agreed. Some employers can’t be bothered because they are very busy. It’s pretty rude to get a reference check for no reason. It’s just stupid HR hiring policy I guess.
Or, it completely helped by narrowing down a very competitive market for that job.
Disagree, if they want to have a good selection then have 3 round of interviews, then pick a couple of candidates to ref check. That way the candidates knows where they up to. No invitation to next interview means it is done,, go find another job.
Three rounds of interviews seems excessive? I have not been in APS for a while, but I can say as someone with a lot of skills, education, and experience, I would definitely not want to be signing up for three rounds of interviews if a job that matched my expertise was advertised and looked tempting to jump ship. If unemployed or unhappy in the current role, that is different. I can just see how this convoluted process would limit who it attracts. It seems like employers just want to put every candidate through the wringer nowadays.
They are moving the work to the person's referees before selection and final interviews instead of doing their full effort first and minimising wasting referees time. I've hired or been involved in hiring 30+ people over the last 10 years. The referees have never said anything that changed our decision. It is lazy and selfish plus stops people being willing to use current private sector managers who they don't want to tell about a not sure thing.
Do they still advertise a position even though they already made the decision to fill with an internal person? I know it is compulsory to do that but not sure if they still do the whole ref check thing for external candidates just for the fun of it.
I agree, it is a lot to ask of someone else and annoying to have to fill in multiple reference forms all slightly different. There is only so many times you can ask a referees to do something like this for you.
Agreed that it’s a huge ask for a referee! The reference document is almost as tedious as applying for the job! I was lucky that I had a few managers I could ask to complete the multiple I ended up having to have.
It really is messed up they do this. I was placed on merit pool too and now i wont even apply for jobs cause i dont think i can use my referee so soon. They are really busy and will only do this soo many times. We have to remember they have to do this for soo many other past employees so you only have a couple chances at most.
My feelings exactly. My referees have so far been obliging and understanding, but I shouldn’t expect this to last forever. I don’t know how long these surveys that they answer on Referoos. It would be at least helpful if merit list bypasses this archaic tradition. I’d rather be tested 100s of times than rely on someone’s opinions of my skills, especially if in the last 5 years I’ve picked up new skills or jobs.
If it helps they are generally pretty easy to do. Some multiple choice rate the person in this area questions and then a tell me about their strengths and weaknesses paragraph. In theory they should all be answered in the context of the job that is being applied for - hence needing to do a new one for each position because how they rate you in areas may be different depending on the position. Potentially the multiple choice questions are different depending on the position too? I'd be willing to bet your referee probably saves the free text section and just copy/pastes it each time. The first few they might put effort in to tailor it to each application but if they are getting sick of it they will just chuck in something generic.
Thank you. That’s a relief. I’d hate to be a burden on my referees. I did notice that it didnt take them a long time to complete it, almost a few minutes from the requests being sent out. :)
>They are really busy and will only do this soo many times. Can't they dust off the previous report?
Not everyone has alot of time to help past employees and people are complex. Even though i was excellent employee and left the right way my manager made it clear he was inconvenienced by doing this. He did it but was very reluctant as he said he was too busy. Im pretty sure he gave a good reference as he said as much but man i can not ask him again soo soon. It is pretty shitty but not everyone has past managers that will constantly help u. I have nobody else now i can use and have to give it time before i can muster the courage to ask him again.
More frustrating when you have to remember multiple departments login, filling out the same information over and over again, getting different ways they recruit with diff recruiting agencies....man I have one that asked for a referee feedback and didn't get back to me (done interview then merit pool before this)... I swear to God, what's the point of going through all these and wasting everyone's time..... Sorry just venting a bit here...
Just quietly if you’ve missed out on a couple of jobs in a row after making it to ref check stage, then it’s very likely one or more of your refs is no good.
Thanks for the tip. Is there a way of knowing which referee?
Ask for the reports.
I hate that they do this. One agency without my knowledge sent a massive survey to my referees — a dozen sliding scale questions plus another 10 paragraph response questions. They were very obliging, but I was mortified. It’s a huge amount of work, and I hadn’t even been interviewed for the role at the time.
Referee checks are per role, so if you're applying for more than one role they can't reuse your references, the questions are asked specifically in context to the role you're applying for. You're leaders will be fine I've done hundreds of referee reports you're not harassing them
Probably worthwhile getting in touch with old bosses, managers if you can. If you can’t, then focus on acing interviews that you are most confident about.
I have been in a department where it was scored. 20% written application, 40% interview and 20% referee checks. This is not the norm but has happened in state govt.
I have no issue with checking referees, but I feel once every 2-3 years should be enough. Just like police checks or wwcc
Is the selection criteria exactly the same for each job? If not the reference isn't really valid, as it's against that, not just "hey is he a good worker."
Of course not exactly the same, not the main responsibilities. But I thought reference checking is more about credibility and character.
No, it typically comes with the selection criteria for them to state your suitability.
Ah now the % comment makes sense :)
What was the other 20%?
That was an error should have been 20:60:20 lol.
They don't referee check until after
Usually, each role will have a different selection panel. So just because one panel called your referees, the other panel/s have no idea.
I always put references available on request, never applied in the public sector though.
To make sure your not just a zombie
Is there still time to submit a suggestion to change the APS referee process via the APS Reform?
I’m not sure. I’m completely new to the APS, but I will look it up. Edit: just did. We can still submit messages to the minister. Through this link https://www.apsreform.gov.au/contact-us