Following are a series of short stories based on real-life experiences that illustrate some ideas (pros and cons) and best practices in staffing. Included are examples of staffing actions where:

• key stakeholders were involved in establishing qualifications and assessing applicants;

• advertisements used only competencies for qualifications;

• a questionnaire was used as a screening and short listing instrument;

• an alternate interview format, an oral presentation and interactive interview, a variety of job related assessment tools were used;

• rating approaches focused on major elements and ranking without numbers, identifying the "best overall fit", factors were weighted, a pass fail model was used almost entirely throughout the staffing action, a  variety of standards for passing were used;

• reference checking was used more than once in a staffing action, work samples were used to assess past work performance;

• applicants were kept informed and provided feedback throughout the staffing process and an example of how ongoing feedback fit with the feedback step required under the staffing review process;

• open competitions involved a large number of vacancies and applicants; and pools of pre-qualified applicants were established to fill vacancies quickly and efficiently. 

See the Managers Staffing Toolkit and Practice Guidelines for more ideas and information related to the various steps in the staffing actions illustrated in the following stories.

Involving Key Stakeholders

The central agency vacancy provides specialty professional services to a variety of clients in ministries. The team leader called a range of key clients to solicit their input into the competencies and qualifications that they considered to be critical requirements for the position. She used this input to inform her development of the advertising content and the assessment strategy. She then contacted one of the clients and invited him/her to participate as a member of the assessment team along with the colleagues and subordinate of the vacancy.  

Why This Worked. This approach ensured a balanced, well-rounded and job-related set of qualifications and competencies on which to base the staffing actions. Proactively taking client needs into account greatly strengthened the relationship with the client group and working team.

The Challenge of Using Competencies as Qualifications

The advertisement included limited detail about the duties and qualifications listed competencies only with the requirement for applicants to provide information on their experience, education and training demonstrating their competencies. Over three hundred applications were received on the overall advertisement. A contractor was engaged to sort applications into the various job streams and to conduct a preliminary short listing. Thirty applications were forwarded to the assessment team for final short listing. 4 were short listed in for assessment. 

What Worked But Could Have Been Improved. The applicant pool was increased both in number and diversity of backgrounds, however greater clarity in the advertisement about the duties of the individual vacancies being filled and qualifications in addition to the competencies (e.g. experience, education and training) required, would have made the short listing process much more efficient.

Using a Questionnaire as Screening and Short Listing Instrument

Applicants were requested to complete a 4-part questionnaire as their sole method of applying for the position. No other documents were to be submitted. The questionnaire, job description and list of competencies were all available on-line and in a hard copy package. The questionnaire required applicants provide examples from past experience where they had demonstrated specified qualifications in a work-related setting and references to validate these experiences. They were provided clear instructions on how to describe their experiences such as the actions they took, nature and degree of their involvement, the outcomes or consequences, and, where appropriate, what they might have done differently. A three level narrative rating scale was used: exceeded, met or did not meet expectations. Those meeting the minimum requirements in all 4 areas were invited to participate in the next stages of the assessment process. Only one applicant did not follow the instructions on the application questionnaire correctly. 

Why This Worked. When You Would Not Use It. The questionnaire was an efficient and job-related way to short list applicants in this case as there was a large internal pool of qualified applicants and some very specific types of qualifications required. Had the applicant pool been external, with fewer potential applicants, and more difficult to recruit to, the panel would not have chosen to use this instrument.

Alternate Interview Format

Applicants participated in a three-part interview. The first part took 45 minutes, involved the applicant and supervisor only and assessed problem solving, judgment and service orientation.  The second part took another 45 minutes, was conducted by two department heads and assessed strategic orientation, leadership and teamwork and cooperation. The final interview was conducted by the remaining client service representative and assessed expertise in the specialty area, innovation and results-orientation. Following the individual interviews, the panel members met, reported on, assembled and discussed the results, and used consensus to identify the highest ranked applicant.  

Why This Worked. Using a one-on-one or a small interview team approach, rather than a full “panel” of 3 or 4, fostered an interview process that was open-ended, relaxed and conversational in nature. Using separate interview phases allowed each team member to focus on, and fully explore, the assigned competencies. The assessment team had met early on to determine what the competencies were and developed a common understanding. This enhanced the consistency of their individual approaches in the interviews and to their rating outcomes.

Oral Presentation an Interactive Interview Format

As making presentations is a common occurrence on the job, an oral presentation was chosen as one of the primary assessment tools. A written outline of the presentation requirements was provided to short listed applicants along with a copy of the job description. The supervisor contacted each applicant by telephone to discuss the organization, job and the assignment and to answer any questions they had.  A series of open-ended questions was prepared to follow-up with each applicant after their presentation. These were used if the presentation did not address a particular topic area. Many questions used were ad hoc and flowed from the content of each presentation. While the questions asked of each applicant varied, all areas were explored. 

Why This Worked. The assessment team of two had spent time developing a clear and common understanding of what they were looking for before they developed their assessment strategy. This assisted greatly in creating a very interactive, relaxed and open-ended approach to the presentation and interview. Allowing the applicants to choose their own presentation topic, albeit within parameters, meant they were generally interested in the topic, comfortable with the content and better prepared to interact with the assessment team after the presentation.

Using a Variety of Job-Related Assessment Tools

Applicants for a communications position were invited to submit a portfolio demonstrating their experience in supporting strategic communications planning projects along with associated materials and 3 references the assessment team could speak with about their work. They were given several days to assemble the portfolio. A communications professional evaluated the quality of the portfolios. Other assessment team members contacted references and explored the portfolios in terms of the roles and responsibilities of the applicants. Using the assessment of the portfolio and past work performance, the applicant pool was reduced to 9. The remaining 9 were invited to do a presentation that focused on process not content and included an inter-active role-play with the intended audience (the executive team). Applicants were all given access to the same background information. Following this, more in-depth references were conducted on the remaining 2 applicants. The successful applicant was then introduced to the executive team (the key clients) to ensure fit and buy-in of the executive to the final decision. 

Why This Worked. The use of a variety of assessment tools resulted in a well-rounded picture of the applicants. The work samples were readily available because of the nature of the profession. It was easy for applicants to appreciate the job-related appropriateness of the tools. 

Focusing on Major Elements and Ranking Without Numbers

Applicants’ responses to interview questions were rated against a three level narrative scale: completely met expectations, partially met expectations, or failed to meet expectations. No point scores were assigned. Questions had a series of broadly stated suggested responses to anchor the “expectations” of the narrative scale. Each member of the team independently rated the applicants. The assessment team members then met, discussed their results and agreed by consensus on the overall strongest applicant. 

Why This Worked. The use of a three-level narrative scale for “rating” focused attention on major elements and the quality of the overall response and avoided the common trap of assigning numerical points for minor elements and dissecting responses word-by-word. By participating in the development of the assessment process and tools, the assessment team had developed a common understanding of the position requirements and expectations which, in turn, enhanced the efficiency and effectiveness of the decision making process.

Looking for "Best Overall Fit"

A 3-level narrative rating approach was used: met expectations, some question about whether expectations were met; and did not meet expectations. Where some question remained about whether expectations were met, these were explored more fully during reference checking. Following the interviews and reference checking, the assessment team met, discussed results and determined that 2 of the 4 applicants met their overall expectations. A third applicant met most expectations, however, as their background and areas of interest were narrow and specialized, they were not as good an overall fit to the needs of the Branch.

Why This Worked. Using an overall rating approach allowed the assessment team to consider all the various competencies, knowledge and skills as a whole, balance strengths and weaknesses, and consider the best “fit” for the organization’s current and future needs.

Weighting

Short listed applicants as were invited to participate in an oral interview that included a role-play, a situational scenario and two behavioural questions assessing 5 critical competencies. A 5-point rating scale was used for each assessment tool and weighted by a factor of 3, 4 or 5 depending on the overall importance accorded to each competency being assessed for a total point value of 15, 20 or 25. (See the chart below.) Following this, references were contacted on the three top ranked applicants.

Using a Pass / Fail Rating Model

A province-wide, out-of-service competition with an open closing date yielded a large applicant pool, however, given the number of vacancies, there were more vacancies than applicants. A pass / fail rating model was used for each stage of the staffing action except past work performance, which was quantified. Short listed applicants invited to participate in an on-line written test assessing several key competency areas (e.g. knowledge of the specialty area, analytical and problem solving skills, written communication skills). Applicants who “passed” at this stage were then invited to an oral interview. Marks were not carried forward. Past work performance was assessed and point rated on those who “passed” the interview. Continuous service was calculated using the PWP as these were BCGEU positions, however, since almost 100% were out-of-service applicants, it had no impact on the rating outcome. choice of locations were offered in order of the PWP points.

Why This Worked. Pass / fail rating models can be less complex to establish and administer than quantified or point-rated models. Applicants only proceeded to the next stage if they were qualified. In this case, there were so many vacancies, it was not necessary to differentiate between applicants and create a rank order early on. Points were assigned to PWP for the sole purpose of offering choice of locations. 

Using a Variety of Standards for Passing

After initial short listing based on experience, education and training, short listed applicants completed a questionnaire used to assess three key competency areas. They had to meet a minimum of 2 out of 3 points in each of the 3 competency areas. Marks were not carried forward. Remaining applicants were invited to complete a written test to assess several other key competencies. To move to the next stage of the process, applicants had to meet a minimum performance score of 70% and be ranked in the top 10 of the group. Test marks were carried forward for the top 10 applicants who were then invited to do an oral presentation followed by an interactive interview. A 5-point rating scale was used for each competency being assessed and weighted by a factor of 3, 4 or 5 depending on the overall weighting assigned to the competency (i.e. for a total point value of 15, 20 or 25). To qualify at this stage, applicants had to meet a minimum score of 3 out of 5 in at least 4 out of the 5 competency areas being assessed. Marks for qualified applicants were totaled and comprehensive reference checks were then conducted on the top 3 ranked applicants.

Why this Worked. The type of standard used in each case was appropriate to the type of assessment tool being used. Combining a performance based approach (e.g. 70%) with a group-related score (e.g. top 10), allowed the panel to control the number of applicants proceeding to the next stage of the process to an applicant pool that was reasonable for the number of vacancies available while at the same time ensuring that the applicants were qualified. 

Using Reference Checks More than Once

The first step in the selection process was a take home, open book assessment questionnaire comprised of 3 questions assessing supervisory and leadership competencies designed to elicit information related to applicants’ work-related experience and names and contact numbers for references who could validate the information. Applicants were given 7 days to respond. Applicants responses were rated using a 5 Level Scale with 3 (Satisfactory) being the minimum pass mark. Reference checks were conducted to verify the information provided on those applicants meeting the minimum pass mark in all 3 areas. Marks from this phase were not carried forward. Applicants who qualified after this first phase were invited to an oral interview. Final reference checks were conducted on the applicants who qualified after the oral interview. Marks from the interview and the reference checking were totaled, continuous service calculated and a final ranking determined.

Why This Worked. While the number of applicants and referees contacted was increased by conducting the first check early in the process, the references were focused on the specific competencies being assessed. Only those applicants who were competent, with qualifications verified by references, moved to the next stage of the assessment process. The second set of references explored a broader range of information on fewer applicants and served to validate information gathered through the earlier reference checks and the oral interview. The first set of references taken, reduced the time required to complete the second set of references.

Using Work Samples to Assess Competencies and Past Work Performance

Applicants for a communications position were invited to submit a portfolio demonstrating their experience in supporting strategic communications planning projects along with associated materials and 3 references the assessment team could speak with about their work. They were given several days to assemble the portfolio. A communications professional evaluated the quality of the portfolios. Other assessment team members contacted references and explored the portfolios in terms of the roles and responsibilities of the applicants.

Why This Worked. This type of position routinely produces the types of documents and would be expected as outputs so the work sample was highly job-related.  Materials were readily available to applicants to be assembled into a portfolio within a reasonable time frame and with little work required of the applicant. 

The Value of Providing Ongoing Feedback and Moving Quickly

A large number of applications were received on an out-of-service competition for a communications vacancy. Initial short listing on qualifications reduced the pool to 20 applicants. Those not short listed were advised by e-mail by the hiring manager as soon as short listing was completed with a brief explanation of the criteria used and an invitation to contact her for feedback.  Several did and feedback was provided. The remaining applicants were invited to submit a sample of their work demonstrating their experience in a particular area and references the assessment team could speak with about their work. Using the assessment of the work sample and past work performance, the applicant pool was reduced to 9. Those not successful at this stage were contacted within 24 hours by telephone by the manager and feedback was provided either at the time or at a mutually agreed upon time within the next day or two. The manager then personally contacted each of the remaining 9 applicants to describe the assignment and answer any questions. Following the assessment of the presentation and role-play, 2 applicants remained. The next day, the manager contacted all applicants by telephone to advise them of the results and provided feedback to the 7 who were not successful. The entire staffing action took only 6 weeks from start to finish.  

Why This Worked. Timely and ongoing feedback and personal communication was much appreciated by the applicants and created a very positive impression of the organization. By the time the notification letters went out, anyone who had had any questions about why they were not successful had already received all the feedback they needed so there were no further requests for feedback and the appointment was confirmed in a timely manner. Moving quickly and keeping in contact minimized the loss of qualified applicants.

Ongoing Feedback and Review Process Feedback

On an annual basis, the organization advertises opportunities for current first line management positions and creates an eligibility list for those vacancies anticipated over the following year. Typically, these advertisements yield a very large number of employee applicants (i.e. up to 1,000). Because of the large numbers involved, the organization must uses a multi-level staffing action that reduces the number of applicants at each stage. The stages include: initial short listing on experience and training qualifications; a behavioural questionnaire assessing three key competencies; a written test; and reference checks.  After each stage, applicants are advised of the results of that stage. Early on, applicants were advised by e-mail, provided a brief explanation of the criteria used and offered an opportunity for feedback. Feedback was provided orally as / when requested and notes are made of the discussion. In later stages, as the numbers reduce, contact was made by telephone and feedback either provided during that conversation or at a later mutually agreed upon time. All applicants were advised by letter of the final results and, again, offered an opportunity for feedback. This letter was the official notification of results and applicants who wished to exercise their rights under the review process, had to request feedback as a first step. In situations where the applicant was already provided feedback, the notes made of the earlier discussion were used as reference. Additional information or clarification was provided at this time, or not, as circumstances warrant. 

Why This Worked. The panel determined that providing feedback as they moved through the process meant that it was being provided while their memory was fresh. This limited their need to go back and revisit earlier stages. It also served as an “early warning” of potential problems or errors that might have been made. It was much better to find out about a short listing or testing problem and be able to rectify it early rather than waiting until considerable time and effort had been invested in the remaining actions and a commitment made to a successful applicant.

Open Competitions with Large Applicant Volume

A province-wide, out-of-service competition with an open closing date yielded a large applicant pool, however, given the number of vacancies, there were always more vacancies than applicants. A pass / fail rating model was used for each stage of the staffing action except past work performance, which was quantified only to create a rank for offering choice of locations. Applications were reviewed and short listed on the basis of qualifications within 24 hours of receipt. Those not meeting the minimum qualifications were contacted advised accordingly. Short listed applicants were contacted by telephone within 48 hours of short listing by a recruiter who discussed the nature and challenges of the work, potential opportunities and locations available, confirmed on-going interest, and invited them to participate in a on-line written test assessing several key competency areas. Applicants who qualified at this stage were then invited to an oral interview. Hiring managers set aside specific times every two weeks (more or less frequently depending on volume of applicants) to conduct interviews. Past work performance was assessed and point rated. Continuous service was calculated as these were BCGEU positions, however, since almost 100% were out-of-service applicants, it had no impact on the rating outcome. Applicants were “batched” into groups depending on volume and urgency to fill vacancies (e.g. monthly) for final ranking. Offers of employment and choice of locations were extended to successful applicants based on the final point ranking.

Why This Worked. Handling applications on an ongoing and timely basis minimized the loss of qualified applicants in a competitive recruitment market. Having pre-scheduled testing and interview times expedited the assessment process. Having a recruiter (or line manager or supervisor) contact applicants early to discuss the nature and challenges of the work, ensured those applicants who continued in the process had an accurate preview of the work. (This practice is known to reduce turnover.)

Pool of Pre-Qualified Applicants for Frequently Staffed Types of Positions

Individuals interested in future opportunities applied to a central location, were skill tested and then reference checked, but not yet interviewed. As opportunities arose, the top 10 ranked applicants still available for work) were referred to the particular vacancy, and assessment was finalized. Standing notices of the availability of this pool were posted on the Job Opportunities website and new applications accepted on an ongoing basis. If this did not yield a sufficient number of applicants, additional media advertising was used. The pool of qualified applicants changed as and when new applicants completed the skills testing and reference checking and when existing pool members were either offered positions, withdrew or their application expired with the passage of time. Skills testing results were considered valid for a specified period of time (e.g. 6 months).

Why This Worked. The Challenge. Using this staffing option greatly expedited the staffing process. Subject to a final interview to determine "fit", applicants were able to start more quickly. Time and effort costs were significantly reduced by using one cooperative organization-wide process rather than posting individual vacancies. In a "hot" recruitment market, there is a risk that highly-qualified applicants in the pool will accept other employment.