XFN Recruitment Round 1: Come one, come all!
I think I asked myself ‘is this real?’ about 10 times a day after we launched the recruitment for the first prototype cohort of XFN on November 14, 2018.
Applications
The two-week application period was extremely exciting! We used a tool called LimeSurvey to build our self-assessment questionnaire and application. It allowed us to see how many people started and completed the self-assessment and application. I annoyingly updated my Policy Community Partnership Office colleagues daily with the latest numbers.
In the end:
- 1,500 public servants completed the self-assessment; and,
- 600 applications were started and 100 were received.
For those who are curious, here are some stats from our first round of applicants:
- representation from 28 organizations;
- 50/50 male and female;
- two candidates identified as Indigenous;
- 12 candidates identified as having a disability;
- 42 candidates identified as a member of a visible minority;
- most common classifications: AS (21), EC (44), FI (5), PM (16);
- most common levels: 2 (20), 3 (16), 4 (24), 5 (23), 6 (11); and,
- departments with the most applicants: Employment and Social Development Canada (19), Global Affairs Canada (6), Health Canada (9), Public Services and Procurement Canada (9), Transport Canada (8), Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (5), Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (6), National Defence (4), Statistics Canada (4)
Overall, our online tools worked well and I was contacted only a few times for technical problems (shout-out to Proximify for making this easy for me!).
Screening
On November 26, 2018 I held a session with the five incredible people helping me review applications. They were: Qi Wang, Pierre Lecours, Nathalie Leclerc, Lynda Brutus, and Annie Mailhiot. In the session we reviewed the assessment criteria and how we would be completing our evaluations so we took a consistent approach.
Everyone assessed between 10–30 applications, which meant that almost all applications had two sets of eyes, as I reviewed them all. This was important, as it helped eliminate potential bias from myself, the other assessors, and ensured consistency.
Of the 100 applicants, 30 met our screening assessment criteria which was:
- practicing a developmental mindset (applicant is curious about one’s own thinking limitations and has the courage to explore them at a deeper, more difficult level. Acceptance of responsibility without self-bashing, narrative of shame. Sees patterns, not just dots);
- in depth experience in at least one policy function (in-depth = experience gained over two or more years while performing a breadth of activities within one functional area); and,
- evidence of practicing level (medium) in the following competencies: adaptable, collaboration and analytical.
In-person Assessments
Those who were successful were contacted in mid-December 2018 by the delightful Eva Maxwell, from Gelder, Gingras & Associates, and invited to our three-part in-person assessment that took place in January 2019.
I need to take a moment to share that when we procured services to help with the delivery of the assessment process for XFN, I had no idea that I would be getting a right hand woman and an overall life saver for the assessment process. Not only did Eva take the lead in organizing the assessment schedule and collating the results, but she was qualified to be an assessor and stood-in whenever needed. Further, she has a background in evaluation and provided valuable feedback for iteration.
At first I was hesitant to have anyone help with the organization and coordination of the assessments, but the value added far exceeded my expectations and allowed me to focus on the delivery/effectiveness of the assessments/evaluate success for future iterations.
Now, you might be curious about what assessment tools we tested in round 1. Here is an overview :
Overall, our assessment tools worked. What we observed:
- Combination of group exercise, individual interview and writing challenge was effective for assessing the eight competencies/a developmental mindset and for selecting the right participants for our first cohort.
- Doing an ice-breaker activity before the group assessment helps candidates feel more comfortable and creates group rapport.
What we heard from candidates:
- Assessment process was empowering, helpful and encouraging.
- The unconventional assessment approach was challenging, by pushing them to be authentic (as opposed to saying what they thought we wanted to hear).
What we heard from assessors (potential assignment host managers):
- Appreciated the unconventional assessment style that brought out genuine answers/authenticity.
- Enjoyed seeing a variety of candidates.
Having host managers as our assessment board was great for a few reasons:
- Allowed them to trust in our assessment tools.
- Exposed them to the competencies, developmental mindset and quality of candidates.
- Demonstrated their commitment to the program.
Of the 30 candidates, 23 qualified for XFN by meeting the following criteria:
- practicing level (medium) in adaptable, collaboration and analytical; mastery level (high) in at least one other competency; and, awareness level (basic) in the remaining competencies; and,
- developmental mindset (a willingness to remain open, curious and persistent in a variety of learning experiences).
Picking the First Cohort
You may be wondering how did you pick the people to make offers to from such a highly qualified bunch? Well, it was definitely not an easy decision and took a lot of discussion with the wonderful Eva, Qi and Pierre. In the end we made offers to candidates that consistently demonstrated the competencies across all three forms of assessment. The result was a cohort of 10 people who are extremely diverse, well-rounded, and highly skilled.
Our first prototype cohort is 50/50 men and women and includes eight ECs, one PE and one IS. It is hard not to tell you more about this amazing group of people, but got to give you a reason to keep reading.
For those that were not offered a spot, it wasn’t necessarily the end of the conversation. Those qualified were offered to have their CVs shared with host managers who did not have their assignments filled and should they chose to apply again we will have a streamlined process for them so they are not required to repeat the entire assessment process.
Informal Feedback
All candidates that participated in our in-person assessment received a phone call offering them a position or letting them know they qualified/did not. For those that did not qualify we offered optional informal feedback, to which all candidates accepted to receive.
I did not mention it earlier, but we also offered informal feedback to all those screened-out at the application phase. Out of the 70, I spoke with around 30 people.
Overall, candidates expressed that the informal feedback was useful for either a future application and/or understanding how they can further grow their skills, as well as where their strengths are.
Lessons Learned
If I had a dollar for every lesson we learned, well, I could definitely buy myself something pretty. Some of the major ones were:
- While we had assessor training, it didn’t verify that assessors truly understood the criteria and how it would be assessed.
- Our assessment grids were too labour intensive.
- Some competencies were easier to assess than others, depended on the activity.
- It was hard to properly assess all candidates during group activity.
- Curve ball during the group activity could have pushed the candidates more.
- Interview questions were effective, but could have been more specific re: work related examples.
Iteration
We are currently actively working on iterating on all of the assessment tools mentioned above with support from the Public Service Commission, Talent Cloud and the University of Toronto. Unfortunately I can’t get into too many details right now, as our assessments are a highly classified secret!
Stay-tuned to find out what happened in the next phase of our live prototype — first assignment selection and onboarding!
