Federal Hiring Question (credit, gated, closing)

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by ChristineVA

For the GS-13 candidates we are hiring in our office, I have four people in mind that I hope make the cert and I would hire all of them if I could. One of them will get this job. But I'm sure I will have 30 other people on that job thinking they are all experienced. I've tried really hard to refine the KSAs in such a way that only the most qualified make the cert or only an experience person would even attempt to apply for the job, but it's interesting how creative people will be.

I appreciate it when hiring managers do that. I always suspect the job might be "wired" when the vacany period is two weeks or less, but it's a sure bet when the KSAs are needlessly specific to that agency or to its particular area of work.

Say the agency is the USDA and it's a public affairs job. Instead of a KSA that says "Experience writing materials promoting organizational agendas to the public," the KSA will say "Experience writing materials on the Grain Standards Act, Agricultural Marketing Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, and the Food Security Act, for consumption by the general public."

It's momentarily disappointing to read such wired job descriptions, but it does save the would-be applicant (and the hiring manager) a lot of wasted time.

[mlv311]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

I appreciate it when hiring managers do that. I always suspect the job might be "wired" when the vacany period is two weeks or less, but it's a sure bet when the KSAs are needlessly specific to that agency or to its particular area of work.

Say the agency is the USDA and it's a public affairs job. Instead of a KSA that says "Experience writing materials promoting organizational agendas to the public," the KSA will say "Experience writing materials on the Grain Standards Act, Agricultural Marketing Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, and the Food Security Act, for consumption by the general public."

It's momentarily disappointing to read such wired job descriptions, but it does save the would-be applicant (and the hiring manager) a lot of wasted time.

Carlingtonian: That's a very good example and I know that many selecting officials try to write KSAs this way to get the person they have in mind. However, the KSAs must be related to the position description and the job classification standards. In a job like this and many others in the federal government, knowledge and skills are transferable depending on the occupational series. Technically, a hiring official should not make a desirable factor a "selective factor" by writing the KSAs this way. In fact, the HR person should not allow it. The way to make the distinction between the applicants is in the ranking factors (i.e., a person with specific experience in USDA public affairs would get 3 points for that KSA versus a person without direct experience in USDA would get 2 points all other things being equal).

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by mlv311

Carlingtonian: That's a very good example and I know that many selecting officials try to write KSAs this way to get the person they have in mind. However, the KSAs must be related to the position description and the job classification standards. In a job like this and many others in the federal government, knowledge and skills are transferable depending on the occupational series. Technically, a hiring official should not make a desirable factor a "selective factor" by writing the KSAs this way. In fact, the HR person should not allow it. The way to make the distinction between the applicants is in the ranking factors (i.e., a person with specific experience in USDA public affairs would get 3 points for that KSA versus a person without direct experience in USDA would get 2 points all other things being equal).

But if the hiring manager has decided (even if it's only in his/her own mind) that they won't hire anyone without that desirable factor (the agency-specific experience), then isn't everyone better off if that requirement is signaled in super-specific KSAs?

And if the hiring manager is actually determined to hire a specific person (as is the case when someone is up for a promotion--the agency has to advertise it), isn't that an even greater justification?

I guess you could argue that neither of these should ever be the case--that jobs should always be truly open to every candidate. But it's just not reality--and as long as that's the case, I'd rather get those clues to knowing that, so I can move on to the next announcement.

[mlv311]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

But if the hiring manager has decided (even if it's only in his/her own mind) that they won't hire anyone without that desirable factor (the agency-specific experience), then isn't everyone better off if that requirement is signaled in super-specific KSAs?

And if the hiring manager is actually determined to hire a specific person (as is the case when someone is up for a promotion--the agency has to advertise it), isn't that an even greater justification?

I guess you could argue that neither of these should ever be the case--that jobs should always be truly open to every candidate. But it's just not reality--and as long as that's the case, I'd rather get those clues to knowing that, so I can move on to the next announcement.

No arguments here. Why waste everyone's time if someone has been pre-selected? The problem is that, in many cases, it's against the HR policies to be that specific, especially at higher grades. That's why you sometimes see merit promotion announcement advertised DC metro area at higher grades even if they have someone internal in mind. The HR person who adheres to the policies and is helpful to selecting officials has to be very knowlegeable and creative to find ways to balance both.

[ChristineVA]

Originally Posted by mlv311

Carlingtonian: That's a very good example and I know that many selecting officials try to write KSAs this way to get the person they have in mind. However, the KSAs must be related to the position description and the job classification standards. In a job like this and many others in the federal government, knowledge and skills are transferable depending on the occupational series. Technically, a hiring official should not make a desirable factor a "selective factor" by writing the KSAs this way. In fact, the HR person should not allow it. The way to make the distinction between the applicants is in the ranking factors (i.e., a person with specific experience in USDA public affairs would get 3 points for that KSA versus a person without direct experience in USDA would get 2 points all other things being equal).

While this is true, on the surface, I just wonder how one can be so generalized on some positions.

For instance, the position description for the GS-13s we have advertised is a generic 501 (financial) series. In my organization, we have about 100 of these positions and, I would say, 80% of them could be filled by anyone who had been in a governmental/financial position before and knows the budgetary process. However, these particular positions that my office is advertising are in a more "niche" field that requires specialized experience outside the usual DoD budget processes. This "experience" takes years to acquire and master. There is just no way I'm hiring a generic financial person at the GS-13 level to come into that section. The lack of the niche experience would be a true impediment in the office. I would definitely do it at the GS-9/11 level but no one wants a job in the DC area for that grade. I can't even find them.

[mlv311]

Originally Posted by ChristineVA

While this is true, on the surface, I just wonder how one can be so generalized on some positions.

For instance, the position description for the GS-13s we have advertised is a generic 501 (financial) series. In my organization, we have about 100 of these positions and, I would say, 80% of them could be filled by anyone who had been in a governmental/financial position before and knows the budgetary process. However, these particular positions that my office is advertising are in a more "niche" field that requires specialized experience outside the usual DoD budget processes. This "experience" takes years to acquire and master. There is just no way I'm hiring a generic financial person at the GS-13 level to come into that section. The lack of the niche experience would be a true impediment in the office. I would definitely do it at the GS-9/11 level but no one wants a job in the DC area for that grade. I can't even find them.

If the experience cannot be acquired in the normal period of orientation expected for a GS-501-13, then the KSA should be a selective factor, especially at that grade level. Like you said, a small percent of all the 501 positions in your agency would fall under this category. It would be logical to hire people without this experience at the lower grades levels, which are developmental, and have them grow in the job. I'd imagine that it's hard to recruit at lower grade levels in high cost of living areas unless you look at special hiring authorities (e.g., Presidential Management Fellows).

[Carlingtonian]

I'm very surprised to hear that it's hard to fill GS 9-11 financial positions. I know that the State Dept hires law grads at those levels for Foreign Affairs Officer (Civil Service) jobs. I guess those financial grads have some high-income options tempting them away, huh?

[ChristineVA]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

I'm very surprised to hear that it's hard to fill GS 9-11 financial positions. I know that the State Dept hires law grads at those levels for Foreign Affairs Officer (Civil Service) jobs. I guess those financial grads have some high-income options tempting them away, huh?

It's hard to hire them internally, because just about everyone is a GS-13. They are quite resistant, at this point in time, for us to go outside federal service (although I am on this GS-13 position). When you start looking at lower grades, there's hardly anyone in a position to move into a GS-9/11 position. Those lower grades, as stepping stones, are no longer there.

[fiddlestick]

Anyone that is applying for entry level jobs that is not a veteran or does not have a non-competitive hiring authority basically has a 1 in a million chance of getting the job. If you do get referred don't do any of this waiting around for them to contact you. You should immediately contact the hiring official and tell them you were referred and ask them questions about the job and try to sell yourself. If YOU are the first one to call it makes you stand out and shows you have a lot of interest in the job and gives you a better shot at least getting an interview.

[3wood87]

Originally Posted by fiddlestick

Anyone that is applying for entry level jobs that is not a veteran or does not have a non-competitive hiring authority basically has a 1 in a million chance of getting the job. If you do get referred don't do any of this waiting around for them to contact you. You should immediately contact the hiring official and tell them you were referred and ask them questions about the job and try to sell yourself. If YOU are the first one to call it makes you stand out and shows you have a lot of interest in the job and gives you a better shot at least getting an interview.

As a recent college grad, that is very discouraging. I work in private sector now but would like to eventually move over to Government but it seems unlikely for someone like me.