[IPAC-List] Candidate Reduction Strategies

[Ronald Clare]

The administrative costs associated with managing charging candidates and the PR issues of the differential societal impact is a major concern re initiating such charges

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 13, 2012, at 9:23 AM, "Patrick McCoy" <Patrick.McCoy at psc-cfp.gc.ca> wrote:


> An alternative to charging applicants to do a test would be to use

> minimum qualifications and un-proctored internet testing. The

> un-proctored testing would then be followed up by proctored testing to

> deter and catch cheaters.  We have started to use this approach in

> Canada in large campaigns-large for us at least- though I am sketchy on

> the details.

> 

> Pat McCoy,

> Ottawa

> 

>>>> Saul Fine <saulfine at zahav.net.il> 2012/03/13 4:30 AM >>>

> I like the idea of charging a small fee to apply (assuming that is what

> 

> Harry meant).

> Not only might it help cover some of the costs per hire, but perhaps

> deter 

> some of the less serious candidates from applying as well.

> I know of some public agencies and universities that do this outside of

> the 

> US (unfortunately, their fees are not at all modest...).

> But, my guess is that most commercial firms would have a hard time

> getting 

> away with this.

> Saul.

> 

> 

> -----Original Message----- 

> From: Harry.Brull at pdinh.com

> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:26 PM

> To: sebe at erols.com ; david at friedlandhr.com

> Cc: IPAC-List at ipacweb.org ; Adele.Demooy at mwrd.org

> Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Candidate Reduction Strategies

> 

> How about charging a modest fee instead? Use a screening tool that

> quickly and cheaply (and, of course, validly) reduces the candidare

> pool

> to a more manageable number.

> 

> Harry Brull

> 

> ------------------------------------------------

> Harry Brull | Senior Vice-President

> 

> 1.612.414.8998 direct

> 1.612.337.3695 fax

> Harry.brull at pdinh.com

> 

> PDI Ninth House

> Global Leadership Solutions

> 

> 33 South 6th St.

> Suite 4900

> Mpls., MN 55402

> 

> 8157 Buck Run

> Salida, CO 81201

> 

> Visit our new website! www.pdinh.com

> 

> https://www.facebook.com/PDINinthHouse

> http://twitter.com/pdininthhouse

> http://www.linkedin.com/company/pdi

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org

> [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org] On Behalf Of Lance Seberhagen

> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 3:19 PM

> To: David Friedland

> Cc: IPAC-List at ipacweb.org; 'Demooy, Adele'

> Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Candidate Reduction Strategies

> 

> I agree with Dave's point that using random selection to reduce the

> number of applicants to be tested can cause anger and disappointment

> by

> applicants, particularly those who believe they have a "right" to be

> tested or have a family tradition of working for a particular agency.

> Most of these objections can be overcome if the restrictions on

> testing

> are well publicized and fully explained in advance, and if appropriate

> steps are taken to ensure that the random selection process is, in

> fact,

> totally honest and random.

> 

> Lance Seberhagen, Ph.D.

> Seberhagen & Associates

> 9021 Trailridge Ct

> Vienna, VA 22182

> Tel 703-790-0796

> www.seberhagen.com

> 

> 

> 

> On 3/12/2012 3:43 PM, David Friedland wrote:

>> I will be very interested to read the comments to this post. This

>> approach has logical appeal, but has some potential unintended

>> consequences. For exams that will attract large numbers of

> applicants

>> you will need to carefully determine how to select the

> pre-determined

> number of applications.

>> For example:

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> .         Randomly select the desired number of applicants after all

>> applications are received - This risks angering some of those who

> were

> 

>> randomly excluded from consideration. If the examination is

> considered

> 

>> to be open and competitive this approach may be considered to

> prevent

>> job-related competition

>> 

>> .         Accept only a pre-determined number of applications based

> on

> when

>> they are received (for example, using time stamps) - This method can

>> raise a risk of favoritism, bias or nepotism if some individuals or

>> protected groups may have advance knowledge or earlier knowledge

> than

>> others of the job announcement

>> 

>> .         Danger of being too popular - I know of at least one

> instance when

>> the crush of applicants hoping to be among the first group resulted

> in

> 

>> some injuries and damage to the recruitment office

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org

>> [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org]

>> On Behalf Of Demooy, Adele

>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 8:17 AM

>> To: 'ipac-list at ipacweb.org'

>> Subject: [IPAC-List] Candidate Reduction Strategies

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> For economic reasons we are looking into ways to reduce the number

> of

>> candidates who participate in exams.  One option we are considering

> is

> 

>> accepting a predetermined number of applications based on statistics

>> from previous exam administrations.  I am interested in your

> feedback

>> on this approach or learning about any other methods you are using.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> _______________________________________________________

>> 

>> IPAC-List

>> 

>>  <mailto:IPAC-List at ipacweb.org>  IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

>> 

>>  <http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list>

>> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

>> 

>> _______________________________________________________

>> IPAC-List

>> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

>> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

>> 

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

> 

> Confidentiality Notice: All information in this communication,

> including any 

> files or attachments, is intended for the sole use of the individual or

> 

> entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is 

> confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information entitled to 

> protection and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you

> are 

> not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any

> dissemination, 

> distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

> If 

> you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender

> by 

> return email and delete this communication from your system. Thank you

> for 

> your cooperation.

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list 

> 

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

> 

>> 

> This e-mail message is intended for the named recipient(s) and may

> contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from

> disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or

> re-transmission is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient or not

> authorized by the named recipient(s), or if you have received this

> e-mail in error, then please notify the sender immediately and delete

> the message and any copies.

>> 

> Ce courriel est destiné exclusivement au destinataire mentionné en titre

> et peut contenir de l'information privilégiée, confidentielle ou

> soustraite à la communication aux termes des lois applicables. Toute

> divulgation non autorisée, toute reproduction ou réacheminement est

> interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce courriel, ou n'êtes

> pas autorisé par le destinataire visé, ou encore, si vous l'avez reçu

> par erreur, veuillez le mentionner immédiatement à l'expéditeur et

> supprimer le courriel et les copies.      

> 

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list