[IPAC-List] Question re: MQs

[Ron Clare]

There are two separate issues. The first is "are MQ's valuable (or can they be)" the second is how should they be framed. We (with influence from our internal customers) too often rely on a simple degree requirement plus experience doing the next lower job or the job itself. This practice has virtually no value unless the E/T&Ex includes the acquisition of specific knowledge/competencies. Conceptually it may be the break point where folks with less than the MQ (?definition) probably wont be successful and those meeting or exceeding probably will succeed. More of the MQ won't automatically increase likelihood of increased success unless the "more" is defined qualitatively rather than merely 4 years exp is better than 3. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 22, 2014, at 7:26 AM, "Wilkening, Kurt" <WilkeningK at HillsboroughCounty.ORG> wrote:


> mer·it

>  

> noun: merit

> 1.   1.

> the quality of being particularly good or worthy, esp. so as to deserve praise or reward

>  

>  

> Placing an MQ statement on a job announcement of “X” number of years of experience and/or having a B.S. degree with a particular major provides little evidence that if selected an applicant would be particularly good at or worthy of the job.

>  

>  

> Kurt Wilkening

> Division Chief, Talent Acquisition

> Hillsborough County Civil Service Board

> 601 E. Kennedy Blvd., 17th Floor

> Tampa, Florida 33602

> (813) 274-6764 (Direct)

>  

> From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Doverspike

> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:33 PM

> To: Bryan Baldwin

> Cc: ipac-list at ipacweb.org

> Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Question re: MQs

>  

> I have long thought this would make an interesting paper or symposium topic

>  

> my short answer - without being a lawyer or political scientist - is that merit is often operationally defined as "the result of a competitive examination." by definition then merit excludes having met the minimum qualification

>  

> I have argued before, however, that we do not give enough though to the definition of merit - especially in compensation and pay equity. It also seems as if the Canadians have done far more in terms of defining merit - as I remember from a previous Hammer post on the definition of merit in Canada.

>  

>  

>  

>  

>  

> 

> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Bryan Baldwin <Bryan.Baldwin at doj.ca.gov> wrote:

> No, I don’t believe so.  “Merit” in this sense refers to the decades-old concept that was put in place to remedy/avoid historical civil service sins such as political patronage.  It does, however, encompass the concept of being “qualified”.

>  

> B

>  

> From: Dennis Doverspike [mailto:dennisdoverspike at gmail.com] 

> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:58 PM

> To: Bryan Baldwin

> Cc: ipac-list at ipacweb.org

> Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Question re: MQs

>  

> Bryan - what do you mean by merit-related? would that correspond to job-related?

>  

> Dennis

>  

> 

> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Bryan Baldwin <Bryan.Baldwin at doj.ca.gov> wrote:

> Hi all – question sorta related to a conversation we were having a few weeks ago: can anyone point me to any articles, studies, etc. that analyze the issue of whether minimum qualifications are merit-related?  I have done my best to point out that I believe they are—at best—a blunt instrument.   But I could sure use more heads on this one.

>  

> Thank you-

>  

> Bryan Baldwin

> Personnel Officer

> California Department of Justice

> Division of Administrative Support

> (916) 322-5446

>  

> 

> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

> 

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

> 

> 

> 

>  

> -- 

> Dennis Doverspike, PhD., ABPP

> Licensed Psychologist, #3539 (OHIO)

> Independent Consultant

> Professor of Psychology, University of Akron

> dennisdoverspike at gmail.com

> 

> The information is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, privileged and/or a work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any errant transmission. If you receive this message in error, please destroy all copies of it and notify the sender. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. In the case of E-mail or electronic transmission, immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system and notify the sender. E-mail and fax transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.

> 

> 

> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

> 

> 

>  

> -- 

> Dennis Doverspike, PhD., ABPP

> Licensed Psychologist, #3539 (OHIO)

> Independent Consultant

> Professor of Psychology, University of Akron

> dennisdoverspike at gmail.com

> 

> The information is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, privileged and/or a work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any errant transmission. If you receive this message in error, please destroy all copies of it and notify the sender. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. In the case of E-mail or electronic transmission, immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system and notify the sender. E-mail and fax transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.

> 

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://nine.pairlist.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20140122/655bc1e7/attachment.html