Laura L

I have worked in the APS for about 15 years.
From my observations being 'on the ground' and unofficial comments I heard from current and former managers whom I trust, current recruitment practices are inefficient.
First of all, the process from approval to advertise a position until delegate sign-off on the selection is too long - typically months. This is disrupting for the business area (which needed the new staff at the time approval to advertise was sought) and frustrating for applicants (who often need to make other plans dependent on whether or not they get the job). Nobody wins.
If the length of the process were the price to pay to ensure the quality and perfect fit of the new employee, guaranteeing a smooth transition and a quick catch-up with lost productivity, it wouldn't be so bad. In practice, however, this is rarely the case - there is a training and adjustment period, which impacts further on the core resources. And occasionally, the new employee soon finds out they don't like the job and resign - this is more likely to happen when job advertisements are made too generic.
Sometimes, there is an obvious candidate for the job who has demonstrated the skills and experience that are required, for example having acted in the role for an extended time with excellent performance. In this case, the whole recruitment exercise is a charade. It would be nearly impossible for an outsider to demonstrate a better fit for the job. Hiring the known employee, who has been tried and tested on the job, would de-risk the selection process and save a lot of money and effort. In practice, departments go through the whole process to reach the same result.
I think the concept of competitive staff selection has merit when used right, and would benefit from a significant reduction in timeframes.
I also think that introducing another path to career progression, more akin to what is seen in the private sector, would be a positive move. This would still need to be agreed to by a panel, to avoid any real or perceived unfair appointments.
Another argument in favour of this approach is that the traditional selection process is biased in favour of candidates who perform very well at job interviews. The alternative option would reward those who perform very well on the job.
On a separate but related matter, in my opinion, performance management needs to be taken more seriously. The good needs to be better highlighted, and performance reviews should have more substantial weight on selection processes. Anybody who has direct reports should be rated by their staff, and areas for improvement identified by the staff need to be acted on and reported on.
Performance issues need to be addressed promptly, providing meaningful support where needed. My perception is that there are staff at all levels who do not contribute to the extent they are required, and nothing is done about it. This creates tensions in teams and impacts negatively on outcomes. How a manager addresses issues of underperformance should be an important part of their own performance assessment.