ADC for Middle Management Level ( Station Commander)

[bluelight]

Has anyone recently completed the assessment centre for the middle management/ station commander role.

I will be doing this in the next few months and Iam keen to get information on the following:

- The group discussion
- The in basket exercise
- The one to one
- The mulit role exercise
- the briefing exercise

Any help appreciated.

[rips]

Yes I completed it at the end of last year, and it's bloody hard. Biggest tip - learn and understand the PQA's, Constructs and the BARS.

[bluelight]

Thanks for the reply

I have spent time going over the constructs and PQA's but was hoping to get more information on what previous ADC at station commander level have been tailored around.

Some Brigades have used an airport for their Crew Commanders/ supervisory level  ADC's and based the tasks around this.

what did they base your ADC around?

[Kaiser]

I recently did the Station Manager's ITOP or ADC phase 1 as we now call it and failed, I haven't had my feedback interview yet but the scenario for that was managing a housing association on a multi racial housing estate.  Good luck with your ADC

[bluelight]

Kaiser

If you were doing it again what would you do differently?

How would you prepare differently?

Are you any wiser to what the assessors want to see?

Did many pass it?

Your patience is appreciated.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

I did the ADC part 1 recently and, strangely, had a similar scenario to Kaiser ........ and found it hard, especially trying to map the PQA's into responses, and I'm no expert on the PQA's!

I passed and am now busy learning BARS, PQA's etc ....... I'm in uncharted waters!!!

[hannahvca]

Hello

This thread got me thinking about the PQAs and attitudes to learning them. I think I would advise caution about doing this. By all means get familiar with them, but there are issues with 'cramming' the PQAs in a similar way you might revise for an exam. I shall explain my perspective....

As an assessor either for the ITOP or ADC I  frequently see candidates who 'scatter' PQA references such as 'I think its important to drive and support change' or 'we must make sure we monitor and review'. Although these statements show you have read and remembered the PQAs, they don't show me that you can SHOW the PQAs.

I would far rather see someone give clear evidence of driving and supporting change, without even mentioning the words, than somone who throws in buzz phrases and hopes that is enough. Imagine a roleplay where a candidate says 'i need to empathise with you..' but dispays no empathy at all. It's not going to get you the points because its not enough to know it in theory, you need to also do it in practice.

If you communictae well, consider a broad range of factors in your decsion making, consider the perspectives of others in your appraoch etc etc you will do well. So my advice would be, don't just read the PQAs, really think about them. Review each day from the perspective of 'which PQAs did i show today? Could I have done anything differently?' I'm not saying that is as easy as it sounds, but I think the PQAs need to start coming off the page a bit and into everyday work practice. Because ultimately, that will get you the results you want, and the FRS the behaviours they want to see.

Any thoughts?


Hannah vca

[johno67]

Excellent advice Hannah, proper reflective learning. (experience > reflect > theorise > implement)

May I suggest a daily diary with the following sections:

1. What did I do today?

2. How did I perform against the relevant PQA's?

3. What will I do next time to improve?

[Kaiser]

Kaiser

If you were doing it again what would you do differently?

How would you prepare differently?

Are you any wiser to what the assessors want to see?

Did many pass it?

Your patience is appreciated.

I honestly don't know what I would do again, I really do believe that I did the best I could in the time given.  I have problems thinking up bullsh1t very quickly then writing it as people want to see it.  I am however excellent at writing the same Moo Poo when I'm not under any pressure.  Apparently, I'm excellent at situational judgement, most of the answeres I gave however, were not what I would have done.  The problem was that you have to pick one of four answers.  Some of the scenarios given, I would have picked two of the answers, and some not at all, so I guessed at what I thought they wanted.

How would I prepare differently...... Learn to write buzz words and phrases quicker, not that I would find this easy.

How many passed it........ hardly any of us, they're trying to run another one now but after listening to what we experienced, most guys have lost interest.

Good luck mate, it appears that they aren't interested in decent firefighters being gaffers, even if they could do the job sat on one arse cheek.  If you can say buzz words and write them down, you'll be fine, as this is far more important at a large incident than a cool head, sound fire ground knowledge and the ability to manage an incident safely and efficiently. These qualities are of no importance whatsoever any more it would appear.  Is it any wonder the number of firefighters losing their lives at jobs is on the up.

[Kaiser]

Hello

PQAs need to start coming off the page a bit and into everyday work practice. Because ultimately, that will get you the results you want, and the FRS the behaviours they want to see.

Any thoughts?


Hannah vca

I agree that the behaviours need to be right, but the system these days is more about purely demonstrating these behaviours and not enough on incident and station management.  My own personal experience leads me to believe that regardless of who you are, your face needs to fit and the information you require will still come to you along with a pass score.  I know this is pessimistic of me but passing the ADC for remembering to say or act as if you ultra PC doesn't make a good gaffer, and most of these guys who do pass forget absolutely everything as soon as they have passed it and behave like idiots with zero man (and woman) management skills

[Dragonmaster]

The problem i have with ADC's is that they take no account of previous performance. Two years of temporary promotion with no 'black marks' and everyone saying well done - what a good job, then because you can't quote from the new speak dictionary, you've suddenly got no potential.

The ITOP is also flawed (my opinion) for the same reasons as Kaiser quotes. In one example i would have done all four, but in a staged approached (whoops - nearly ADC speak), so by only chosing 1 option, you don't complete the task.

In this world on NVQ's (which have their own problems) the system is designed to assess performance i.e. what have you done and is it to the correct standard. Why are we then returning to an overly PC method of 'single point' assessment (what you do at one point in time) when you've demonstrated the necessary competence over a longer period of time (Guess what the result of my last ITOP was!)

[rips]

I have to agree with you Dragon master. Being a supporter of the NVQ (as long as it is run properly - another subject!) it is unfair not to take into account APL when going for promotion.

I passed the middle manager ADC, and as yet have not been given the opportunity to develop. So in a years time if I have not been sucessful in picking up a post I will have to do it all over again. Deep joy!

Never mind I am sure we will be heading back to something resembling the past in the very near future!!!

[hannahvca]

Interesting points- I'd like to respond to some if I may...


There are so many comments about individuals not having the station management and technical skills they need having been identified at the ADC as having 'potential,' but this potential is in relation to the type of skills to be an effective manager only. I can understand the concerns, but should this frustration not be aimed at the issues with the development programmes (or lack of them) and not the process which gets people there? The ADC doesn't assess for suitability for immediate promotion, but for aptitudes which can be built on to develop someone to have those skills. Plus, the PQAs aren't just about being 'PC'- they are the skills that FRS personnel interviewed identified as the ones which they think make good managers!

Its a shame that there is so much pessimism about the system, it can't be easy to accept a method of assessment you can't see the value in. In terms of 'face fitting' etc, it is so much harder now for that to happen. More and more FRS are sharing assessors, so many assessors won't even know you. Plus by having 2 assesors, they would BOTH need to be pretty crooked for an entirely false assessment. But even of they were, they will only assess you once- you woudl have to have up to 8 other assessors with similar ideas to get a pass with no merit. Plus they have to get it past the centre manager who checks all the assessments. Assessors have to justify every score they give. Its just quite difficult to cheat this sytsem. if you think about assessments based on workplace performance, these are far more likely to be based on subjectivity and personal biases. Its not that previous effective performance isn't valued, its just its so hard to standardise, and therefore ensure fairness for everyone. Suppossing your face didn't fit and you did a great job- you would have a lot less chance of getting on in your career than though today's system. At least now you have the opportunity to be assessed by up to 10 different assessors at an ADC, and surely if you can do it in the workpalce, you can do it in comparable simulation activities?

I do understand the concerns about the multiple choice part of the ITOP (the SJT). The simualtion exercise (the longer written part) gives a much better overview of performance to my mind. The SJT doesnt lend itself to particulalry detailed feedback either, which can add to the frustrations of where to go next.

Hannah vca

[Kaiser]

Sorry Hannah, but a system that is done by external assessor may be fair if it it relevant to the job.  Okay, it is about managing, but there is a hell of a lot more involved with being a station manager in the fire service than there is to running a leisure centre, airport or housing association.  We wouldn't expect any of them to come and run a fire ground without previous experience and tell them its a fair and safe process.

With regards to it being really fair, I totally disagree, I know of Watch Managers that do role playing for the ADC's, you can't tell me that they don't have an unfair advantage, funnily enough, these role players just happen to work in HQ and other similar areas where their senoir officer buddies work and when they did their ADC's, they knew exactly what to say and do in order to pass. I know of one individual that actually spent a day role playing and ended up pretending to be a dog for god's sake.  Then there is the fact that there is no set regional pass or fail score, even though they profess to be doing the same thing.  This means that I could get a score in my brigade which is way better than lots of others in the region, but if my brigade has fewer vacancies, the kid with the poorer score gets a job in his or her brigade and I end up with a feedback interview explaining how and where I did bad, but I'm not allowed to see my scores in relation to the events that occurred. At least with the old system, you passed exams which proved you had knowledge, then you went on to prove your suitability as an operational manager.  I realise that there were individuals that slipped through the net without man management skills, but it seems to me that that happens just as much with this new system, the only thing is, they now have no man management skills and no idea operationally too.

The ADC process also is dependant on your acting ability, there are people out there that are excellent junior officers, with all the old exams and IFE's but because they can't imagine being a leisure centre manager and play that character, they fail. Let's at least make the damn thing relevant so that people can relate to it.

[hannahvca]

Hi,

it's fine, you are right, using internal staff as roleplayers doesn't work very well! Professional actors are more consistent. There should also be a better way of selecting people to become assessors. In my experience though, being a trained assessor certainly does not guarantee success at the ADC! In terms of access to materials/ content, assessors only see exercises which are in the role 'below' them, not what the ADC they would have to go through. But it can definatley help reduce anxiety and manage expectation knowing what is involved. My feeling is everyone should have the same access to that info, which is why i have designed the workbooks i have. Some FRS staff are dubious about the services i provide as they think it will give too much away, but I can't see how it will do anything other than level things out a bit for everyone as I dont say exactly what the exericses will be, just give simialr examples. It's like being able to see a practice paper for an exam I suppose.

There are reasons for using an external, fictitious environment. I used to use FRS scenarios in the ADCs i designed but they didnt work as well. People tended to rely on procedure rather than demonstrating their own perspective (ie let's not work try to resolve this face to face first when we can discipline them!); people would argue about how to apply the procdure after the event; people in certain roles knew more eg CFS, so had an advantage; etc. The idea is that whether you are dealing with a unmotivated member of staff in an airport or on a station, you need the same skills; whether you are writing a letter to someone who has complained, you need the same diplomacy etc irrespective of context. So it's not playing a role as such, its about being able to work with the info presented and use the personal skills you have to resolve problems. I do agree about the operational side, but thats not the remit of the ADC and never was. Is it that personnel aren't trained in these skills sufficiently after they have passed an ADC? Presumably they must have a pretty good grounding already, and then attend further training to build on this? Or is the feeling that once through the ADC people are fast-tracked into a promotion without having been sufficiently developed in the operational side? my knowledge becomes more sketchy after the ADC is done and the feedback been delivered....

hannah


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------