FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => General Interest => Topic started by: bluelight on May 31, 2008, 02:11:56 PM
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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 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!!!
-
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
-
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
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.
-
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
-
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!)
-
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!!!
-
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
-
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.
-
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To review and summarise what has been said so far............... does that sound familiar to anyone?
I can see both sides of the argument.
What I think I will do is take each task as it comes in the ADC and try to put myself in to the other persons shoes.
Try to think to myself ' if this was real how would I like to see it handled/ be treated'.
Thats the theory.
Thanks for the input.
It was very usefel
-
I can't understand why the ADC information is supposed to be such a big secret, the organisation wants individuals to apply for the positions, they are vague about what they want so the individaul has no idea what to expect and then they wonder why no bugger passes. When I did my Supervisory manager's ADC, I lost points with one assessor for something I said and did, yet I gained points from another assessor for exactly the same thing. This system is totally confusing to say the least, at least with an exam system, you had the chance to gain the knowledge before you applied for the position and demonstrated that you understood the amount of information required to do the job correctly.
The ADC system as it is is also extremely expensive for FRS's. If you ask for feedback as to where exactly you lost marks, it can't happen because the person marking you is never the person giving feedback so even though you are supposed to be aware of what to change, you still have no idea what you did wrong in the first place.......... The system was supposed to make things easier and simpler, but I think it has made it ten times worse than it ever was and far less effective that it was supposed to be.
-
Top marks Kaiser
Nil points hannahcva
Dragonmaster slays the myth to prove how unfair, unrealistic and unreliable the system has become. And I won't even take part................ by choice!!!
-
Hannah,I admire your tenacity in trying to defend the ADC system (which has some merits).But in the real world it don't cut the mustard.We are now turning out some people that can demonstrate they have 'empathy' but don't have the 'technical' knowledge to back up the potential 'management' skills.The 'development' programmes don't address this either.There is no substitution for study and having an exam to test that 'technical' knowledge.It should come back in as part of the process,along with the ADC process.As mentioned,due to the illogical way the system is applied,you could pass an ADC in one county with a lower score than another-depending on how many people that particular county needs.I did an BAR last year,scored well, had no development requirements identified, but failed to make the 'cut' for the second round and therefore 'unsuccessful'.Had I taken those scores to a neighbouring brigade,i would have 'passed'.Even when you have passed an ADC,it is still the 'smoke filled rooms' that decide who gets the job,not who the person who came top of the pile who is offered the first job that comes along.I actually had a lucky escape, because although the 'rank/role' appealed,the job didn't.I see my mate who did get promoted getting more and more stressed with the job.He said to me and another officer the other day,that he saw us as the next generation to take the function forward.Oh how we laughed at him!We told him if he thinks that then the brigade is in trouble!The gain is not worth the pain,and that is being reflected all over the country.The system is just turning a lot of people off and they just don't bother.Who can blame them when i look in our station yard and see FF driving in porches and Mercedes coupes,making far more money from their additional jobs?As for me,I love my role,yes some of it is a pain,but I am now quite content to develope within role and do my CPD,and stay where I am.A happy worker is a productive worker.work to live,don't live to work.
ok rant over!
-
IMHO the ADC system is designed to let FRS bring in managers from outside to facilitate change with the FRS. Thus the laughable scenario (see I know the buzz words) of if you can manage a leisure centre you can manage a fire. This doesnt quite seem right to me but at the end of the day who are we ? We are only the people who actually do the job & make the service work. The sooner we get back to exam/technical knowledge based promotions the safer this job will become again.
-
Stevo, I agree with some of your comments about the ITOP's and ADC's but would like to add a bit more.
The Exams were outdated and needed to be changed. They did not need to be scrapped just added too. The principle of the ADC is correct just it should not be used as s tand alone tool to decide who gets promoted.
We in Tyne & Wear are starting to make some changes. We have used the ADC since the beginning however we have always backed it up with RRA (Role Related Assessments), having a RRA interview and if appropriate for the role / function a Vector assessment.
We are now going a stage further and adding to the RRA by adding a drill scenario and a written assessment. Yes it is a step back in the past but we will still use the ITOP and ADC to see who makes progress to the RRA but it is certainly a massive improvement.
One thing to remember is that has always been down to management to ensure all personnel are given the appropriate training / knowledge etc to carry out their role safely. Dont blame the ADC process for that.
-
Despite what we may think of the current ADC system, lets not fool ourselves about the old system.
I remember people easily passing the exams and getting through the interviews who were incapable of tying their own shoe laces.
I also remember ADO's who I wouldn't trust to tend my vegetable patch never mind run a fireground
And don't get me started on the nepotism!
I don't think the current National ADC system is perfect by any means, but I'm sure there are still some very good people in your Brigades getting through.
See it as a work in progress?
-
Could not agree more johno67.
The old exams needed revamping, and I know there is a place for ADC's in some format. It will take time and some FRS are starting to get it right, by placing ADC's and RRA together to get an overall picture of an individual.
We will get there in the end, hopefully!
-
I think the IFE exams should be used to assess the technical competence of candidates in the assessment process and that they should be adopted by fire services.
For example if you have your intermediate, graduate or members qualification the candidate should be exempt from the need to take the ITOP at the appropriate level of ADC.
What do you think?
-
I'm going through the ADC process at the moment & my experience goes like this.....
last year i answered the ITOP questions as i saw fit - failed
This year I went for 'this is what they want to hear' and guess what - I passed!
It seems like the service doesn't know you well enough after 20 years of continuous assessments, so 1 expensive actor-heavy day should fix it all - you've got to ask what your line managers have been doing for 20 years to not know your potential.
I'm giving up chasing promotion after this year & starting my own business part time, not through bitterness but through necessity. I simply don't earn enough to keep things going on a single wage.
I must say hannah - having looked at passyouradc.com , you have a bit of a bias in this debate & it shows how the modern fire service is becoming a consultants dream. I guess we are just catching up with the rest of the battered, underfunded public services. Your site also shows how you can indeed improve your score if you are 'in the know'.
To all those others going through the process my advice - learn your gobbly-goop. Under no circumstances answer the questions as you would normally do at work. Some of the laziest, backward thinking people I have ever worked with got through last year. Strangely enough the majority were previous assessors & had worked in the development of the ADC's . No command experience amongst them. Is this what senior managers want though? perhaps they do.
-
This year I went for 'this is what they want to hear' and guess what - I passed!
You could look at it in a different way:
Instead of 'this is what they want to hear' substitute in 'this is what I should be doing'?
-
Peoples vision of a fair and just society is a broad spectrum.
Question - Whose view is right? Answer= Whichever Party is in power at the time as influenced by the pressure groups that they favour. Hitler, Hussein, Thatcher, Blair, Bush all demonstrate this time and time again. I am not comparing any of these figures and what they stand for- merely illustrating the point. Whether its individuals seeking advancement or local authorities seeking funding if you dont prove that you will do as you are told you will not get what you want.
We all have a choice. I go with fantasia on this one. Reminds me of the old saying "the king is dead long live the king".
-
For the first time I have to say that I don't agree with you on this one kurnal. I would challenge anyone to explain why they think the PQA's that they are being measured against are unfair or unsuitable. I can look at the beliefs of any famous leader and pick out any number of things that I don't agree with or dislike. However, personally I can't pick out a single quality or attribute amongst the PQA's that I wouldn't want a middle manager in my own brigade to possess.
I'm less comfortable with the way they are assessed. I think that the ITOP, where you have to sort out your choice of project within a certain amount of time is unfair on many of the candidates as it tests for an ability that isn't really required in the role. When would you have to make a decision on something like that within an hour or so? (However it is certainly within most peoples capability to prepare for it. Buy a decent speed reading book - try Tony Buzan's Use Your Head)
I think the ADC certainly has a place in the selection process, however it is only a test of potential. I still think it needs to be supported by academic assessment, practical assessment and that all important experience.
If you are assessed against the PQA's and you don't measure up or you have to say or act in someway that you wouldn't normally in order to get through the process, then I would say that you probably need to have a look at the way you are now compared to the perfect example the PQA's set.
Unfortunately most, but not all, of the posts on this thread are submitted be those who have been unsuccessful at the process. From the way a lot of the posts read, there is no-one with any real quality getting through the process. Surely that can't be the case, can it?
I think its fantastic that for the first time in my career I have the opportunity to have someone independent look at the way I work and act and give me feedback on where I need to develop in order to help me become the perfect Fire Officer.
-
This year I went for 'this is what they want to hear' and guess what - I passed!
You could look at it in a different way:
Instead of 'this is what they want to hear' substitute in 'this is what I should be doing'?
You know what, thats exactly what you should be doing.
I've passed my ADC this year on the first attempt ever, and this is after 20+ years and with old exams. It wasn't perfect, I have development needs, but I passed.
Just because you've had a bad experience, it shouldn't put you off. I've learnt that through promotion processes in getting to my current post. It's all about doing some groundwork and applying yourself, turning the negatives into positives, listening to feedback and then doing something about it instead of whinging about how c*** it all is.
How many people have development plans of their own that they have produced following unsuccessful processes and career plans? Not many I would guess!
I have a career plan which has been amended here and there following set backs, I know where I want to be in a few years and what I need to do to achieve it. It's not cast in stone, it's flexible to allow for the set backs.
I agree that the ADC process isn't perfect, it doesn't fit within our comfort zone of managing fire service stuff, but it's the process that is here and will be for some time. It's about being a manager and being able to manage situations and people. Thats the harsh reality.