AusAID Graduate Recruitment Generic Feedback

AusAID received 749 applications for the Graduate Program this year. The field of applicants was both diverse and strong. Sixty seven candidates were interviewed in July and August 2007. The 2008 selection panel has compiled this document to provide some general feedback for applicants.

Written application

The shortlist of people to interview was determined on the basis of written applications. The written application consisted of a CV and claims against the selection criteria. The selection documentation provides guidelines as to length and style of applications. In many cases this was disregarded and many lengthy, wordy applications were received.

Both the candidate's CV and response to the selection criteria should be refined down to contain only the most relevant, substantive and persuasive information. One very good example of your ability to work effectively in a team environment is better than one very good example and one good example. There is no cumulative impact so candidates should always pick the best example and let it work to their advantage.

Only experience or study that is substantive and can be drawn on for examples should be included in a candidate's CV otherwise the effect is one of 'padding'. Candidates should not be afraid that their CV shows a lack of experience if they do not have much experience. This is a graduate program and while some of the people who enter through the Graduate Program have substantial experience, others do not. Broader life experiences (as opposed to work experiences), can also be drawn on for compelling examples.

Interview

The panel makes every effort to assess each candidate as fairly as possible, giving the same weight to the same answer no matter whether it is given by the first or the last candidate. Good responses to the panel's questions included not only a succinct coverage of all relevant issues for a particular question, but demonstrated that the candidate had a level of initiative and insight that set them apart from other candidates. Candidates who were not successful tended to go into autopilot and recite all the standard lines for each type of question without exploring any complexity. For example, in responding to a question relating to teamwork most candidates mentioned the importance of good communication but very few candidates went on to explore what good communication actually means and how it might work in practice.

The structure of a candidate's response to a question reflects on their communication skills. Successful candidates stayed focussed on the question and drew only on relevant examples from their experience to make their point.

Self-confidence is an important attribute to demonstrate at interview and very useful in the kind of work AusAID is involved in, but the tendency of some candidates to overstate claims rather than relying on their examples and experience to speak for them, weakened the impact of those claims.
Being nervous at interview did not necessarily disadvantage candidates. To the contrary, if a candidate was clearly nervous but persevered and managed to give thoughtful and interesting answers, it demonstrated their capacity to overcome adversity.

This year the panel asked three questions at the interview, with follow-up questions for each, followed by discussion of a written task that was completed before the interview. The questions were not designed to be straight forward, for example, we didn't ask "Why do you want to work at AusAID?", but they were designed to give candidates the opportunity to address each of the selection criteria, with usually more than one criteria represented in each question.

Criteria specific feedback

The panel has identified selection criteria one (Knowledge) and three (Conceptual and Analytical Skills) for particular comment. Both of these criteria were consistently the weakest in the applications received and in short-listed candidates when interviewed. This has been the case in previous graduate recruitment exercises also, so we hope the feedback and advice below helps address this issue.

Knowledge

It is expected that candidates will have done some research on AusAID and the development sector more generally to prepare for both the written application and interview. A lack of basic knowledge of AusAID and the key documents that define how we work reflects very poorly on candidates. While an investment of 14 hours of research may only shine momentarily in the interview, this is often enough to convince the panel that the candidate is serious about the job and prepared to do some hard work.

A candidate's knowledge permeates all aspects of their application and their responses at interview. AusAID does not want to hear the Whitepaper or the Director General's 2010 Blueprint recited, we want candidates to demonstrate that through their life, work and academic experience - complemented by knowledge of the documents mentioned above - they understand the environment in which AusAID works and key factors that impact on how AusAID operates.

Those that were successful at interview were confident in their knowledge and had prepared well. This showed through naturally in their performance on both the written application and at interview. Those who felt the need to force out everything they knew at every opportunity were less successful. Showing self-awareness, knowing when to listen and when to talk is very important.

Analytical Skills

As has been the case in previous years, the selection criteria relating to analytical skills was consistently the weakest of all criteria across the field of applicants. The panel feels that this is not necessarily indicative of poor analytical skills but of an inability to demonstrate these skills both in a written application and at interview.

Demonstrating conceptual and analytical skills in your application can be done through: giving examples of how you identify appropriate sources and types of data for your purposes; quickly take stock of concepts and situations; and distinguish between central and peripheral issues to achieve desired results.

At interview, analytical skills can be demonstrated and tested 'live'. This year that was done via a written analytical exercise given to candidates to be completed within a 30 minute timeframe. This written task was then given to the panel prior to the interview, and evaluated for its content and appropriateness. The opportunity to talk through the analytical task during the interview was just as important as the written task itself.

When analysing information for the panel, candidates should come to their own conclusions based on their knowledge and the information given. Candidates should not tailor their answer to fit what they might think the panel wants to hear and they should avoid drawing on prepared responses as this can lead to sidetracking and a lack of focus on the actual task.

Many candidates found the time restraint for the analytical task did not allow them to fully express themselves. This pressure was intentional to see how it would impact on their performance. With limited time, candidates had to be selective in what they presented and this allowed the panel to see what a candidate thought was most important or useful in the context given.

March 2008