One of the things we are finding very useful from the CPG system is the information it can supply, particularly with consistent use over time.
An innovative new way to assess candidates for promotion – 12 months on, has it worked?
With sufficient Career Progression Gateway projects under our belts, we have been able to turn our attention to the stats and review how candidates with additional needs and extra time have performed overall. By reviewing the data we could work out if having extra time was providing the right sort of help.
As we know, the LQ is a framework for how leadership needs to look for the FRS to evolve and succeed. The LQs support the NFCC National People Strategy, which offers an encouraging vision for the future for the Service.
In 2019 the HMICFRS FRS Inspections summary of findings reported that ‘Staff in more than half the Fire and Rescue Services inspected told us they see the promotion and selection processes as unfair or not clear and open enough.
In the same way we all have different height, weight, hair colour, there is growing recognition for diversity in cognition. The range in neurological profiles is all part of the natural variation of humans, and there is a consistent prevalence of differences (for example, approx. 10% of the population can be expected to demonstrate dyslexia; 2% autism).
In terms of neurodiversity and how it is made up the work Mary Colley (referenced in the graphic below) offers a useful framework to better understand what the term ‘neurodiversity’ encompasses.
It is difficult to know how long the current situation will persist, and if we’ve learnt anything from the last 12 months, optimistic forecasts can’t be relied upon. So if we don’t know how much longer we must wait, and the waiting itself won’t be feasible long-term, what is the solution?
The answer to this question isn’t simple as there is so much variation in Fire & Rescue Services’ practice when it comes to assessing potential for promotion. A combination of approaches is most common...
Psychometric tests normally take a minimum of 3-4 years to develop as it is essential that they can demonstrate legally defensible levels of reliability, sensitivity, validity and can demonstrate that adverse impact has been considered and mitigated during the construction of the test.