What is the difference between the full Career Progression Gateway and the CPG LITE?

The Career Progression Gateway (CPG) is an online assessment platform, that measures FRS candidates’ performance for promotion against the Leadership Qualities framework of behavioural criteria. The system assesses candidates at all levels from Crew to Strategic (Area) Managers, with adaptations for Firefighter Recruits, more senior or green book staff and is suitable for both whole time and on-call assessments.

The CPG is very resource-friendly- it uses external assessors (psychologists), the administration is easy to manage on-line, it works well for candidates with reasonable adjustments, and support options are available such as briefing sessions, e-learning and Developmental Feedback Sessions. Drawing on over 20 years’ experience, it’s bespoke to the FRS, it’s reliable and valid, it generates useable data to guide learning and development, it’s intuitive to use and candidates and administrators like it.

So what could we improve?

FRS budgets vary, and what is affordable to one service might be less so for another. We wanted to create a ‘lighter touch’ version which retained all the important elements which make the process as effective as it is, whilst reducing psychologist assessment time and therefore costs.

The exercises and process are the same for the LITE version, the only differences are in how the score sheets are designed, and the format of the assessors’ evidence. From the perspective of the client and candidates, this will only be apparent in the feedback report; everything else will be the same.

For the full CPG, the paragraph of feedback for ‘Personal Impact’ for the Case Study might look like this:

For the same candidate, but using the LITE Feedback option, the paragraph of feedback for ‘Personal Impact’ for the Case Study might look like this:

Case Study

Personal Impact

You showed some evidence of using engagement methods to seek feedback and understand people’s views.
E.g. you referred to ‘a number of discussions with Station based staff,’ ‘Staff involvement – Consult with stakeholders and particularly with staff who could be directly involved to hear their views’ and ‘address any concerns’. It is also useful to consider the mechanisms for seeking input, suited to different groups, which you might have demonstrated by referencing one or more of these groups and the different ways you may seek to connect with them e.g. school leavers and those referred via the criminal justice system . You mentioned engagement with a wider audience e.g. ‘promoting pro-active community engagement at a young age’ although there was scope to further explore opportunities for service users to be heard and what this might look like in practice.

You demonstrated significant evidence of being a role model in how you communicate.
Your response was professionally and credibly structured e.g. with sections on ‘what we can offer’ ‘how to achieve it’ and ‘next steps’ and an introduction to your topics. You made suggestions and raised relevant points such as how poor engagement could impact on plans and progress , providing explanations as to your rationale and perspective, backed up by the facts and data provided. You were aware of sensitivities within the scenario e.g. ‘I believe we hold a unique trusted position and brand…. to target young people at risk of crime’ ‘we need to address Safeguarding concerns as a priority, to demonstrate to our partners how we can contribute to this agenda’.

You demonstrated significant evidence of an ethical and inclusive approach.
You discussed the contribution the FRS could make and referred to different target groups e.g. ‘potentially reach hard to reach groups including minorities who might consider careers in either their FRS or other blue light services’, ‘young people who slip through the net with different agencies if they don’t fit into distinct categories but still need our support’ and ‘those involved in crime who may feel that they can’t relate to people in positions of authority but who we have real opportunities to reach through our initiatives such as job for a day skill sharing, mentoring and Team Scope’.

Case Study

Personal Impact

You showed some evidence of using engagement methods to seek feedback and understand people’s views. You suggested specific actions to encourage, and show your value for, the input of internal team members. You implied an understanding of the value of seeking input from different groups but would have benefitted from addressing this more explicitly.

You demonstrated significant evidence of being a role model in how you communicate.
Your response was clearly structured, credible and covered your rationale for a range of relevant suggestions. You presented information professionally and positively, with an appreciation (implied or explicit) for the sensitivities of the scenario.

You demonstrated significant evidence of an ethical and inclusive approach.
Fairness, diversity and inclusion guided your thinking and your recommendations followed an ethical agenda. You recognised the diversity of the local area although might have been clearer on how to connect with/ support minority groups.

The main difference, aside from the length of report, is the personalisation. In Example 1a it details exactly what evidence the candidate provided, as well as provides a more in-depth discussion of improvements with actionable points . Whereas, in Example 1b,the LITE version, it is a holistic overview that makes a more general comment of performance. These statements are selected from tick box options whilst still being based on the same psychologists’ assessment. Both versions of the report will still contain the same personalised information on results, and development planning.

This ‘tick box’ option is becoming increasingly popular, with on-line systems able to facilitate it and the lighter touch approach making robust and valid assessment methods more affordable and accessible. These statements are based on over 1000 previous assessments, the data from which we have been able to distil into targeted pre-written options for the assessor to select from. Guidance is provided to ensure consistency in how these are chosen according to a standardised scoring framework, whilst also allowing enough flexibility to make the selections as accurate as possible.

An impact of the CPG LITE to be considered is in the level of detailed evidence available to the assessors when they are delivering feedback. This may be more apparent for lower scoring candidates (see examples 2a) and 2b). However, all our clients currently use our psychologists to deliver these sessions; they are highly experienced at making written feedback meaningful to broader contexts and exploring wider conclusions from the information available. The level of detail may be more challenging if internal FRS assessors or line managers were responsible for delivering the feedback sessions. This effect is mitigated for the FRSs who choose to use the Role-play in addition to the Case Study, as the RP assessor has the opportunity to develop rapport, explore the evidence verbally and therefore shape their understanding for the feedback session, despite having more limited evidence in the written report.

Case Study

Personal Impact

You provided limited evidence of using engagement methods to seek feedback and understand people’s views. E.g. you recognised the importance of engaging with the community and team members and identified that the ‘priorities from the forum…align very well with our FRS Values of Engaging’. However, there was scope to have thought more about specific avenues to seek input from others. In the workplace, consider the benefits of gaining a range of views for new plans; this will help you better understand, and target, needs.

You showed some evidence of being a role model in how you communicate. E.g. your response was professional, well presented and constructive; as such it was appropriately written for your audience. You structured your assessment of the information within categories: priorities, advantages, disadvantages and challenges, which aided reading, and made some suggestions. You were clear on priorities and set out rationale behind your thinking, although there was scope for greater detail in regard to some areas and to have more fully explained how you would seek to overcome the challenges you highlighted.

You provided limited evidence of an ethical and inclusive approach. You prioritised young people, recognised some of the demographic challenges and also recognised the need to improve diversity. However, you might have expanded more on this – i.e. how the partnership day would ‘bring diversity back into the town’; this was mentioned but it not explained any further how the two things were related. You missed opportunities to link to specific agendas around diversity, which meant you didn’t fully show your awareness of the importance of this issue and what you might do about it in this context. You would have benefitted from considering other ways to improve representation and how you might seek to build relationships with different groups.

Case Study

Personal Impact

You provided limited evidence of using engagement methods to seek feedback and understand people’s views. You briefly touched on seeking input from the team but needed to explain further how and why you would intend to do so. You implied an understanding of the value of seeking input from different groups, but would have benefitted from addressing this more explicitly.

You showed some evidence of communicating credibly and effectively. Your response was reasonably structured, with appropriate rationale/ detail in several places. You generally presented information appropriately, with some suggestions.

You provided limited evidence of ethical and inclusive approach. You recognised the diversity of the local area, although might have been clearer on how to connect with/ support minority groups. You might have more explicitly demonstrated your understanding of the importance of fairness and inclusion of different groups.

We would recommend the LITE CPG version for Crew and Watch Manager processes primarily, it is especially advantageous for high volume assessments, from both a budget perspective as well as time/resource management perspective. It could also potentially be considered at Station Manager level (however numbers of candidates at Station Manager tend to be more manageable and the level is appropriate to greater depth of feedback.)

An option which could be considered is marking candidates on the LITE version initially then retrospectively ‘upgrading’ them to a full feedback report for specific candidates i.e. those who score at ‘red’ and/or ‘amber’ levels.

If you have any questions of how you could join seven other FRS’ using the CPG as part of their assessments for promotions, please do contact us.