Manitoba Civil Service Commission
To view PDF files, you must have a copy of the Adobe Acrobat Reader which is available as a free download.
2.4.1. Rating & Ranking
POLICY STATEMENT
The selection board documents its ratings of each candidate and ranks candidates in order of merit after considering the information from all assessment methods with the exception of reference checks.
INTENT
To ensure a consistent and transparent approach to assessing candidates.
POLICY APPLICATION
To arrive at a rating decision for a candidate, the selection board reviews information from all assessment methods with the exception of reference checks and decides, by consensus, the degree to which each candidate meets each selection criterion.
Ratings are expressed in a numerical scale from 0 – 10. Candidates’ ratings on each criterion are recorded separately. Numerical ratings are multiplied by the criterion’s weight to calculate a weighted score.
A corporate rating guide has been established. In using the rating guide, the Selection Board is required to:
- exercise discretion in the assignment of points to candidates based on sound judgment and the principles of merit, fairness and equity.
- review information from all assessment methods and decide, by consensus, the degree to which each candidate meets each selection criterion and express the relativity between candidates in the ratings.
Because a candidate’s ratings are subject to disclosure in a selection appeal, the selection board must ensure that with the exception of reference checks the ratings reflect all assessment information, not only interview assessments.
PRACTICES
Applying the rating scale
The Selection board chair oversees the preparation of the Staffing Framework document which includes any conditions of employment, how employment equity is to be factored into the selection process, the selection criteria, the weight assigned to each criterion, the assessment methods that will measure each criteria and the recruitment strategy.
The rating scale ranges from 0 – 10. The “5” on the rating scale represents the satisfactory - “meets” level (i.e. the qualifications, experience and abilities in relation to the criterion meet the minimum requirement for adequate performance on this aspect of the position). The satisfactory – “meets” level should be determined by the selection board for each selection criteria and articulated in the competition file. This facilitates a fair and consistent evaluation of each candidate, and thus reduces bias. It also serves as a tool for explaining the results of the competition to candidates.
Preventing bias in rating candidates
There are several ways to prevent bias in the staffing process:
- ensure selection criteria are work-related and bona fide
- complete staffing framework document before posting the position
- ensure that the satisfactory – “meets” level for each criterion is established, and represents the minimum requirement for adequate performance on that aspect of the position.
- structure interviews to ask each candidate the same questions in the same order
- use a variety of methods to assess the quality of past experience or performance. See also Assessing Candidates Policy 2.3.2
- achieve consensus in rating each candidate
Factoring employment equity in selection
Employment equity is factored only once in the selection process. The assigned weight will be equal to the highest weighted essential criterion. In rating, of Employment Equity criterion, the "meets" value on the rating scale shall be given to a candidate from a designated group. A candidate who belongs to more than one designated group is awarded the same points in rating as a candidate who belongs to only one designated group.
Preference or Designated for one or more equity groups can be applied as a special measure in the recruitment process. For further information see the Employment Equity in Staffing Policy 2.1.3 and Assessing Candidates Policy 2.3.2.
Factoring veterans’ preference in selection
Veteran status is a consideration in all competitions where it is deemed to be in the public interest. Veteran status is factored into the selection process by identifying it as a specific criterion. The assigned weight will be equal to the highest weighted essential criterion. For further information see the Veterans’ Preference Policy 2.4.3.
Ranking candidates
The selection board integrates findings from the assessment methods to produce ranking considerations. Using this information, the selection board first identifies those candidates who have met the minimum requirements for all the essential selection criteria. Normally, candidates who meet the essential selection criteria are given further consideration. The selection board then applies the competitive test to these candidates and determines the rank order of merit after balancing all factors related to all selection criteria and their relative weights.
Determining a final score
Each criterion is assigned a weight factor that reflects the relative importance to the performance of the job. The highest score that can be achieved is 10 (rating) x 10 (weighting).
The final score and ranking of candidates is based on findings from the assessment methods and is achieved through a consensus-based approach by the selection board. The Rating and Ranking Form is used to document results and is signed by all selection board members and the delegated staffing authority.
Normally only candidates who meet the essential criteria are considered as alternates or placed on an eligibility list.
Factoring seniority in selection
Seniority is the determining factor where candidates are relatively equal in qualifications, ability and prior work performance. How seniority is applied in the competition should be clearly and transparently described in competition file documentation.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
- Civil Service Commission
- Monitor application of the policy through the staffing audit process.
- Human Resource Practitioners
- Ensure application of the policy in the staffing process.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES / DEFINITIONS
Ability– Ability is interpreted to mean knowledge, skills, abilities and personal attributes as outlined in the Selection Criteria Policy 2.1.1.
Bias– Bias refers to prejudice or unfair influence based on personal interest. Bias or the apprehension of bias justifies setting aside a competitive appointment.
Merit– Merit refers to the closest possible match between the needs of the organization and the knowledge, skills, abilities, experience and personal attributes of a candidate.
Rating– Rating refers the degree to which the candidate met each criterion. Ratings are expressed in numbers.
Rating scale– Most criteria are measured on a rating scale that describes the degree to which the candidate met the selection criteria. The rating scale used in the Manitoba civil service is a numerical scale ranging from 0 – 10 with 5 as the satisfactory - “meets” level. This rating scale provides a range of points which allows the selection board to make finer distinctions between highly qualified candidates.
Numerical Ratings |
Descriptor |
0-2 |
VERY LIMITED: |
3-4 |
LIMITED: |
5 |
SATISFACTORY – “MEETS”: |
6-8 |
ABOVE AVERAGE: |
9-10 |
EXCELLENT: |
Some criteria are assessed on a "meets/does not meet" basis. Examples: conditions of employment (ex: valid driver’s license), employment equity and veterans’ status.
Weighting– The relative importance of selection criteria is reflected in the weight assigned to each criterion. Essential criteria are assigned more weight than desired criteria.
Weight factor– Each criteria is assigned a weight factor that reflects the relative importance to the performance of the job. A weight factor can range between 1 – 10.
Work performance– Work performance is interpreted to mean the quality of the candidate’s past performance or experience, as it relates to the selection criteria. See also Assessing Candidates Policy 2.3.2.
AUTHORITY
The Civil Service Act, Section 13(3)
Civil Service Regulations 9(3)
GEMA 11:05
Civil Service Commission Minute CSC 19-09/10-5
Owner: |
Civil Service Commission |
Additional information: |
Civil Service Commission |
Effective Date January 1, 2010
Amended: March 11, 2010
Table of Contents - Back to Top
