**** competency interviews

[JustKeepSwimming]

You will not convince me they are evaulating any meaningful competency.

You will not convince me they aren't discriminatory.

You won't convince me they result in the best canditate.

We shall ignore how not a single job description lists "Ability to give a 10 minute answer instantly to a random question".

[dsc]

Example of questions from those?

[JustKeepSwimming]

Example of questions from those?

"Explain a time when you had multiple and conflicting tasks you needed to complete"

"Give an example of when you had to convince a senior manager to do something your way"

"Explain a time you had to manage conflict within your team".


It will often be the case they will ask you the same question rephrased and want a different example.

A good interviewer, or one who likes you will give you many prompts (so you can pick up points you missed). If they don't like you for whatever reason they will just say "great, next question".

It's attempts to give a false sense of fairness.

[dsc]

Aren't those just bog standard interview questions, something that a very bored HR dept would come up with? yeah they are tulip and I hate them as much as the other guy, but the appear very generic and most I reckon will have some form of universal answer for them.

Why are they discriminatory? I always found them silly as you can easily make up tulip on the spot (or prep heavily and have a few examples for each one) and overall you just get a candidate that either navigates them well or not at all.

[JustKeepSwimming]

Yes it has become the norm. The issue is the answers are manufactured.

Most people, regardless of capability for the role aren't able to "make tulip up on the spot", certainty not convincingly.

Being able to bulltulip is a skill, but it is not a skill needed for a role. To use a methodology that requires a minimal level of bulltulipting ability for a role that does not require bulltulipting is discriminatory. When you consider the demographics of those who are prone to possess bulltulipting ability.

[Dactylion]

Competencies are so '90s Daaarlink......

Although they, at least pretend to, provide a level playing field to allow some level of objectivity.

Some companies still use Graphology/Handwriting Analysis to assess prospects :-O
and that was debunked when Noah were a lad!

[Smartie]

Really you should already have a set of answers to these kind of standard interview questions.
Failing to do so makes you look unprepared/don't care.

Depending on the role, the answers ARE important.

"Explain a time when you had multiple and conflicting tasks you needed to complete"
This is about your ability to prioritise multiple pieces of work and possibly to negotiate with stakeholders on delivery timings. Useful.

"Give an example of when you had to convince a senior manager to do something your way"
If you're in a role such as a PM where you have to manage upwards, this is also important. Can you deliver a project with difficult stakeholders?

"Explain a time you had to manage conflict within your team".
As a PM/Scrum Master/whatever, an essential skill. There is always some conflict in teams - can you deal with it?

As a Dev, these are also useful skills.

To be honest, if you're looking for good money as a contractor, why wouldn't you learn about interview processes and likely questions and then prepare properly because as we all know that prevents piss poor performance.

You will not convince me they are evaulating any meaningful competency.

You will not convince me they aren't discriminatory.

You won't convince me they result in the best canditate.

We shall ignore how not a single job description lists "Ability to give a 10 minute answer instantly to a random question".

[WTFH]

Really you should already have a set of answers to these kind of standard interview questions.
Failing to do so makes you look unprepared/don't care.

How about a 3 slide powerpoint presentation.

[dsc]

Yes it has become the norm. The issue is the answers are manufactured.

Most people, regardless of capability for the role aren't able to "make tulip up on the spot", certainty not convincingly.

Being able to bulltulip is a skill, but it is not a skill needed for a role. To use a methodology that requires a minimal level of bulltulipting ability for a role that does not require bulltulipting is discriminatory. When you consider the demographics of those who are prone to possess bulltulipting ability.

One might argue that it makes you think on the spot which is most likely a handy skill in all engineering (that or at least checking if you prepared). I hate them as there's always an obvious answer and you just make up a scenario to match that answer (with some specific details which are your own), but if you know they are most likely to come up at any interview you prep for them. This is why I also don't think they are discriminatory, it's pretty much common knowledge and you don't have to be super clever to prep.

As for the answers being important, I really don't agree, even if you have no examples, you'll just make something up and if you are clever about it, it will be believable. It's not like you are going to come out and say "no I've never dealt with conflict" as clearly there's always some sort of conflict at the work place. This is why it's dumb, it assess **** all, but as everyone knows this, you can easily "play the system". Does it make sense? no. Does it allow the employer to reduce the amount of candidates? yes.

[ladymuck]

I don't interview. I just get people phoning me up asking when I'm available to start.