Reply to: **** competency interviews

[vetran]

[edison]

I think the OP doth protest a bit too much.

Unfortunately, most interviewers are not very good and have had little or no training. Competency based questions are a reasonable starting point but I always prefer to include a mix of scenario questions, presentations etc depending on the nature and scope of role and whether contract or perm.

One drawback of competency based questions is that interviewers can be far too rigid - 'we have to ask these exact 10 questions' which leaves barely any time for the interviewee to ask questions at the end.

Skilled interviewers ask fewer initial questions but then probe much deeper into specifics depending on the answers.

It's amazing how frequently I've seen candidates state impressive achievements on their CV but talk about 'we' did this or 'we' did that. When I probe further, their contribution turns out to be much less impressive, often as part of a wider team who had more doers.

My killer question is to ask what their specific individual involvement and actions/results were. Many candidates crumble at this point.

[ladymuck]

sometimes its just Margherita time!

margarita!


But absolutely agree. Or a daiquiri.

Bloody Mary/Maria for breakfast.

[vetran]

That's a crappy question. I've absolutely hated being asked that. At a particular time of the day it could be gin.

sometimes its just Margherita time!

[WTFH]

My greatest weakness?
Answering idiotically pointless questions honestly.

[NotAllThere]

That's a crappy question. I've absolutely hated being asked that. At a particular time of the day it could be gin.

I like it. "At this time of day, gin. Do you have any?".

[ladymuck]

"What is your greatest weakness".

That's a crappy question. I've absolutely hated being asked that. At a particular time of the day it could be gin.

[JustKeepSwimming]

Seriously? How long have you been doing this? These questions are so common and so often, that you should already have prepared to answer them. If it helps another one is

"What is your greatest weakness".

Which I answered once "Occasionally failing to punch out moronic HR drones who ask me that question during interviews in the sadly mistaken belief they're being clever. I'll show myself out".

Madam, I am not made of straw.

[NotAllThere]

"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".

Seriously? How long have you been doing this? These questions are so common and so often, that you should already have prepared to answer them. If it helps another one is

"What is your greatest weakness".

Which I answered once "Occasionally failing to punch out moronic HR drones who ask me that question during interviews in the sadly mistaken belief they're being clever. I'll show myself out".

[JustKeepSwimming]

I understand what you are saying, my issue isn't suddenly finding myself being interviewed for a job im not suitable for or that is above me, that doesn't bother me in the slightest beyond wasted time.

So take your example of project v programme at face value. There is distinct competency needed for project than needed for a programme. You have experience of both, your example was chosen from the wrong one. Interviews are now coin flips?

[northernladuk]

My main gripe, is that it should be more of a role play rather than open ended question then answer. I also don't think it should be 'Please lie to us about a past experience that didn't happen, don't forget those magical key words that are on my sheet you can't see!', it is fundamentally dishonest, which, as you love to toot about is unprofessional.

It should be more 'You been asked to do X, where would you start', you answer, 'What if X happened?', you respond etc.

The interviewer can steer the discussion back on to what is relevant for them for the specific role, because that's how real life operates.

I see what you are saying and before the last two gigs I think I would have whole heartedly agreed. No doubt the question isn't a very good way of assessing competency but to be fair, only someone with the right experience and competency working in the environment would have give a right/close answer. If you haven't you'll give the answer to what you would have done in Role A which is enough to give the interviewer a clue you'll struggle in Role B.

You certainly aren't wrong about the process to really identify competencies but in some cases it can be a sledgehammer approach to working out if Role B is suitable for someone with a background in Role A.

I also disagree that there is any scope for deviation from the prescribed correct answer set by HR. I had an interview years back where they specifically wanted someone with 'no carrot, just a big ******* stick', someone who was not agreeable in the slightest and would rule with an iron fist because the team was '******* useless' at the particular task (he was South African). Yet he was still bound by the same criteria set by HR, but he would just lie when filling in the form.

Yeah they've kind of given the answer away with what they want so you just describe it as you say but.... if you aren't that person who has experience wielding a big stick you wouldn't know the proper answer to lie.

I think the situation here is that you can do it so you know what to say, what to lie so it's all waste of time but you've actually passed the test already. Put yourself in the boots of some drone that hasn't experienced these things yet and doesn't know what the right answer/lie is. The question will weed them out which is the point. It's second nature to someone that can do it but it's a blocker to someone that can't so works.

I think I have a good example. A few months ago I was contacted about a role on a large ERP progamme. Recruiter found me and put me straight forward. Didn't see role spec and recruiter didn't really know. Got on with a guy who started down the competency questions. One was how I would motivate a large team of senior people as in providing leadership and focus. It was apparent very quickly this was an extremely senior role and the recruiter screwed up. I'm not a visonary leader of people, I'm an ITIL trained service bod. I could blag he activities on the role as I know what senior people do but I don't have the competencies. I mumbled through what I know about motivating employees and subordinates knowing full well I was out of my depth. Quickly agreed there had been a mistake with the role and left. I failed the test. If I did know how to do it I would have thought it was as stupid question and ranted about it.. You get me?

[JustKeepSwimming]

Ill have a stab at this as its pretty pertinent to my last two roles and I used to enjoy competency based learning as part of a career back in the day.

Firstly everything depends on the role you are going for. In some cases it's poor interviewing, in other cases it's entirely relevant.
Are they standard interview questions? They shouldn't be. For a perm maybe but not always a contractor and again depends on the role. If someone thinks this should be standard interview questions for a contractor then I'd say they aren't very good interviewers. It's about what they want from that person and often these questions are a waste of time.

To give it context lets think about two roles.

Role A - Fairly standard Tester in a pretty standard (but still busy) environment with multiple unrelated projects going on.
Role B - Senior Tester in a hugely complex and late programme of work like ERP or enterprise change

Both roles need tester skills but also need a different way of thinking and different type of person so competencies do make a difference (IMO). Less so for Role A but more so for Role B as they are different ways of working with different challenges.

Firstly Smartie is completely correct that you should be prepared to answer these even if they asked wrongly. It's about being prepared for whatever the client asks but it can come as a surprise after a string of pretty bog standard informal interviews. You should have a clue if it's role A or B from the blurb and you ask the question quickly when you start the interview and go from there.

Secondly why are the valid in some reasons. The person that does Role A might not be able to work in Role B (and to some extent vice versa). Dealing with issues on a project by project basis isn't that complex. Dealing with issues in a programme with politics, timescales, multiple stakeholders, multiple worksteams with critical path etc is very different. What you can and can't do might seem important to you but the programme will have different priorities you might not be aware of. Banging desks and being stroppy will not work in Role B where it might in Role A. Seeing the bigger picture in B is a lot more useful, having agility and so on is key. A different set of competencies come in to play and hence the need to these these people out. For Role B competency is almost as important as skills.

There was a post earlier about someone not getting why they could be based in multiple location and what's the point and it was noted it was a big ERP gig touching all the business so would have stakeholders all over. If the OP did not get that then they have failed already. I personally had a three stage interview where one was dedicated to ways of working in programme. I did OK as I've done it before but I've seen many many people that wouldn't have cut it. Not saying they are any less skilled, many are more skilled, but wouldn't be willing to work the pressure and time and have the competencies to deliver without giving up in frustration.

So IMO JKS is in one of two situations. First he's got a wet behind the ears interviewer and its just gumph or they are resourcing for a big programme and just the fact he can't understand why they need to check competencies means he's not cut out.

Actually three. He could just be a clueless fawing lickspittle but who am I to judge.

My main gripe, is that it should be more of a role play rather than open ended question then answer. I also don't think it should be 'Please lie to us about a past experience that didn't happen, don't forget those magical key words that are on my sheet you can't see!', it is fundamentally dishonest, which, as you love to toot about is unprofessional.

It should be more 'You been asked to do X, where would you start', you answer, 'What if X happened?', you respond etc.

The interviewer can steer the discussion back on to what is relevant for them for the specific role, because that's how real life operates.

I also disagree that there is any scope for deviation from the prescribed correct answer set by HR. I had an interview years back where they specifically wanted someone with 'no carrot, just a big ******* stick', someone who was not agreeable in the slightest and would rule with an iron fist because the team was '******* useless' at the particular task (he was South African). Yet he was still bound by the same criteria set by HR, but he would just lie when filling in the form.

[DoctorStrangelove]

How do I deal with conflict?

. <- that's the AK, smoking is bad for you.

[vetran]

https://forums.contractoruk.com/gene...-a-permie.html

Nah I'm not DrewG - it was for a consultancy position, they asked me to do a presentation as my interview prep. It explained how I did some data cleaning on assets to drive upgrades. Funnily enough one of the area leaders released something similar recently (20 months later).

[WTFH]

only 3 slides? My last interview one was about 14. Only 7 were live the other 7 were for questions (I used 2 of those).

https://forums.contractoruk.com/gene...-a-permie.html