To hate competency based interviews!

[TheDairyQueen]

I had an interview today for my dream job.

Firstly, they say you should never meet your idols. This could never have been truer than it was today - it turns out that they are, after all, just people with the same failings as everyone else. It was so disappointing to see a disinterested face sit across the table from me when there was one person I've always been keen to impress.

I couldn't have done better on the technical questions, it's the one thing I am confident about. However, for me, the killer has always been the competency based questions, the real fucking difficult ones that I always find myself stumbling over. I always end up thinking my examples are so stupid and before I know it, I'm blethering a load of shit to fill the silence.

I miss the old days when the technical knowledge alone was enough, without the HR box-tickery of "can you give me an example of...?" No, I bloody well can't. I'm going to be unreasonable, I am unreasonable and I'm unreasonably unreasonable about reasoning.

Ah fuck it, I just wanted a moan about my own interminable stupidity.

Poor interview prep is no ones fault than your own sadly, OP.

Do what everyone else does and create/remember scenarios prior to your interview that could be relevant to the examples you have to demonstrate.

That is as hard as competency interviews get tbh.

Agreed. With competency interviews you should know your answers before you walk into the interview. It’s a very powerful position to be in.

Harsh responses! The OP says she did have examples ready.

No-one told me competency based interviews are everywhere today and that it’s done on a points-based system.

Last time I went for a job in a uni it was just a normal interview. Old school - a standard set of questions but room to go off piste if one of my answers interested them. Room to have a bit of a general chat.

I was shocked to attend a recent uni interview and find a panel of 3 interviewers all asking set questions with them taking notes and no dialogue at all. It threw me so much that by the end I was stumbling over my answers. Their lack of engagement with what I was actually saying made me think they were completely disinterested in what I had to say, or that I was not on the right track at all, so I shut up after a coupe of sentences for some questions

I didn’t get the job. Feedback by email was that “some of your answers were a bit brief.” I have since applied for another job at the same place and didn’t even get an interview that time. Looks like they think I am incompetent now because of my interview, which is a shame as I think I would have been a real asset to them and fitted in well.

Someone who works in the same uni told me that in the past few years HR have instructed bosses about interview format. They are apparently not allowed to say much at all after asking each question in case they’re accused of leading someone to the answer that points will be given for.

Ridiculous. Bring back the old way of doing interviews and you’ll get to know your candidates’ REAL ability and experience instead of sticking to a script.

The managers from the recruiting depts may as well not be there if all they are doing is reading our questions and making notes. They may as well just get HR bods to do all the interviewing is there is not to be any personalisation at all.

OP, I hear you. Don’t let it knock your confidence too much

Someone who works in the same uni told me that in the past few years HR have instructed bosses about interview format. They are apparently not allowed to say much at all after asking each question in case they’re accused of leading someone to the answer that points will be given for.

Eek. That’s bad advice.

Sorry it didn't go well DairyQueen but... I'm afraid Yabu
The thing with technical questions is that most people with a knowledge of the role can reel off answers (or even just study for the interview) but the interviewers need to know that you can apply that knowledge to scenarios you may face. Hence the "can you give an example of...." type of question. You might assume one follows the other but in my experience it often doesn't unfortunately.

I'm with you OP, I think it's really hard to think of examples and even if you can, the may not fit the questions exactly. I haven't had an interview in years as the thought of doing one fills me with dread!

And, no matter how well prepared you are, it's a very unnatural situation and easy to let nerves get the better of you. At least you have had some practice for the next one!

I think if you have never experienced that style of interview before then your invitation to interview should explain the format, give a couple of example questions and a model answer. That way you know what you’re walking into.

Anyone can blag those type of answers with prep, especially if you know someone already working in that organisation who knows the buzz phrases they are looking to hear. I truly don’t believe it gives you a true picture of someone’s personality and ability, it simply tells the interviewers that they are practised at interviews (which could be for all sorts of the wrong reasons)

Someone who has stayed in the same post for 10 years has no chance at succeeding somewhere else if the role is even slightly different. As for new graduates or young people with very little experience.....I feel sorry for them, how can they demonstrate potential to do a job this way?

I hate them too. Just stupid as you can learn all the scenarios beforehand but then you feel like an idiot trotting it all out, whilst the interviewers look bored and tick boxes.

I think interviews are totally geared towards people who have the gift of the gab. Who might not necessarily do the job best.....

Eek. That’s bad advice.

I disagree.

Sometimes Interviewers can.be leading. I work in HR and would advise interviewers to stick to the questions. One or two prompts are okay...but competency based interviews are designed to assess your competency and knowledge in that area.

It makes it easier to score after the interview and avoids discrimination...as you are purely looking at the answers.

Ridiculous. Bring back the old way of doing interviews and you’ll get to know your candidates’ REAL ability and experience instead of sticking to a script

^disagree. The old days meant that a lot of decent people who could have got the job didn’t. Competency based interviews mean you have to prepare and you have to perform. But companies should use more than interviews.

Yes, that’s my approach too. Hence saying that preventing them from veering off script is bad advice.

AmIRight (great name btw) you need to think of the examples in advance and then apply/adapt them to the questions. Depending on your industry (or employer if it's an internal role), they often have certain topics you can anticipate. For example in my industry Data Protection would have to come up in any interview for a technical role so you would ensure you have a few things to say about that to demonstrate your understanding of how that applies in the role.

A manager has just been appointed on our team who has no knowledge of the job itself or the framework we work to. But they gave lovely examples of working as a team, managing a difficult staff member, working to a deadline etc. The fact that she won't actually be able to advise her staff on technical issues is apparently by the by and we're all being asked to teach her the role.

YANBU.

I had 2 interviews with the civil service, I knew I would be able to do the jobs well. But they were competancy based interviews and I had been out of work for years and had no recent examples and not brilliant examples of the particular competencies they asked me (and yes I knew beforehand and thought about it a lot). It did not reflect at all on my ability to do the job. I didn't get either or receive any feedback.

Had an interview with NHS, not competancy based, normal questions, came a close second, found out why I wasn't first, had another interview with NHS, ensured I would nail that particular question, another 'normal' interview, smashed it and am doing very well in my role and they are very pleased with me.

Competancy based interviews are all well and good if you have done that particular thing, but if you haven't you just won't score and it doesn't mean you won't be able to do it.

Agree. You can't get the measure of someone based on a few learned examples. I hate them.

The statistics suggest that most interviews are not much more effective at working out who will be good at a job than random selection.

The old way of having a chat can be particularly bad because even with good intentions it can unconsciously reinforce the interviewer's existing biases - eg for an alumni of your uni, you start by reminiscing about the old days before easing gently into questions, while for someone less like your normal social circle you go straight to the tough bit (and that's not even to mention the ones where bias is more explicit).

That's why now there are so many now where they take names and dates of CVs to make age/race/gender less apparent, and give pre-tests, case studies, competency based tests and the like - they're not perfect, but actually often give diversity a better chance.

The good news is that competency based interviews can absolutely be prepped for. There are some good simple books with examples of frequent questions and simple frameworks to answer them, like STAR (situation, task, action, resolution) to help avoid waffling. If you're goinf
through a recruiter, don't hesitate to ask for tips, they may have heard feedback from previous candidates, and they actively want you to get the job (and them a bonus). You will be great.

Totally agree OP. Sometimes the competency questions are so so specific and nothing to do with the job it’s ridiculous. I have been both sides of a competency based interview and hate them. They leave no room for rapport/thinking through how the candidate would fit into the team etc. Especially in my sort of role which is a out relationship building. HR will say they are a good predictor of performance. Maybe for some, not for me.
When I’ve been interviewed I can have a dozen examples at hand (I have a lot of experience but crap memory for specifics) but if the question is super specific it’s so hard to expound, especially under tense interview conditions.

It shouldn’t come down to scores, though, Sandy! It should be able the whole picture of someone and what is the consensus of opinion from the panel? Will the candidate’s personality fit in with the team?
Etc. A person could give model answers but could be abrupt, conceited, not serious enough, have an unfriendly manner for a customer-facing role, or whatever else would be an actual common sense “negative” for the role. None of those traits would be scored.

Eurgh.

I don't mind competency based questions too much, as long as there they are general enough to allow me to use one of my examples!
eg "give an example of a time you had to persuade others to adopt a change"

the last interview I had,they asked really restrictive questions along the line of:

"Can you give us an example within a professional setting when you introduced change, and in doing so had to take a risk, and had to persuade others who were reluctant about the change whilst managing the expectations of stakeholders both within and without the organisation....???

It was hard enough remembering every point within the word salad, let alone thinking of an example which ticked every box!
(I had examples of when I introduced a change in a professional setting, I had examples of when I took risks etc to implement that change within a non-professional setting, but no single example which fulfilled everything).

Annoying, because I had really prepared for the interview and wasn't asked a single technical question.

Competency based interviews are easy provided you are well prepared. The only reason to badly is if you haven't done enough prep and/or you don't indeed have the experience/examples they're looking for. If you've been through the person spec and have good examples for all the criteria, they won't ask you a question you don't have an answer for.

For very many jobs, technical knowledge is only a very small part of what is required IMO. There's nothing worse than someone who has all the knowledge but no interpersonal skills for example.

It's true that practice helps it feel less false (which is why you should prepare and rehearse) so treat this as a good opportunity to practice and be better prepared for the next one.

I totally sympathise with you op, and it’s interesting to see what you were told by a Edson at the uni.
I recently went on an interview and the initial interview was with hr, I was very excited about the job and the company itself, however upon meeting with this hr lady I immediately felt uncomfortable she was completely stone faced, and only asked the questions which were on her 4 page print out! Needless to say it didn’t go well I thought, the feedback was I can clearly do the job however she felt my personality didn’t come across at all! I was totally miffed by this as she gave absolutely nothing to me and couldn’t make conversation! I did try!! And to top it off she didn’t even know my name or which agency I’d come from! I had a second interview with the actual manager and she said the same about my personality! Think at the end of it they just didn’t like me for some reason hang in there something will come up and you’ll have a perfect interview and get the job!

It should be able the whole picture of someone and what is the consensus of opinion from the panel? Will the candidate’s personality fit in with the team?.

Absolutely agree with this which is why we don't make the entire interview competency based. Imo you definitely need the more broad questions too, it's important to get a more rounded picture of the person and how they might fit into the team.