To think normal job interviews are such a relief after the Civil Service ones

[Minkdeville]

I know not everybody will have had a CS interview, but as they are supposed to be 'open and fair recruitment' they're very focused on being able to use the STAR method and answering questions in a very prescribed way.
There are 'behaviours' which are things like managing a quality service, delivering at pace, making effective decisions.

These need to be answered with the STAR method. You need to generally get a certain score to pass interview, many roles also have a Situational Judgement Test which involves choosing what you would do in certain scenarios. I've found it incredibly competitive and laborious.

Just had a private sector interview. I was asked what I knew about the company, what my current and previous work experience was and general questions designed to show how id act in situations and my experience.

Found the process so much less stressful, still a little nerve-wracking but I wasn't going 'STAR, STAR' in my head and having to rehearse a script. I'll know if I've got it or I haven't, not a series of scores and then pitted against hundreds of others.

It just made me realise how much I hate the CS process, this one just felt so normal and natural! Has anyone else found this?

They are horrible. I have done many over the years through promotions and they don't get any better. They never seem to test whether you can actually do the job you're applying for, and you have to learn the system to get on.

Whilst i dont personally i have seen my friends just applying for the roles as they are internal and what an absolute laborious joke they are!

Yes, agreed. I know the Civil Service has its perks but people act like they don't exist anywhere else and you must never, ever quit.

I passed an interview with all 5s for an EO role, then received an email that because of the high volume of successful applications the benchmark had been raised to a 6, so I had therefore been unsuccessful.

If there's hundreds of applications you must need a standardised interview process so that everyone has a fair opportunity to succeed. I believe the CS uses behavioural interviewing so demonstrate what you have actually done rather than what you might do.

Personally I'd rather that than the type of interview where they ask you questions like "what colour crayon would you be". Might show that you're creative but is more of an ego trip for the interviewer.

Then there's the waiting several months with no timescale which can make it hard to plan for. I applied for another EO role in May and I still don't know if I've got an interview or not.
It's not good enough.

They don't need to ask daft questions about crayons or whatever, but the answers shouldn't have to be scripted and prescribed.

I've done the interviews when applying for other roles within the CS, and I gotta admit despite still working for the CS, I do think the amount of stuff you need to write up for interviews and applications is a lot. And then they want you to deliver the information to them without reading off the notes which is something I cannot do. Once I got my EO promotion, I've stopped doing it for now as I'm happy where I am.

I recently applied for a role in the CS and one of the tests was to stop a flashing light at a set point on a clock as the light spun round, this was on a laptop so pressing a button to stop the light. The light got faster with each round and there were 4 rounds. By the third it went so fast that it was pure luck if you stopped it at the right time

I kept failing and restarting, you could press to end at any time but when you pressed the button a message came up asking if you were sure as you couldn’t then try that test again, in my mind I wondered if they were testing my perseverance rather than any actual skill so I tried for quite a while (probably longer than I should have)

I then accepted a job that had a normal interview process so withdrew my application for the CS role

i now wish I had kept it going to see if I got offered an interview

I honestly think CS jobs are overhyped. I had a junior CS role at one point but ended up in private sector. All the things that are hyped about public sector (flexible working, pension, security, etc) I get in my private sector career but have more earning power without needing to jump through quite so many hoops.

Typical civil service. Why do something simply and efficiently if you can drag it out interminably and occupy a few more people with pointless busy work?

I like some of the idea behind CS interviews in that it's meant to be a more "equal" process - you shouldn't be offered a job just because the interview panel liked you, or aligned with your personality. And theoretically you can have had any sort of previous experience which you can use to demonstrate a key behaviour. If you worked the McDonalds drivethrough and can talk about how that taught you to manage conflicting priorities, that's as valid as if you're talking about running your own company or if you were teaching a group of GCSE students or being Ambassador to the US.

Seems like it's a bloody nightmare to use to actually recruit people with though! I've never volunteered to sit on a panel, having to score everyone on all these things sounds horrible.

Completely agree, OP.

They sound like a nightmare! Friend didn’t get a job she’d been working in for a YEAR, covering and working at a level that everyone agreed was far better than the predecessor because she didn’t tick one box in the interview on experience with the example she gave! The lack of common sense beggared belief, and the job went to an outside candidate who quit after 6 months of mayhem, and she re-applied and still almost didn’t get it. Then did.
as someone from the private sector I couldn’t believe the BS she had to go through to prove she could do a role she was already successfully doing.

Whilst I do agree about the fair and open element, you can be doing an AO job at a high level for years and fail EO against someone fresh out of school without an ounce of experience because they scored 1 point higher. I don't think that's right.

I'm currently writing an application for a B2 role that I'm 90% easily competent in and 10% have limited experience, but with transferrable knowledge & could upskill.

I swear I've put as much effort into 3x 250 behavioural questions as I did a recent professional exam. Buzz words flying. Behaviour boxes ticked.

Goodness knows how I managed to get into the CS in the first place

I used to quite enjoy the buzz of private sector 'tell me about your current role' interviews where you just needed to know yourself and your skills, rather than trying to shoehorn in memorised cringe phrases to get a tick.

I applied for a civil service job and failed the situational judgement test. My job is to help people weigh up pros and cons. Occasionally I put my foot down and say "legally we cannot do this" but mostly my job is to make sure decisions are balanced and weigh up all factors. So I basically answered "it depends " for everything because that is the right thing for my role. I was rejected and advised to maybe get more decision making experience before applying at this level. I could have explained exactly how I'd approach each decision.

I had plenty of experience at that level. I have more than one external report citing me as excellent at my job at that level. It was really frustrating because I could evidence everything they needed but couldn't get past the computer.

@Idinnaenah that experience is so common.