Competency based interviews
Discussion
I think they work well (mostly). The first interview (competency) is usually there to gauge the person and get a 'feel' for them, to see if they would fit in the team.
The second is usually there to find out if you can actually do the job they are are recruiting for. No point in the recruiter moving on to interview 2 if they think the candidate isnt a good fit for the team.
The second is usually there to find out if you can actually do the job they are are recruiting for. No point in the recruiter moving on to interview 2 if they think the candidate isnt a good fit for the team.
We've used competency based interviews for 20+ years but I think we're starting to move away from them slightly now.
We very rarely do 2nd interviews so the whole decision is based on competency which often bear no resemblance to ability to do the job. However it works most of the time as good competency generally means they can learn and adapt. Our work is very specialised and there are very few places that do what we do so in some respects, it's a given that entry level candidates will have no relevant experience but we do try to check basic understanding.
Most of the graduates or younger people (20's) that we interview are baffled by our interviews. They either expect questions related to the job they applied for or they struggle to come up with examples to demonstrate competence. Which is not that surprising if someone hasn't had a proper job before.
We very rarely do 2nd interviews so the whole decision is based on competency which often bear no resemblance to ability to do the job. However it works most of the time as good competency generally means they can learn and adapt. Our work is very specialised and there are very few places that do what we do so in some respects, it's a given that entry level candidates will have no relevant experience but we do try to check basic understanding.
Most of the graduates or younger people (20's) that we interview are baffled by our interviews. They either expect questions related to the job they applied for or they struggle to come up with examples to demonstrate competence. Which is not that surprising if someone hasn't had a proper job before.
xx99xx said:
We've used competency based interviews for 20+ years but I think we're starting to move away from them slightly now.
We very rarely do 2nd interviews so the whole decision is based on competency which often bear no resemblance to ability to do the job. However it works most of the time as good competency generally means they can learn and adapt. Our work is very specialised and there are very few places that do what we do so in some respects, it's a given that entry level candidates will have no relevant experience but we do try to check basic understanding.
Most of the graduates or younger people (20's) that we interview are baffled by our interviews. They either expect questions related to the job they applied for or they struggle to come up with examples to demonstrate competence. Which is not that surprising if someone hasn't had a proper job before.
If your questions around competencies are irrelevant to the job then don't ask them and ask questions which are relevant! There is no point asking questions to evaluate competencies which are not required for the job. We very rarely do 2nd interviews so the whole decision is based on competency which often bear no resemblance to ability to do the job. However it works most of the time as good competency generally means they can learn and adapt. Our work is very specialised and there are very few places that do what we do so in some respects, it's a given that entry level candidates will have no relevant experience but we do try to check basic understanding.
Most of the graduates or younger people (20's) that we interview are baffled by our interviews. They either expect questions related to the job they applied for or they struggle to come up with examples to demonstrate competence. Which is not that surprising if someone hasn't had a proper job before.
Thats What She Said said:
I think they work well (mostly). The first interview (competency) is usually there to gauge the person and get a 'feel' for them, to see if they would fit in the team.
The second is usually there to find out if you can actually do the job they are are recruiting for. No point in the recruiter moving on to interview 2 if they think the candidate isnt a good fit for the team.
You have the the wrong way round. The main aim of competency based questions is not for you to get a 'feel' or fit in. The competency questions should help evaluate whether a candidate has the required competencies to do the job. The second is usually there to find out if you can actually do the job they are are recruiting for. No point in the recruiter moving on to interview 2 if they think the candidate isnt a good fit for the team.
edc said:
Thats What She Said said:
I think they work well (mostly). The first interview (competency) is usually there to gauge the person and get a 'feel' for them, to see if they would fit in the team.
The second is usually there to find out if you can actually do the job they are are recruiting for. No point in the recruiter moving on to interview 2 if they think the candidate isnt a good fit for the team.
You have the the wrong way round. The main aim of competency based questions is not for you to get a 'feel' or fit in. The competency questions should help evaluate whether a candidate has the required competencies to do the job. The second is usually there to find out if you can actually do the job they are are recruiting for. No point in the recruiter moving on to interview 2 if they think the candidate isnt a good fit for the team.
Competency based interviews are completely pointless. At a previous company they put us through competency based interview training (as interviewers). At the end of the session they had us do some role play. After my stint as interviewee everyone said what a good answer I gave. The problem was I MADE IT UP. How can you possibly expect to find a good candidate using a process which is so easy to game?
If you want to find our whether people have the appropriate competencies for the job - make them do something relevant to the role. I was always stunned that in an interview for a developer role I was rarely asked to write code. This is what you are employing me to spend the majority of my time doing. I appreciate that some jobs are not as hands-on and require softer skills, however a good interviewer should be able to come up with a set of appropriate exercises.
If you want to find our whether people have the appropriate competencies for the job - make them do something relevant to the role. I was always stunned that in an interview for a developer role I was rarely asked to write code. This is what you are employing me to spend the majority of my time doing. I appreciate that some jobs are not as hands-on and require softer skills, however a good interviewer should be able to come up with a set of appropriate exercises.
CzechItOut said:
Competency based interviews are completely pointless. At a previous company they put us through competency based interview training (as interviewers). At the end of the session they had us do some role play. After my stint as interviewee everyone said what a good answer I gave. The problem was I MADE IT UP. How can you possibly expect to find a good candidate using a process which is so easy to game?
If you want to find our whether people have the appropriate competencies for the job - make them do something relevant to the role. I was always stunned that in an interview for a developer role I was rarely asked to write code. This is what you are employing me to spend the majority of my time doing. I appreciate that some jobs are not as hands-on and require softer skills, however a good interviewer should be able to come up with a set of appropriate exercises.
Technical skills arguably are easier to test. Technical competence alone though doesnt make somebody fully capable of competent to succeed in a role. A comptency interview doesn't have to take the form of a question and answer session or a traditional interview. If you want to find our whether people have the appropriate competencies for the job - make them do something relevant to the role. I was always stunned that in an interview for a developer role I was rarely asked to write code. This is what you are employing me to spend the majority of my time doing. I appreciate that some jobs are not as hands-on and require softer skills, however a good interviewer should be able to come up with a set of appropriate exercises.
Thesprucegoose said:
i find i make stuff up, i much prefer relaxed interviews talking about the actual role.
Talking about the role is great, but how do you then demonstrate you can do the job and are better than the others who have applied? Asking the question the other way round how does the interviewer benchmark one candidate against another and make reasoned judgements? They can talk at length about the role and what is expected but how will they find out whether you can do it and are the best person? Depends what you mean by competency interviews.
Let's speak initially for our practice for normal admin staff type jobs. Firstly the only ones who can get an interview are those who in their application have demonstrated their skills and experience as requested in the advert, AND backed it up with examples, examples plural is better. Yes that bit is easy to make stuff up and bs.
Second stage is a job related task, so if there is significant IT content that's easy to setup a relevant task, eg not much use if a candidate is expected to analyse and report data and fails miserably if asked to produce a simple pivot table. Someone for a call centre situation, and I'm not talking do you want a new boiler / PPI / had an accident type stuff, but where they have to converse with a caller and accurately get certain information and accurately record it, then a call is set up with an outline script, clear targets set, and then we see how it goes from there. If you're any good it's easy to setup relevant structured tasks and tests.
3 rd stage is the actual interview, sometimes the results of stage 2 are known, sometimes not, it all depends.
Yes it's not perfect, but there it is, seems reasonably efficient in sorting out candidates. Certainly ime the most hopeless individuals being asked to do something have come in from an agency. Then again you can get stars who just love agency work for all sorts of reasons so that broad brush categorisation doesn't work either. Also you can get applicants through the normal process that are an utter pita, but usually for reasons that you would have never discovered in an interview situation, eg a lazy fecker who just can't get out of bed in the morning.
But as first said, what do you mean by competency interviews? Let's face it, selection for military, special ops, SF, intelligence services, they are all effectively using a type of competency based interviews. Bit extreme in some cases but nevertheless. So for someone to write "meh competency interviews, pointless, you just bulls
t and game them" is a bit shallow and naive imo.
Let's speak initially for our practice for normal admin staff type jobs. Firstly the only ones who can get an interview are those who in their application have demonstrated their skills and experience as requested in the advert, AND backed it up with examples, examples plural is better. Yes that bit is easy to make stuff up and bs.
Second stage is a job related task, so if there is significant IT content that's easy to setup a relevant task, eg not much use if a candidate is expected to analyse and report data and fails miserably if asked to produce a simple pivot table. Someone for a call centre situation, and I'm not talking do you want a new boiler / PPI / had an accident type stuff, but where they have to converse with a caller and accurately get certain information and accurately record it, then a call is set up with an outline script, clear targets set, and then we see how it goes from there. If you're any good it's easy to setup relevant structured tasks and tests.
3 rd stage is the actual interview, sometimes the results of stage 2 are known, sometimes not, it all depends.
Yes it's not perfect, but there it is, seems reasonably efficient in sorting out candidates. Certainly ime the most hopeless individuals being asked to do something have come in from an agency. Then again you can get stars who just love agency work for all sorts of reasons so that broad brush categorisation doesn't work either. Also you can get applicants through the normal process that are an utter pita, but usually for reasons that you would have never discovered in an interview situation, eg a lazy fecker who just can't get out of bed in the morning.
But as first said, what do you mean by competency interviews? Let's face it, selection for military, special ops, SF, intelligence services, they are all effectively using a type of competency based interviews. Bit extreme in some cases but nevertheless. So for someone to write "meh competency interviews, pointless, you just bulls
t and game them" is a bit shallow and naive imo.Edited by FiF on Wednesday 8th August 06:49
My interpretation of a competency based interview is one which involves questions such as:
Can you give me an example of when you worked in a team
Describe a way in which you demonstrated excellent leadership
Give an example of how you've dealt with conflicting opinions from different parties
and so on.
Therefore generic questions designed to understand key competencies, communication, teamwork, problem-solving, leadership etc. but which are easy to game as you can work out what the right answer is and then make up a scenario which demonstrates this.
You're example of asking someone to set up a pivot table is in my opinion the perfect interview question. Either they know how to do it and can demonstrate it, they know their way around Excel and can work out how to create a pivot table, which shows problem-solving and initiative or they simply having got a clue and you can't bullst your way to a working pivot table.
Can you give me an example of when you worked in a team
Describe a way in which you demonstrated excellent leadership
Give an example of how you've dealt with conflicting opinions from different parties
and so on.
Therefore generic questions designed to understand key competencies, communication, teamwork, problem-solving, leadership etc. but which are easy to game as you can work out what the right answer is and then make up a scenario which demonstrates this.
You're example of asking someone to set up a pivot table is in my opinion the perfect interview question. Either they know how to do it and can demonstrate it, they know their way around Excel and can work out how to create a pivot table, which shows problem-solving and initiative or they simply having got a clue and you can't bulls
t your way to a working pivot table.They are poor in my opinion.
Better to have a human-to-human conversation. Such as
"so I notice project X on your CV. Tell me about it..."
"Oh, so Y happened, tell me what went on there. How did you resolve it and could you have foreseen this issue?"
" we see Z a lot in this type of work, how did you manage that?"
"...how did your stakeholders respond to that? What tactics did you employ..."
"what were the most useful lessons you learned on this project? If you could do it again, what would you do different?"
"how have you applied this elsewhere?"
etc
A general talk about their career ambitions will also tell you a lot.
The idea is not to ask people trick questions and get them in a tangle, but to talk through their projects and experiences, gauge their actual level of involvement and influence, experience and expertise and how they handle situations - particularly when things go wrong. All jobs are about problem solving yet through the typical interview process you are supposed to give a sanitised version of yourself. Things ALWAYS go wrong in work and business.
I see a lot of talk above about multiple stages to the interview process. Do you think a 3-4 stage approach works for all jobs? I don't.
Unless I'm going for a director or senior role (based on the size of the organisation or it's power in the market e.g. Google), I wouldn't entertain anything above 2 stages - with the first being a telephone/skype and the second in person. In fact, I recently had an interview at a very large global company for a senior role, and they did the multiple stages within one event - which meant you weren't visiting them back and forth several times, and they had all the senior people available in one venue. It was precisely for this reason: they don't want to annoy the best candidates.
I'm not saying I'm a great candidate, but in another interview process I was involved in a couple of months ago, it turned in to 3 stages and I declined to go any further after stage 2. The agenda was just stupid and in my view they had everything they needed from the first interview. I don't want to waste my time due to their indecision and lack of efficiency.
I think this idea of the old "power dominant" view of a company, which is like the sovereign nation/government model of a state where citizens are expected to be subservient - in this context "lucky" to get a job or grateful to even be in the room with these interviewers - is old fashioned. No matter if you are going for an entry role or a CEO, remember it's a sales process and they need you and your skills because you're the best, plus you have multiple other options (hopefully you have worked on those). Don't get cornered and bossed around - the market is big, find your place and exploit it.
Better to have a human-to-human conversation. Such as
"so I notice project X on your CV. Tell me about it..."
"Oh, so Y happened, tell me what went on there. How did you resolve it and could you have foreseen this issue?"
" we see Z a lot in this type of work, how did you manage that?"
"...how did your stakeholders respond to that? What tactics did you employ..."
"what were the most useful lessons you learned on this project? If you could do it again, what would you do different?"
"how have you applied this elsewhere?"
etc
A general talk about their career ambitions will also tell you a lot.
The idea is not to ask people trick questions and get them in a tangle, but to talk through their projects and experiences, gauge their actual level of involvement and influence, experience and expertise and how they handle situations - particularly when things go wrong. All jobs are about problem solving yet through the typical interview process you are supposed to give a sanitised version of yourself. Things ALWAYS go wrong in work and business.
I see a lot of talk above about multiple stages to the interview process. Do you think a 3-4 stage approach works for all jobs? I don't.
Unless I'm going for a director or senior role (based on the size of the organisation or it's power in the market e.g. Google), I wouldn't entertain anything above 2 stages - with the first being a telephone/skype and the second in person. In fact, I recently had an interview at a very large global company for a senior role, and they did the multiple stages within one event - which meant you weren't visiting them back and forth several times, and they had all the senior people available in one venue. It was precisely for this reason: they don't want to annoy the best candidates.
I'm not saying I'm a great candidate, but in another interview process I was involved in a couple of months ago, it turned in to 3 stages and I declined to go any further after stage 2. The agenda was just stupid and in my view they had everything they needed from the first interview. I don't want to waste my time due to their indecision and lack of efficiency.
I think this idea of the old "power dominant" view of a company, which is like the sovereign nation/government model of a state where citizens are expected to be subservient - in this context "lucky" to get a job or grateful to even be in the room with these interviewers - is old fashioned. No matter if you are going for an entry role or a CEO, remember it's a sales process and they need you and your skills because you're the best, plus you have multiple other options (hopefully you have worked on those). Don't get cornered and bossed around - the market is big, find your place and exploit it.
Just to point out a bit of detail.
My stages as written,
Stage 1 look at applications, make shortlist for interview
Day on interview(s)
Stage 2 job related task
Stage 3 immediately after stg 2 a face to face interview, from which a decision is made.
Not exactly long winded or a great imposition on anybody. Or would that be considered a 2 stage or 1 stage interview in your book?
Clearly 4 stages not including application review for shortlisting a general staff member is ridiculous, and even at very senior level it's questionable. As mentioned previously isn't selection for, say, Military or Special Forces just a multi stage competency interview? Not sure how you can reduce it to two max. / pedant
silent ninja said:
I see a lot of talk above about multiple stages to the interview process. Do you think a 3-4 stage approach works for all jobs? I don't.
There has been only one post earlier which mentions 3 stages, from me. Was there one talking about 4 stages? So not a lot of talk reallyMy stages as written,
Stage 1 look at applications, make shortlist for interview
Day on interview(s)
Stage 2 job related task
Stage 3 immediately after stg 2 a face to face interview, from which a decision is made.
Not exactly long winded or a great imposition on anybody. Or would that be considered a 2 stage or 1 stage interview in your book?
Clearly 4 stages not including application review for shortlisting a general staff member is ridiculous, and even at very senior level it's questionable. As mentioned previously isn't selection for, say, Military or Special Forces just a multi stage competency interview? Not sure how you can reduce it to two max. / pedant
silent ninja said:
They are poor in my opinion.
Better to have a human-to-human conversation. Such as
"so I notice project X on your CV. Tell me about it..."
"Oh, so Y happened, tell me what went on there. How did you resolve it and could you have foreseen this issue?"
" we see Z a lot in this type of work, how did you manage that?"
"...how did your stakeholders respond to that? What tactics did you employ..."
"what were the most useful lessons you learned on this project? If you could do it again, what would you do different?"
"how have you applied this elsewhere?"
etc
A general talk about their career ambitions will also tell you a lot.
The idea is not to ask people trick questions and get them in a tangle, but to talk through their projects and experiences, gauge their actual level of involvement and influence, experience and expertise and how they handle situations - particularly when things go wrong. All jobs are about problem solving yet through the typical interview process you are supposed to give a sanitised version of yourself. Things ALWAYS go wrong in work and business.
I see a lot of talk above about multiple stages to the interview process. Do you think a 3-4 stage approach works for all jobs? I don't.
Unless I'm going for a director or senior role (based on the size of the organisation or it's power in the market e.g. Google), I wouldn't entertain anything above 2 stages - with the first being a telephone/skype and the second in person. In fact, I recently had an interview at a very large global company for a senior role, and they did the multiple stages within one event - which meant you weren't visiting them back and forth several times, and they had all the senior people available in one venue. It was precisely for this reason: they don't want to annoy the best candidates.
I'm not saying I'm a great candidate, but in another interview process I was involved in a couple of months ago, it turned in to 3 stages and I declined to go any further after stage 2. The agenda was just stupid and in my view they had everything they needed from the first interview. I don't want to waste my time due to their indecision and lack of efficiency.
I think this idea of the old "power dominant" view of a company, which is like the sovereign nation/government model of a state where citizens are expected to be subservient - in this context "lucky" to get a job or grateful to even be in the room with these interviewers - is old fashioned. No matter if you are going for an entry role or a CEO, remember it's a sales process and they need you and your skills because you're the best, plus you have multiple other options (hopefully you have worked on those). Don't get cornered and bossed around - the market is big, find your place and exploit it.
A comptency based interview doesn't have to be a bunch of bland irrellevant staccato questions. What you have written in your opening part is a comptency based interview. Better to have a human-to-human conversation. Such as
"so I notice project X on your CV. Tell me about it..."
"Oh, so Y happened, tell me what went on there. How did you resolve it and could you have foreseen this issue?"
" we see Z a lot in this type of work, how did you manage that?"
"...how did your stakeholders respond to that? What tactics did you employ..."
"what were the most useful lessons you learned on this project? If you could do it again, what would you do different?"
"how have you applied this elsewhere?"
etc
A general talk about their career ambitions will also tell you a lot.
The idea is not to ask people trick questions and get them in a tangle, but to talk through their projects and experiences, gauge their actual level of involvement and influence, experience and expertise and how they handle situations - particularly when things go wrong. All jobs are about problem solving yet through the typical interview process you are supposed to give a sanitised version of yourself. Things ALWAYS go wrong in work and business.
I see a lot of talk above about multiple stages to the interview process. Do you think a 3-4 stage approach works for all jobs? I don't.
Unless I'm going for a director or senior role (based on the size of the organisation or it's power in the market e.g. Google), I wouldn't entertain anything above 2 stages - with the first being a telephone/skype and the second in person. In fact, I recently had an interview at a very large global company for a senior role, and they did the multiple stages within one event - which meant you weren't visiting them back and forth several times, and they had all the senior people available in one venue. It was precisely for this reason: they don't want to annoy the best candidates.
I'm not saying I'm a great candidate, but in another interview process I was involved in a couple of months ago, it turned in to 3 stages and I declined to go any further after stage 2. The agenda was just stupid and in my view they had everything they needed from the first interview. I don't want to waste my time due to their indecision and lack of efficiency.
I think this idea of the old "power dominant" view of a company, which is like the sovereign nation/government model of a state where citizens are expected to be subservient - in this context "lucky" to get a job or grateful to even be in the room with these interviewers - is old fashioned. No matter if you are going for an entry role or a CEO, remember it's a sales process and they need you and your skills because you're the best, plus you have multiple other options (hopefully you have worked on those). Don't get cornered and bossed around - the market is big, find your place and exploit it.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff