Just thought I'd have a quick look around a few job sites before going to bed. And stumbled upon a job that I must have missed on my last trawl, anyway it closes at midday tommorow. So I've just spent the best part of 90 minutes filling out compentency based questions, which do my head in. Some are alright but when you can't think of an answer for love nor money that it becomes a pain, especially when it states that any interview will go in to the answers in more detail, so it mean's I can't even wing it with a tall tale.
Never mind it's done now.

They're easy when you know what they're looking for

identify situation

talk about what you did

talk about the outcome

talk about what you learned

Look at it this way. The guy who actually gets the job, won't have any problems answering those questions.

Look at it this way. The guy who actually gets the job, won't have any problems answering those questions.

Yep, and he will be full of his own self importance and crap at his job.

Its the same with annual reviews, it seems to have absolved managements responsibility to know even the simplest details about the work done by their teams, and just favours those who can bullshit talk a good game.

I never seem to have any problems with those competancy based job applications.

Hey! Wait a minute….

Heaven forbid that anyone should have to demonstrate their ability to do the job they are applying for rather than rely on x years experience of doing a role they were never very good at!

The world is full of people who've managed to get by because management were inept at identifying and differentiating good and poor performance. Competency based approaches make the system far more effecient.

I could understand if the questions related to the role, but they didn't. Any role advertised by that company have the same questions, which for some role's may be appropriate but for the one I went for, I very much doubt it.
But I've pressed the magic send button, so I'll soon see if they liked my responses.

I once inherited some who'd got their jobs because they were 'competent'…, they may have been competent to do the job, but that was a world of difference away from actually doing the job.

My wife is a manager in the Civil service and has to use competence based application forms and interviews in order to recruit (both internally and externally).

She says it is a fundamentally flawed approach to recruitment as it removes any reference to personality, experience or actual ability to do the job. As long as the applicant can talk the talk, they will get through. Whether they have the personality or potential to fulfil the role is irrelevant and taken out of the interviewing panel's hands.

geetee1972 – Member

The world is full of people who've managed to get by because management were inept at identifying and differentiating good and poor performance. Competency based approaches make the system far more effecient.

Sorry geetee, I beg to differ.

The way the system is implemented in the Civil Service, it simply does not allow a manager to use their skill, experience and judgement to differentiate between good and poor performance. They have boxes to tick and that is all.

I had a competency based interview a few years ago, it was almost comically easy – just talking the talk as you say.

They have boxes to tick and that is all.

yeah but then at the face to face interview they gain an assessment of the sort of person you are and what your capabilities are even though that too is competancy based. It's easy for them to manufacture the interview to find out what they need, or it's easy for anyone who know's what they're doing. The competancy stuff just gets rid of all the people who have no hope of doing the job, the real assessment comes when you start talking to them.

Mine went ok too. I was asked if I had ever had anything to do with disc brakes on a bike, if I knew there were other companies making gears than Shimano and if I knew how to make tea. I said yes to all of them, added I could make coffee too, talked some bull***t with the guy and got the job.
Not sure if the fact he's a builder who was opening a bike shop and had no idea helped…

I said yes to all of them

So you lied then?

😉

This is my job so it is a subject I happen to know a lot about.
I was far too hasty in the remark about people not being competent in their role, so I take it back, although it does happen.
First off, personality has almost no correlation with job performance. The best you can get to with personality as a measure of likely performance is about 0.15-0.2 and it’s extremely risky to use it at all, certainly you could find yourself in litigation if you’re not careful.
Secondly, competency based interviews on their own are also relatively poorly correlated with likely performance. However, when done properly and used in conjunction with an assessment of personality and experience, you can get to a correlation coefficient of about 0.3 maybe 0.4.
The crux here is that you are looking to try and make a judgement at a simple level on a person’s capability for a role and at a more advanced level, their likely performance. If you use a combination of personality measures, structured competency based interviews, cognitive reasoning (where appropriate) and simulations, then you can get pretty good correlation coefficients, up to 0.7 in some instances.
The reason that some of the competency interviews don’t appear to be relevant to a given role is likely because that organisation has made a judgement that regardless of the role, there are some competencies (i.e. capabilities, skills, behaviours, knowledge) that they regard as being key to supporting their organisational strategy even if they aren’t immediately relevant to the role.

yeah but then at the face to face interview they gain an assessment of the sort of person you are and what your capabilities are even though that too is competancy based. It's easy for them to manufacture the interview to find out what they need, or it's easy for anyone who know's what they're doing. The competancy stuff just gets rid of all the people who have no hope of doing the job, the real assessment comes when you start talking to them.

Samuri,
Maybe it's just the way the civil service have implemented the system, but they still have boxes to tick at the face-to-face interviews too. It's bobbins.

One example of many…. MrsG was on an interview panel that rejected a person wanting to do a sideways move (same grade) from running a small court office to a team-leader role in a much bigger facility. This person had efficiently run this small office for several years (it was closing because of cost cuts). She answered all of the questions honestly and openly, if she couldn't talk exactly and in detail about a competence, she said so and, consequently, got a cross in the box. The girl who got the position blagged the interview, but ticked more boxes. MrsG could spot the bullsh!t, but the others on the panel weren't having it. The successful candidate is rubbish at her role, the team is failing and she is despised (apparently, she is an arrogant cow who does not have the respect of her team).

And yes, the original manager went to her union (PCS) who were completely useless.

That sounds like an issue with the people running the interview.

The civil service process is complete bobbins I agree, having recently been through it. But they hired me so it must work reasonably well. 😉

The girl who got the position blagged the interview, but ticked more boxes. MrsG could spot the bullsh!t, but the others on the panel weren't having it

This is the best evidence there is to show that simulations are the best way to assess for capability. But the problem is that they are expensive to run.

I've been through a civil service selection process recently and it was truly the very best selection methodology I've seen, right up there with the best that the private sector uses. And yes it used simulations extensively.

geetee, I can't comment on "simulations" as I have no idea what you're talking about – way over my head (that and the correlation coefficients!).

All I can say is that MrsG (with 18 years service) is so disillusioned with the way the service is being run that she's going to chuck it all in. She applied for voluntary redundancy but was refused. Now she's just going to walk away. All quite sad really.

Fred – that is a shame but on an optimistic note, the fact that she applied for VR and was refused is about as positive an endorsement as your wife could get from her employer. They obviously value her very highly to refuse a voluntary request for redundancy, i.e. one that causes them no pain.
One individual cannot change the way a system as large as the civil service works, but she obviously has a degree of influence and if she could find a way to leverage that, she might be able to change a few small but meaningful ways in which the system works. That would be a big reward for one individual.
Failing that, does she know what she wants to do instead?

She applied for voluntary redundancy but was refused. Now she's just going to walk away. All quite sad really.

Has she applied recently? Maybe she should hang fire a bit and try again in a few months. They may well feel differently after certain announcements have been made.

/taps side of nose

I think that's been her problem geetee, she really wants to make a difference; to help people out, to allow them to develop. She's had enough of the wading through treacle.

I know I'm biased, but she's a great girl and despairs at the way parts of the civil service seems very good at destroying the hopes and ambitions of some of it's brightest staff; simply because they can't work the system. One girl in her current location came in as a bright, bubbly, enthusiastic Graduate. She's been there just under a year and leaves the office in tears at least twice a week. Her manager, just doesn't get it. It breaks MrsG's heart to see it, but there's nothing she can do. No way to escalate it higher up the chain of command. She's spoken to the girls manager, but he doesn't give a sh*t. An attitude that is endemic, unfortunately.

As for what she wants to do instead? Last night, I saw her searching the internet for admin/clerical jobs at schools in the area. A big change and, I believe, a waste of her talents (not to mention serious drop in salary)

EDIT: Samuri, she applied around 12 months ago. I'm not sure she'll be able to hand on much longer. Good point though.

EDIT #2: Apologies for the hijack Luke.

Fred – what exactly is her current role? If I can offer some suggestions about how she might transfer her skills (ahem, competencies) then I will.

She's an HEO (or whatever grade it is now). Has managed several county courts, Tribunals offices and is now a Team Lead in the OPG.

If you want to go to e-mails, mine is in my profile.

Thanks Geetee.