There is often a lot of nervousness around interviews, and the worry is entirely justified. Sure, some people can do a bad application, simply because they don’t know what a government application requires, but once you learn that, you should be able to get screened in for anything that you have sufficient experience for which to apply. For the written exams, it doesn’t look a whole lot different from a school test, so people know how to study. In other words, you can control your performance in a fairly predictable fashion and with some practice, get a good or at least passing mark. But interviews are often viewed as a different beast.
Some people think it is because the interviewer is trying to “trick” them, but that’s rarely the case in a government interview. There are no “tricks or traps” at the sub-EX level, and while they are more difficult to prepare for, you CAN indeed improve your preparation so that your outcome is also improved. But nervousness, and the artificial nature of government interviews, often means you can be perfectly prepared and yet still bomb the interview. It happens.
In my view, most of that nervousness comes from worrying beforehand about what questions they’ll be asking and what they’ll be looking for…yet both are entirely knowable.
Five types of interviews
There are five types of government interviews, ranging from the casual up to the very formal.
- Informational Interview – where you are asking for a meeting with someone, and you have no idea if they have any jobs available;
- Casual Deployment Interview – often when people move around in government, they do so because they have heard that manager x or y is looking for someone, or that manager already knows you and has reached out directly, and so you’re having a casual conversation about what they do and what your interests are, just seeing if there is mutual interest;
- Formal Deployment Interview – this is where the manager has announced a position at level, and you have formally applied, often without knowing the manager or other staff in the area;
- Formal Competition Interview – this is the “full” interview that most people fear the most, and will be the main focus of this chapter; and,
- The Best Fit Interview – this is after you have made a “pool” and you are meeting with a hiring manager to talk a bit informally about the exact position and your interests (looking very much like a hybrid of the second and third ones above).
A. The Informational Interview
For those not recognizing the term, an informational interview is where you basically want to talk to someone about their area of work to find out what life is like working in that area, if there are jobs available, or what openings might be coming up, etc. So you have cold-called (or cold-emailed) them and asked if they would be free for a meeting for coffee. Or got a friend to introduce you and then you asked if they have time for a chat.
Now, let`s be frank. Most people asking for informational interviews are really saying, “Hey, wanna hire me?”. But they have learned, or been advised by people like me, that if you ask to meet with someone to talk about openings in their area, the person will usually decline to meet with you. They’re not being rude, they’re being practical. If they had an opening, they would advertise it, and you would have to apply through the main system; if they don’t, they can easily say “no, we don’t have anything available” and avoid wasting their time and yours.
By contrast, if you contact them and ask for a chance to meet with them to get some advice from them, the person might find it hard to say no. Partly because THAT response is kind of rude, partly because they remember when they were in the same boat and someone gave them info they didn’t already have or met with them to give them some insights, and partly because people like talking about themselves and you’ve already flattered them by suggesting they are worthy of meeting with to pick their giant, knowledgeable brains!
Plus, if you are in government, there is a component of your job that is supposed to be about building the public service so there’s almost a values-and-ethics component that encourages you as a manager to say yes to these types of requests. No, that doesn’t mean the Deputy Minister or CEO of a crown corporation will meet with anyone who asks, i.e. they’ll almost always delegate if you waste your time even asking, but managers and middle managers often (almost to the level of “usually”, but not quite) will say yes to a request for an info interview.
Remember though that you are asking for an info interview…so what are you going to get out of that? Information and advice.
To make sure you get the most out of the interview, you should do some basic research into what their organization does, and if you can, what their own group does. Do NOT go into the interview knowing nothing about them. You need to show you invested some time in preparing (not to impress them, just so you look professional). Some people think, “Oh, if I can ask 500 Qs about the area, I’ll show how interested I am” but what you’ll really show is how unfocused you are. Figure out what areas you want to ask about in advance, particularly in case the person throws the ball back to you and says, “So, what do you want to know about?”.
Depending on how advanced your career is at this point, you have two choices for an opening gambit:
- If you’re already in government and have been for a little while, you can start with a very short “pitch” about yourself to say, “Well, I’ve been in government for x years now, and mostly doing [x]. I really enjoy [aspect y], and I think I’ve developed some degree of skill at [aspect z]. But I’m thinking ahead to the types of areas I might want to work in some day, and your area seems like one where I might be able to build on those experiences and skills. So I was mostly hoping you could tell me about the type of work that the units in your area do, and if I’m on the right track with my background so far.”
I have to confess, I love this opening. Obviously, based on your research, you’re going to have chosen examples for [x], [y] and [z] that not only reflect your skills and experience but also link directly to their work. You did your research, you have some idea what they do and need, at least at a high-level, and you think you might be a fit. On top of it, you have said “SOME DAY” to take the pressure off that you’re looking for something NOW, which allows him or her to be more open if they wish. In addition, you have given them three openings [x, y, z] for them to talk about how they fit within their area. It gets them talking. Plus, you asked them to tell you if you’re on the right track.
- If you are new to government or outside government, you can start with a short pitch about yourself to say, “Well, I have a background in [x] and some work experience in [y]. I really enjoy [x2, y2] and they seemed like areas that I might be able to use in your area. Unfortunately, I’m having trouble breaking in, partly because I don’t know enough about the type of work that is done on a day to day basis, or where I could aim to start. So I was mostly hoping you could tell me about the type of work that the units in your area do, and if I’m on the right track with my background so far.”
This one is really challenging to nuance. Why? Because you’re being self-deprecating to get them to give you targeted info, but at the same time, you want to impress them enough that they think highly of you in the future. Most important, though, is that you are not saying “How can YOU help ME break in?”. You’re just asking for info and advice.
At this point, you have accomplished the trifecta for getting good info and advice from them — your personal profile + your skills/competencies/interests + their knowledge of their area.
Note that it’s good if you can make it a real conversation rather than an interrogation, and while you are often trying to fake your way into a job interview, you should try to keep your personal “pitch” about yourself relatively short. You’re there to listen, not talk about yourself or show off what YOU know about their job. If they want to know more about your experience, they’ll ask. One key take-away that you’re likely to get, if you focus correctly, is a better understanding of what other skills you might need to get into the industry. If the conversation stalls, you can even prompt to say, “What other skills, beyond the ones that I mentioned, do you think people entering your area should have?”
The other tip for the conversation is you want to be able to ask some intelligent questions…preferably one that shows some relatively straight-forward linkage. It’s good, for example, to ask how some of the research they might describe gets translated into recommendations — is it done by the same team, or is it handed off to someone else? Or if it was about Gs&Cs, does the same team do the review of proposals and the monitoring of projects (i.e. like CIDA) or is it separated (i.e. like most other departments who have separate delivery arms)? Do NOT try to come up with some brilliant question that you know nothing about just to use some big words…”So, I see you have a lot of technology supporting your delivery…how are you set up for block-chain conversion?” might be a great question in the right context, but just throwing it into your conversation willy-nilly will likely just make you look like an idiot. If in your research, you found out their program was recently in the news, and you both read and understood the articles, you can make a small leap to draw linkages to it, but I wouldn’t go much further.
So now you have covered “you”, “what the jobs require”, gaps you might need to fill, and ensuring it all ran like a normal conversation.
That only leaves one area remaining — asking advice on how to proceed. Now, obviously, if they just said “you need experiences [a,b,c]” you don’t want to say “So what should I do next?” as an open-ended question. But you can say, “So, I need to expand into experiences [a,b,c]. Are there areas where others on your team have gained those experiences where you think I could follow in their footsteps?”. It doesn’t have to be that precise, it depends on the conversation, but it should be somewhat pointed. You want specific advice, so you should try to be specific.
As a final tip, you also want to try to manage the duration of the meeting and respect their time. If they say they’ll give you 30 minutes, keep it to 30. You want to end smoothly, not like a timekeeper who blows the whistle and then rushes out the door, but do try to respect the duration and manage your time accordingly. You will also likely be able to tell if they’re feeling rushed to do something else or not. Take their cue. And I will readily confess that this is a “do as I say, not as I do” type tip. I regularly get involved in great conversations with future bosses, and what should have been 30 minutes is now an hour or more, just because we got into the issues. I like to think if they were hating the conversation they would shoo me out, and they didn’t. But they’ll also respect you more if you respect their time.
And when it’s over, if you want to follow-up, do so with gratitude, not a bunch of requests.
I know, I know, a lot of people told you to do the interviews to network, to build your contacts. And the secondary purposes of the interviews — gain exposure, build a contact network, or even leverage it towards a job — are all possible, but you need to manage your expectations. After all, you started the conversation by asking for information. Sometimes, that’s all it will turn out to be.
Yes, you made a contact. But not every person you meet will create a “lasting relationship” or a lasting network contact. Nor are they automatically your BFF, so don’t start spamming them. You’ll know (or should know) if the person is open to further contact or not, or if you felt a connection or not. Sometimes you’re going to meet with someone where there’s no connection, no chemistry, and it’s just not a good fit. Maybe they’re busy, maybe they’re not very friendly, maybe they’re just plain jerks. Or maybe they just don’t like you. It happens.
But you didn’t ask them on a date looking for lifelong romance, you asked them for information and advice. And, hopefully, if you manage it right, that’s what you got.
B. Casual deployment
Once you are in government, people often move simply through deployment. Deployments are lateral moves exactly at level i.e. no promotion involved, and because of that, it is a lot less complex and formal than some of the other types of moves. You are already “appointed” at level, i.e. someone already ran a competition and appointed you at that level so the “proof” of you meriting that level has already been done…the only paperwork to do in a deployment is for the manager to say how you meet the criteria.
Of course, just to confuse things, you can find out about deployments either through a very formal process (such as it being advertised) or just generally through the grapevine. For example, you hear that a manager is looking for someone at your level. Or perhaps a former boss told you there was someone looking. Either way, you want the job.
Reaching out to them is a lot like the cold-call process, although you might use a bit of a hook if a friend or colleague or former boss is referring you to them. You’ll provide a copy of your resume, express your interest in the position or at least in having a conversation with them if they’re interested, and you’ll give them a short email to grab their interest. Preferably something like “I have 3 years working in a similar job and I’m looking for a change”, and then a few lines explaining the type of work you are doing that is similar to their opening.
Chances are that they are going to be interviewing several people, and I hesitate to even call them candidates because it is all informal. No rating guide prepared, no formal job description, no formal questions. Really, they’re just meeting people to see if there is a match of interest. If there is, they’ll check some references, maybe ask for a writing sample, etc., narrow it down a bit more. But they are only going to do that if there was a match, or to use the official parlance, a “right fit” between you and their opening.
The interview is going to be very informal, and will run one of two ways:
a. They’ll start by telling you what the job is, and then you’ll describe how some of your experience relates to it; or,
b. They’ll let you tell them something about yourself, and then they’ll tell you about the job.
I know, I know. You’re thinking the second option would be stupid. Except you are reaching out to them. They think you already know about the job, or you wouldn’t be interested. Ninety percent of the time, you’re going to start by asking them to tell you a bit about the job, and then you’ll be back in option (a). Which sounds normal, safe, logical. You may not want that option though, and I’ll explain later why.
First, let’s assume they describe the job. It’s going to look a lot like they’re writing Statement of Merit Criteria for a formal posting. They’re going to mention, for example, that you’ll have to do a lot of writing of different documents, maybe some briefings, lots of working as part of a team, etc. Which if they were writing a SOMC would be the essential experience requirement. But instead of writing a cover letter, you’re now going to tell them orally how you have experience that meets those requirements.
The position requires a lot of writing of different documents? You’ll outline the different types of writing that you have done and for whom. The position requires teamwork? Well, you’ll tell them about your experiences working as part of a team.
Seems straightforward, and on the surface it is. They ask you basic questions about your experience, and you answer them. No difficult questions or scenarios, it is all about your past experience. With a very open-ended question like, “Tell us about your experiences.” It will likely be that informal.
Under the surface, it is a bit more complicated. While you are talking, they are asking themselves three questions…first, of course they are seeing if you have the experiences they require. Second, they are asking themselves if you’re someone they want to work with in the future. Simple personality aspects. And third, are you a good fit for the team and the work?
Let me give you an example. I’ve been working in planning for awhile now, as well as lots of work in horizontal policy coordination. Lots of people with evaluation or research backgrounds often gravitate towards the area when they are looking for a change. Except the work environment is quite different. While an evaluator or a researcher might work on files with similar content, they often have one or two large projects and a six-month window (or longer) to deliver. The corporate policy and planning world is more dynamic. It has work schedules and file priorities changing rapidly and often. Which, to be honest, a lot of evaluators and researchers not only do not enjoy, but they also are often ill-suited to the work pace. It’s not their strength, experience or training. Some of them can do it, some of them can even do it well, but many are not happy doing it. Because it isn’t just a matter of “coping” with the high degree of uncertainty and change, as if it happens a couple of times a year, it is potentially several times a week.
So, when I am hiring, I often tell people that about the work we do. And see how they react. If they are stressed by the description, they will not be a good fit. If they tell me they can “cope” with it, I probe harder. I need to see some examples of where they have done it before and thus not only know what it’s like, but are still seeking to do it again.
For me, that’s a key “fit” variable. I need to know too that they will fit into the team, flexible, willing to share files, willing to cover for people if priorities shift. For my type of work, ownership of a file is frequently an illusion. For someone who likes having a project all to themselves, my team isn’t the right fit for them, and they are not the right fit for my team.
That isn’t cut and dried by any imagination of course. It’s more a feeling of whether they fit. Combined with the way they interact on an interpersonal level. How they describe their former jobs. What animates them in their descriptions, what they shy away from in other descriptions.
I absolutely need to know they can handle the job, sure, but I also need to know if I want them in the team at all. I’ll be even a bit more blunt. There are people who would be aces for the work content, but are absolute jerks to work with on a day-to-day basis. They’re borderline toxic. Why would I risk putting one of them on my team? It’s a lateral unadvertised deployment. We’re just having a conversation. I won’t pursue it, because I will see who else is out there.
Equally though, if you prefer solo projects and your potential future boss tells you the jobs is highly variable for work loads and file priorities are constantly changing, then that team is probably not right for you either. You’re also evaluating them…would I like the work? Would I like to work with this boss? Would I like to work with this team?
Now, as I said, the questions are almost going to be entirely about your past experiences. Which is a giant danger, because it can be rather dry and formal if you let it. You want this to be as close to a conversation as it can be. You want some back and forth. You want it to stay informal, because that’s how they’re going to see if you would work as part of the team.
Which brings me back to the reverse situation where they ask you to tell them about yourself before they tell you about the job. I mentioned you can invert that, put them back in the lead, and that works if you are risk-adverse.
Why might you leave it inverted? Because it is a highly-effective sales strategy to tell them about yourself and your interests before they tell you about the job. I call it the “reverse sell”, and I found it by accident.
About ten years ago, I was looking around for a change. I wasn’t a planner by trade, but I had done it in previous jobs, and I heard about a manager with an opening in another branch. I didn’t know them, they didn’t know me. I sent him an email, said I heard he was looking for a manager on the corporate side, and gave him a brief hook or two of things I had done, plus my resume. He suggested we meet, and it was right away. I agreed to meet, but I was taking a huge tactical risk — I knew very little about their exact work, or even their branch. I had some idea, but normally I would have done more research before going in to see him. With little time, I went in cold.
And he started with an inverted opening for me to tell him about myself. So I did. I talked about some of my previous experiences, and anticipating some of the type of work the jobs in his area would do, I mentioned things that I had enjoyed in previous jobs that were similar, without pointing it out. For example, I noted that I really liked the link between policy and programs. I had been doing high-end policy work for awhile and was looking for a change, something with more ties to programs, but I wasn’t looking to move into the “weeds” of running programs. All of this was true, I wasn’t lying, but I was selecting it because I knew that corporate planning often intersects with both policy and programs. And so I said I was looking for that and enjoyed it.
As he responded, he said that he too liked that aspect, and it was exactly what his division dealt with every day. He went on to explain the work they did, and how it related to what I said, and part of me was thinking, “Well, duh. That’s why I said it.” It was almost like I was applying to work at a carnival selling peanuts and I had said I liked selling things, particularly food, and the boss was explaining to me how that would be a good fit for me. Of course it would be, that’s why I said it.
Except a funny thing seemed to happen. While he was “selling me” on the job and how it fit my needs/desires, he was also selling himself on me. By inverting the order so I went first, the “selling” job was all his by going second and making the linkages for what the job was that he had to fill. He sold me, and he sold himself on how I would fit. It was the easiest interview I have ever had. I barely had to tailor any of my experiences to the job, other than presenting it well up front.
I have used the same technique in other situations, and it actually has some validation by classic “sales” techniques that are taught in business schools. But I just found it by accident, I wasn’t trying to game the interview. It just worked out really well.
So that’s it. You find out about a job opening at level, you see if they’ll meet with you, and you tell them about your experiences in as conversational a tone as possible. Maybe there’s a good fit, maybe there’s not. Or maybe someone else is a better fit.
If the fit happens, they can deploy you relatively quickly. Far faster than formal processes, which is why the option is so popular.
C. Formal deployment
The formal deployment interview is where the manager has advertised a position at level, and you have formally applied, often without knowing the manager or other staff in the area. The easiest example of this is where a manager at another department, say Environment Canada, has announced an AS-04 position as a deployment and it is open to those at level who work across the National Capital Region, and you work at perhaps Foreign Affairs and want to apply.
Maybe you have always wanted to work at Environment Canada; maybe you live on the Quebec side and would rather not commute across the river any more; maybe the AS-04 has some supervisory functions that you want to add to your resume. For whatever reason, you have applied because you are already an AS-04 and would like the job.
You will do the full cover letter approach described earlier — you will explain how you have the experience they are looking for, you meet the eligibility criteria, you have the education required, etc. But this is where it gets weird for the manager.
It isn’t a competition — you are already at level, so there is no “proof” required to show you merit the level, that’s already done. And, to be honest, it would put the government potentially in a weird position to have people go through a reassessment of their abilities again anyway … what would happen if you fail? Does that mean the competition was flawed, or that you really aren’t at level, or was it just you having an off-day? None of those are good outcomes. So you are already at the same level, full stop. The manager moves to the “best fit” criteria, right?
Which would mean they would call you in, ask you some informal questions (like the previous post), decide if you’re the right fit or not, and select someone. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. Which is also why deployments are popular with managers. They’re supposed to be easy.
Except I just ran an EC-06 full deployment process. I was fortunate enough that there were only a handful of viable candidates, and I interviewed all of them. No “screening” process — if they were initially eligible, as they were, I gave them a shot at the interview. Think of it as a very low bar on the experience criteria. I did have a fairly straightforward set of questions, three of them, and I asked each of them the same ones. Not formally written-out like a full rating guide, but they all got the same three questions. While all of the candidates were possible, i.e. they could all have done the job, one of the candidates was by far the most qualified for what I was looking for in this specific instance. I still had all three give me writing samples and names of references. I reviewed the writing samples, and the “strong” candidate was still in the lead, so I moved on to reference checks — which I only did for him. Because it is not a competition, I didn’t need to fully assess all the candidates.
In fact, I technically wasn’t assessing them at all. Not their knowledge, abilities, or personal suitability. They are already at level. So as a manager, I’m not supposed to “re-evaluate” them and asign scores.
Yet when I was done everything, and went to select the strong candidate, HR started asking me for copies of my rating guide, my score results, all the things I would do if it was a competition, but it wasn’t. I pushed back, and they said, “Oh right, you don’t need that, but it’s a good idea anyway, so give it to us anyway.”
And that is the weird part for the manager. I am legally barred by regulation and tribunal decisions from re-evaluating candidates, yet I also am supposed to provide some sort of formal “non-evaluation evaluation process” to select the candidates. Most HR people have no idea what that actually means so they default to asking for all the things in a competition. Equally, many managers get their advice from those same HR people and end up doing what they’re supposed to avoid — formally evaluating the candidates.
A friend of mine just went for what I thought was a competition, and I was advising her on all the steps (see next section) for a formal competition. Then, she said it was deployment at level. So I told her the steps from the previous section (informal). She did a hybrid of both, and it was a good thing because one of the first things they asked her was a very formal knowledge question. Something they are NOT supposed to do. If it even hints at a process that is re-evaluating candidates at level, it’s grounds to have the whole process tossed.
Yet many managers do it anyway.
Here’s what you SHOULD prepare for if it is a formal deployment interview:
- Review the knowledge elements and do some basic prep (sort of a lite version of the next section);
- Review the abilities and personal suitability elements, and have an example to use in conversation if they ask you about your past experiences (again, sort of a lite version of the next section); and,
- Prepare a couple of speech modules of your background — perhaps a 5 minute version and a 2 minute version of your “elevator pitch”.
Will that cover all scenarios? Not completely. If it is a job that you REALLY REALLY REALLY want, do the full prep of the next section, just in case. But most often, this should cover you in case the managers don’t know what they’re doing and “test” you on elements anyway.
D. Formal competition
When I started this chapter, I said there were five types of interviews. While that is true, it is also true that each of the five are variations on a theme — or, alternatively, across a spectrum. The formal competition interview is at the most extreme end of the spectrum, and requires the most preparation.
Normally, a “full” interview is when you are doing a full competition to get a job at a level higher than you currently are now or perhaps at the beginning of your career in order to get into the public service. Since you are not at level, the competition has to test you on all the elements in the poster to show you that you are capable of meeting each of the criteria.
As outlined previously, most of the “experience” and “eligibility” elements were tested during the upfront application process. Some of the knowledge was likely tested through a written exam, and some of the personal suitability elements will be tested through reference checks. This means that the interview is primarily about testing your abilities, as well as some personal suitability factors and potentially some knowledge.
But before you prepare for the content, you need to think about what you are about to do. They are going to ask you questions and then you’re going to answer, that’s obvious. And they’ll mark your answer, which is also obvious.
While the goal is always to make the interview seem like a comfortable conversation, remember that you are being marked for what you say. It is very formal. You can’t assume someone already knows something — if you don’t cover it, they don’t hear it to mark it. Take for example a situation where you have been giving briefings for some time. And you know that one of the most important things in briefings is to tailor your presentation to the audience. So you’re fully prepared to highlight that in your interview.
Then you get in there and realize one of the interviewers is an old boss from another division. One that trained you on how to do presentations, including to always tailor presentations. So you relax. They know you. They know your history. And so, if you are like most people having a conversation with someone you know, you may tend not to stay the obvious things that you both know to be true. You may even feel a little silly to say to an old boss, “Well, I believe the most important thing is to tailor a presentation to your audience.” Because he or she already knows that you know it. Which means, like many candidates in interviews with people they know, you may forget to mention something obvious. But if you don’t say it during the interview, you don’t get any marks for it. You are marked ONLY for what you say during that time.
And most important of all? It’s going to seem like a monologue. They ask you a question, and when you start talking, they shut up. They take notes on everything you say until you tell them (or it’s clear) that you’re done answering the question. It will NOT seem like a conversation, and the people doing the interview may not even make eye contact because they’ll be busy taking notes. It is very unnerving for some people. You need to know they aren’t being rude, they’re just taking notes. And they are NOT allowed to prompt you very much. If you miss a small element, they might prompt you to elaborate on something. But here’s the thing…if they prompt YOU, they have to ensure they prompt everyone. Or the process won’t be fair. So, rather than risk unfairness, they will NOT prompt you if you miss something, even if it’s obvious.
However, they do sometimes ask you if you have anything to add. That is NOT a prompt for you to actually keep talking or that you must have missed something..it’s more often than not just them making sure you are done with that answer and they can move to the next question.
So think about that…formal questions, formal answers, and you doing a lot of talking, likely with little interactions with the members of the board. Assuming a standard interview, your answer to an individual question will last somewhere between 5 and 8 minutes. Which means you are going to talk for on average 6 minutes without them saying anything. Can you do that without practice, in an organized fashion, without repeating yourself?
Most people cannot do it. They talk in circles. They get nervous. They repeat themselves. They start digressing. They repeat themselves again. And all the time the markers are listening to your answer and awarding points.
There are only three strategies to manage this challenge:
- Practice…you can practice talking about an area (see below) on your own or with a friend, you can participate in multiple competitions so you get experience in doing it, or you might even try joining something like ToastMasters;
- Prepare…you will see lots of explanation below on how to prepare your answers in advance so that you’re not trying to think on your feet; and,
- Structure your answer.
If structure is king for a written exam, it is queen for an interview.
You want to give an answer that is logical, easy to follow, detailed, well-developed, and answers all the elements that are needed for that question to get full marks. The markers need to take notes, and they’ll award your score based on the notes they take. If they have trouble following you, any trouble at all, you lose marks. It is that simple. So you need to always be clear with your answer — where you’re going, what you’re saying, when you’re done.
For example, if you start your answer by saying you have four parts, three phases, five elements, or even eight, they know that you are now going to tell them 3, 4, 5 or 8 things. And they are structuring their notes accordingly. They’re probably even organizing them already with numbers in order for 1, 2, and 3. You have already given them a logical, easy to follow structure. That’s half your marks right there. Now all you have to do is populate your answer. (To be frank, if you are going beyond 4 or 5 things in ANY answer, you’re likely too far into the weeds, but you get the picture.)
But fear not, intrepid candidate. Candidates have been given a small advantage since about 2004/2005. Since then, candidates are usually invited to arrive about 30 minutes ahead of the interview. What happens in that thirty minutes? They’ll put you in a room, take away your notes and any cell phones, etc., and they’ll let you look at the questions for 30 minutes. And let you outline your answers a bit, take some basic notes to guide your answers. Everyone thinks this is all about helping the candidate, but it is mainly to help the markers.
Before the candidates were given this type of 30 minute preparation/review period, they would just get the questions cold in the interview room. Spontaneous, everyone said. Deadly, the markers said. Why? Because people would do the same three things when the question was asked.
- Stall. Say things like, “That’s a very good question, thank you for asking. I think that is one of the most important questions you could have asked me. I’m really glad you asked me. In fact, I would have been surprised if you didn’t ask me that extremely interesting question. I think it is the core of the job, that question there.” Were they really that bad? Not all of them, but some were. They were just talking to fill space while they thought of what their answer would be.
- Pause. Some would also punctuate their answers with “er” and “um” as they stopped talking to think about what they wanted to say next.
- Repeat. This would be kind of like them saying, “Thank you for that question. I think the three most important things are A, B and C. So, yes indeed, A is important. B is important too. And so is C. Yes, C is very important. Linked of course to A, which is also important. But B is in the mix too. Yes indeed, C, B, and A are important. Did I mention B enough?” I exaggerate of course, but sometimes marking “spontaneous” answers seems a lot like that. They aren’t saying anything, they’re just repeating everything they already said. It still happens for another reason with the current process, but I’ll deal with that element later.
For now, rest assured, a good structure to each answer not only helps you as a candidate but also reduces the pain for interviewers of watching a candidate flounder simply because they didn’t have a good answer on the spot when they were in an artificial environment, under the spotlight, and nervous.
Let me digress to tell you about my interview with Foreign Affairs and how I found out about the importance of structure. It was under the old style, questions were not seen in advance, you just went in “cold” to the room.
I was given a scenario question where I was the Public Affairs Officer in Bonn, Germany, Rick Hansen was coming to town, I needed to organize an event, and I had no budget for it…what would I do? I started with the simple stall as I desperately tried to think of what to actually do. So I started with, “Well, I think the first thing I would do is check our files for similar events in the files to see if we had previous situations like this and how we handled them.” A nice conservative start, I thought. Except there was a woman on the board whose body language was EXTREMELY overt and easy to read. I actually saw her roll her eyes, so I knew it wasn’t the answer that they wanted.
I zigged sideways and started again. “Now let’s assume that I check the files, and I find nothing. No ideas at all, and I’m starting from scratch.” The woman almost dropped her pen. She smiled, looked up at me, clearly now interested. I had taken the question out of the comfort zone, and she was now ready to hear what I would really say.
Confession time. I might have zigged out of that first stalling hole, but I had NOTHING. No idea whatsoever. So I reached into my bag of magic tricks and said, “Let’s look at the question a little more closely. I have to have an event, and I can’t pay for it. But that can be nuanced three ways, and it gives me some ideas. First, one interpretation is that I can’t be the one to pay for the event, but perhaps I could find a sponsor. Perhaps there’s a disability association in Germany who would like to honour Rick’s work. Second, another interpretation is that I can’t pay for the event, but perhaps there’s an event we’ve already paid for where we could add Rick in some capacity. Perhaps there’s an event celebrating Canadian-German relations, and our special guest for the evening could be Rick Hansen! Third, if I go with the basic interpretation, i.e. that I can’t pay for it, and I can’t find a sponsor or another event, then it would have to be some sort of free event — which likely means something outside. Perhaps I could talk to the City of Bonn, try to recreate Man In Motion through the streets of Bonn, and get them to give Rick a key to the city.”
I confess, at the time, I thought that was the STUPIDEST answer I had ever given to a question. You might be thinking it’s actually not a bad answer, but I was already working for the department on contract and I knew lots of creative public affairs officers who would have laughed those options out of the room. So I knew the content was actually kind of weak, but I had nothing else to offer. Yet the woman with the expressive body language kind of nodded her head, and we moved on.
I didn’t make the pool, and when I went for an informal afterwards to get feedback on my performance, we came to that question and I cringed. I figured I might have got 3 or 4 out of 10. I was gobsmacked to find out my score had been 10/10.
I was pretty candid with the HR person giving the feedback and bluntly asked, “How is that possible?”. He looked over the notes and he told me that he remembered my answer as the ONLY one in more than 500 interviews that he had been part of where the candidate had actually had any sort of logical structure to their answer. He admitted that other people had more creative solutions, some had really grandiose plans, some were really impressive even. But it was like watching some sort of wild brainstorming exercise, thoughts all over the place. The interviewers often had trouble taking notes because they had no idea where one partial idea ended and the next partial or full idea started.
I had a good structure and somewhat average content, and I got 10/10.
Others had a bad structure and great content, yet failed the question.
Wow.
Such results aren’t often as startling now that people get questions in advance for 30 minutes, since they can use that time to create at least a basic structure, but structure still reigns. Repeatedly in interviews where I had weak content, I made up for it with a near-perfect structure. And received high marks because of it. And from the other side of the table, well-structured answers look downright awesome. As an interviewer, I sometimes feel like someone gave a great answer, yet afterwards when I look at only the content in my notes, it isn’t always as good as I first thought. But my first impression was that they had given a solid answer, easily passing the mark for that question. And I have never first thought someone passed and then subsequently failed them on secondary review. I might have lowered their mark from an 8 to a 7, but never below the line. And since marks are usually a consensus of the board, that isn’t just me being an easy marker…the other members of the board thought they were clear passes too, but in the final review, we might downgrade them to a more appropriate grade. Still a “pass”, but with some of the shine removed from a great structure. And some boards don’t even do that secondary review, they just go with their first impression.
Structure is queen, all hail structure.
However, once you understand those upfront elements, you need to prepare for four things in the interview preparations — knowledge, abilities, personal suitability, and what I call “extra” modules.
For the knowledge, it is exactly like the preparations previously described for a written exam. You’ll read the Departmental Plan (formerly Report on Plans and Priorities) to find out what is going on in the department. You may read recent statements by the Minister, particularly if they did any overview speeches with Chamber of Commerces. You’ll also need to refresh your memory of any of the special content / background documents you reviewed. However, there is a difference between the written and the interview. While the goal of the written was to have really detailed knowledge ready to “dump” into written answers, you are going to be using the info in the interview to populate some “extra” aspects of your answers. So you might get a question in the written exam where you have to explain the mandate and current priorities of the Department in detail in a memo, but in the interview, it is more like you will be asked to respond to a scenario of a new priority and how to handle it, and in your answer, you MIGHT want to drop in a reference to how this new priority fits within the existing priorities. You may not be getting a lot of points for “knowledge” in this part, but if you can throw it in, your answers are just automatically richer in content, and your overall score will go up. You’re just making your answers that much more concrete than without the knowledge. But if that is all you need, i.e. context, you’re more trying to drop in big headings in the interview, not the detailed sub-knowledge of each priority.
I do have one very large caveat to this comparison. I am basically saying that the written requires heavy knowledge content, almost an info dump, and the interview doesn’t, more the headings to help populate your answer a bit, make it richer. In the first instance, knowledge is the main course; in the interview, it is more like a mere spice to enhance flavour. However, this assumes that your competition had a written component that was separate from your interview. In other words, it assumes that by the time you get to the interview, you have already been tested on knowledge…but if you WERE NOT tested previously on knowledge, all bets are off in the interview. In that case, you WILL need to know all the detailed content.
When I applied to CIDA’s post-secondary recruitment, there was no written exam, and the first three questions of the interview were basically data dumps by the candidates to show the interviewers we had read all the priorities and could regurgitate them back in some form. And yes, that is as deadly as it sounds for both the candidates and the markers. Listening to the same answers over and over and over. It was even worse though because we didn’t get the questions in advance, it was just “enter and answer”. The first question I got was to outline CIDA’s six priorities. No indication of depth of answer required, no indication of what was to come. So I started answering. And I spent about 3-4 minutes on each of the six priorities to explain them in detail. Regurgitating what I had memorized. A complete brain dump. After my 15-20 minute answer, seriously, I stopped. I had no idea if that was too much or too short. They then said, “Okay, Question 2 is to take one of the six priorities and explain it in detail. You’ve already answered that, let’s go on to Question 3.” Oops. And Q3 wasn’t too far off some of the stuff I had already said too…I almost answered all three with my first answer.
Which is one of the reasons you get the questions in advance to review, so you can balance your answers better, but this type of answer is what I mean by the content required if you don’t have a written exam. If you have a written, that’s the spot for the detail; if you don’t have a written, the knowledge detail will be required in the interview.
For abilities and personal suitability, the possible questions seem endless. For example, if I’m running a competition and I’m marking initiative, and I ask you about a time where you demonstrated initiative, you might think that because everyone will have a different example, it’s impossible to figure out the question in advance. At first glance, lots of people think that way — because everyone has different answers, the question must be impossible to predict.
But it isn’t. It’s the same question. I’m marking X so I ask you to tell me of a time when you did X. And when five candidates answer that question, I am going to hear five different answers. But my marking grid, which I have to create in advance, has what I think is a generic answer that will allow me to mark everyone’s answer. For example:
- Did something that wasn’t assigned to them i.e. they initiated the activity;
- It wasn’t something they were expected to do as part of their job i.e. it was above and beyond or separate from their current responsibilities;
- It took some effort to do i.e. they had to figure out a way to do something or to do it better, something that wasn’t obvious, preferably something with options, and they had to make a choice / can’t be something really simple or obvious;
- There has to be a better result because it was done i.e. not just doing something different but actually improving something / so what; and/or,
- It challenged the status quo or was innovative.
So that’s my marking grid. Because that’s what initiative means. Which means when I hear the five different answers, I’m looking to see how many of those bullets you have. One or two? You probably fail. Three or more? Probably enough to pass. All five? High scores all around, well done!
Now let’s digress for a minute to look at those five bullets. Where did I get them from? Did I have some magical resource that exists only for managers? No. I have the same resources you do. Dictionary.com. Google. Thesaurus. Websites like Treasury Board’s that explain what initiative means as a competency or ability. And after you look at a few, you see some common denominators.
Initiative requires that YOU initiate. Lots of people will tell me of a project they led or we’re in charge of, and all the great things they did. Except they were told to do it by their boss. That’s not initiative, because you didn’t initiate; you maybe demonstrated management or leadership, but not initiative. The number of people who give leadership examples is astounding…close to almost 70% in my experience give a leadership example as they have never thought about what initiative actually means.
Or they say that they came up with a way to track all the correspondence in their unit in a special spreadsheet. Great. But what was their job? Correspondence manager. Someone who was expected to track the correspondence. It’s their job. So yes you came up with a tool, but you were kind of expected to do that anyway. It’s not anything “special” or “unique” or you showing initiative, you’re simply doing your job.
Often, too, people will talk about this fantastic thing they came up with as an idea, and yet it is extremely simplistic. For example, they were designing a new tracking system for urgent files, and they came up with the idea to use blue tags for correspondence and red tags for memos to allow people to triage the files quicker. Total time to come up with the idea and implement it? Thirty seconds. It was a good idea, but there was no effort involved. There were no real obstacles to overcome, no planning involved, you didn’t have to work at it. Which means as a demonstration of initiative, I simply don’t care about it.
Or the worst scenario? They’ll tell me how they completely revamped a system, because they thought it was fun to do, and when they were done, it made no difference whatsoever. No better outcome. No improvement in speed or result. No result other than that they did something different to fix something that was working just as well previously. I’ve even had people admit that after they left, their replacement dumped it and went back to the old way.
However, one thing that always looks good is if you were challenging the status quo or truly being innovative. Yet without those other four elements above, why will I care as an interviewer? Did you do a lot of work to improve something, or are you just someone who likes to spin their wheels doing things differently because they hate whatever is already in place and they just want to be “innovative” for no reason?
Ultimately, look at the answer grid. If you tell me that you set up a new colour code system because your boss told you to do it, it took you thirty seconds, it was different than what went before, but two months after doing it, they dumped it because it didn’t matter, how is that an example of initiative? Contrast that with an example where you’re perhaps in charge of finance, but you’re pretty good with Excel; you aren’t involved with the correspondence system, but you know they are over-worked and having trouble finding time to triage files properly or come up with a new tool; you suggest to your supervisor that perhaps you could take this on as a special project, and you study it for a couple of days or weeks and come up with three or four options but recommend one particular one that involves a new Excel file that you design and train people to use, along with a new colour coding system; it’s completely unique in the branch; and it works so well that response times are cut in half, your group is suddenly meeting all of its correspondence deadlines, you have a tool that generates reports for management, and other directorates or divisions are asking if they can have a copy of the tool to use in their offices.
If you contrast those two examples, which one do you think demonstrates initiative? As a marker, the second one gets 10/10, the first one perhaps 1 or 2, nowhere near a passing grade.
Now, you might suddenly say, “Yes, but I’m a junior employee, I don’t have the opportunity to demonstrate initiative, all my files are assigned to me.” That is absolutely a common problem. But it doesn’t mean you can’t give me an initiative example. You may have to give me one that was assigned to you, true. And as such, you’re not getting the points for coming up with it on your own. But if it took effort, if it was innovative, if it produced a good result, if you went above and beyond the tasking, then you’ve demonstrated the other four elements pretty well and you’ll get a good mark. Just be aware that in an ideal world, you don’t start off with that spot if you can avoid it. Or if you do, make sure you hit the other marks as best you can.
Going back a few steps though, the question was about initiative, but the context was whether or not you can predict the question in advance. Some people will tell you of course not, you’re not a mind reader.
But you don’t have to be. Here’s the magic trick. In almost 95% of all interviews that are asking about abilities or personal suitability, there are only three types of questions I am likely to ask you. Some call it past, present and future; some call it applied, situational or theoretical. I prefer to think of them as experience, process, and principles.
- Experience (or past or applied) — Tell me of a time when you’ve demonstrated strong interpersonal skills?
- Process (or situational or present) — Here is a specific situation, tell me how would your strong interpersonal skills help you to deal with it?
- Principles (or future or theoretical) — Why are strong interpersonal skills important to being part of a team?
When I do my presentations, people are almost shocked that there are only three types of questions. So they start trying to come up with scenarios or questions that would be a fourth type. Go ahead, do it yourself now. I’ll wait.
Now that I’ve hummed the complete soundtrack to Jeopardy, what have you got? Now take that question and ask yourself this…is it REALLY any different from one of the above three? Remembering too that the situation could be different, or your past might be different, or it says in a group instead of a team, but ultimately they are asking you to talk about interpersonal skills.
Remember above where I said they had a generic marking grid? They have it here too. For interpersonal skills. So no matter which answer you give vs. the next candidate’s answer, they can still mark both. So they googled “interpersonal skills” and came up with some headings. Like showing respect. Listening. Working together. Building trust. Clear communication. Transparency. And another four or five other possible headings.
Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that I as the marker only decide to list three things about interpersonal skills — respect, trust and communication. Now, ask yourself…what is my marking grid if I ask you to tell me about a time when you demonstrated good interpersonal skills?
- Shows respect for others
- Builds trust with other people
- Clear recognition of the importance of communication
Now ask yourself…If I give you a situation where you are in a new team, there’s been some conflict, and I want to know what you’ll do to demonstrate good interpersonal skills, what does my rating grid look like?
- Shows respect for others
- Builds trust with other people
- Clear recognition of the importance of communication
Hmm, looks familiar. Now what if I ask if you think that good interpersonal skills are an important aspect of teamwork? What does my rating grid look like?
- Shows respect for others
- Builds trust with other people
- Clear recognition of the importance of communication
You’re not seeing double or even triple. It’s true. My rating guide for all three of those questions is (probably) identical. Oh, sure, I might have said “showed respect” in the first, and “shows respect” in the second, and “important to show respect” in the third, but it is the SAME rating grid.
Now, at this point, you know there are only three types of questions and you also know that I’m going to mark whichever one I ask (almost) exactly the same as the other two.
Doesn’t that sound like a question you can predict in advance?
Of course it does. Because I, as the hiring manager running the competition, am not a rocket scientist. I am not gathering magical information from the Oracle at Delphi to populate my rating grid. Instead, I’m basically doing the same thing you’re likely to do. Google it. Talk to other people about what it might mean. Come up with some headings. Put together an outline of possible things people may say. Call it done.
In the above example and summary, I keep saying that all three are “almost” identical, and they are. But there is a slight nuance difference.
In the first form of the question about experience, I need you to give me an example that shows those headings. In the second form of the question about a situation, I’m looking for the steps in a process that you’ll follow to show that ability. In the third and final form of the question, I need you to talk more about the principles involved.
But if you combine all three, you can create a single answer that answers all three and actually gives you more points for any of the three. Let me show you.
Suppose for example I ask you to tell me of an example where you demonstrated good interpersonal skills. You’re likely to immediately start with the context, what you did, etc. and tell me you showed respect, built trust, and emphasized communication.
But what if you started with, “I think the most important element of interpersonal skills is respect for other people. So the example I’m going to give you…”. Instead of starting with the details of what you did previously, you already are creating a great structure that says, “respect for others” and now your example is evidence of how you have done that exact heading. Then, as you go along, you might say. “After setting up those first few meetings and respecting what the others had to say, I felt it was important to start building trust with others.” Now you’re pulling from the process type response. And perhaps you finish with the experience example, “I really learned from this interaction the clear importance of communication, and I try now to incorporate it in all my interactions.” Wow, all three elements in the same answer.
Why would you do that? Because the first one is a basic answer. The second one is much more robust, more comprehensive, gives concrete examples, talks about principles and what steps you would take again, etc. And more robust while still maintaining a good structure means higher marks. Instead of getting 6 with your first example, you’re up into the 8 or 9 point range with a full answer.
Remember back in Chapter (x) where I said there was Secret Template #1? It is time for Secret Template #2. For every element that they are marking in the interview, you’re going to fill out the following table with short bullet points.
Experience | Process | Principles | |
Ability 1 | Position / Project 1
Position / Project 2 (Work / academic / volunteer) | Step 1
Step 2 Step 3 | Principle 1
Principle 2 Principle 3 |
Ability 2 | Position / Project 1
Position / Project 2 (Work / academic / volunteer) | Step 1
Step 2 Step 3 | Principle 1
Principle 2 Principle 3 |
Ability 3, 4, 5… | Position / Project 1
Position / Project 2 (Work / academic / volunteer) | Step 1
Step 2 Step 3 | Principle 1
Principle 2 Principle 3 |
Personal Suitability 1 | Position / Project 1
Position / Project 2 (Work / academic / volunteer) | Step 1
Step 2 Step 3 | Principle 1
Principle 2 Principle 3 |
Personal Suitability 2 | Position / Project 1
Position / Project 2 (Work / academic / volunteer) | Step 1
Step 2 Step 3 | Principle 1
Principle 2 Principle 3 |
Personal Suitability 3, 4, 5… | Position / Project 1
Position / Project 2 (Work / academic / volunteer) | Step 1
Step 2 Step 3 | Principle 1
Principle 2 Principle 3 |
See Annex 2 for a sample blank layout that you can use to populate your own info. Note that you do not want a lot of information, as you won’t be able to memorize it. I’ve listed 1 or 2 projects for experience, but ideally you can get it down to one really solid one that meets all your headings. For processes, I think in some cases it might be 4 or 5, but again, will you be able to remember them all when you get in the interview? And for principles, I like to stick to the rule of 3, as it is easier to remember those than it is for 4 or 5. And often if you are trying to do 4 or 5 principles, you’re too far into the weeds. Plus, if you did it right, you’ll be able to pull from ALL THREE columns for your example to create a really rich and robust response to whichever form of the question you get asked. So you won’t have room for two examples, five steps, and five principles in your answer. Keep what works, drop what doesn’t.
You’ll see in the above table that I have taken the identical approach to abilities and personal suitability. Some managers have noted that abilities tend to emphasize the experience and process/situational columns more so than principles, while personal suitability tends to use principle questions more often than experience or process. I tend to believe that is generally true, but I have no quantitative evidence to prove it one way or another. However, both abilities and personal suitability CAN ask any of the three types, and you need to be prepared, so I don’t recommend shifting emphasis in that fashion. Note too that you can expand the table if you want to include rows for the essential experience and knowledge, but the three columns don’t work as well for that. Essential experience is covered by the application, and you have a separate table to cover all the “experience examples” in more detail. For knowledge, you could put the knowledge factors down the left hand column, but usually you would be only using the process or principles at most, and highly dependant upon the type of job you’re doing (an FI might have some examples of where they used legislation, or the steps they used, or the principles behind the legislation, whereas an AS might have steps only). I think knowledge prep is mainly about the different types of documents referenced earlier, not putting it into a table like the two secret templates.
Finally, I said at the beginning of the chapter that there were four areas to cover and the one that is left is a heading for “extra” modules. If you did the work above, you know how to answer questions that fit 95% of the form you’ll see. Past, present or future, for example. You’re good to go.
Then you get in the interview and they ask you something weird. Something you are totally not expecting. And it doesn’t look like anything you have prepared. You start to panic. What do you do?
Well, remember how I said structure was queen? You need a structure to answer the question. Because a good structure is going to give you something to say, and it might be enough to get you half-way to passing the question. But what structure do you use for a question you weren’t expecting?
You are going to use one of the extra modules you can create to handle the unexpected. For example, if you google “problem solving cycle” or “steps”, you’ll see there are tons of examples. I like to cheat and look at the images tab to see what diagrams people have posted on various websites. Some will have 4 steps, or 5 steps, or 10 steps. It doesn’t matter which one you choose, as long as it is one you can understand and remember easily. I tend to think of problem-solving as having five steps:
- Define the problem
- Analyse the problem
- Develop options and choose one
- Implement the chosen solution
- Evaluate the solution
Now, if you are doing policy work, you should have the policy development cycle too. Search the same way. Guess what you find? The policy cycle looks pretty similar. Define, analyse, options, implement, evaluate. If you’re in project management, look at the project management cycle. Hey, almost the same. It’s not rocket science, they’re all pretty general and generic. So, how do you use them?
Let’s look back at that example of Foreign Affairs where I asked how to have an event for Rick Hansen when I had no budget. I had no idea how to answer, so I reached into my bag of magic tricks and pulled out the problem-solving cycle.
- Define the problem — Have to have an event and I can’t pay for it;
- Analyse the problem — Three possible interpretations — I can’t pay for it because I have no money, I can’t pay for this event but could pay for another, or I can’t pay but someone else could;
- Develop options — Free event, merge with existing event, find a sponsor
I didn’t have to implement or evaluate the options for that question, I just had to give ideas. But it was an unexpected question and I needed a good structure — so I used my “extra” problem-solving module to give me the headings to use.
While problem-solving, policy development or project management are relatively the same, there is no universal set of headings to “choose”. The five part option listed above is pretty standard, but if a model that has only four elements works for you, use that instead. It isn’t about the right answer per se, it is about you having some headings that will let you give a good answer to an unexpected question.
There are lots of little cycles like this that are good for various types of jobs. If you are applying for a stakeholder relations job, it is a good idea to memorize steps in a consultation process. If you are in HR, maybe the steps in a general job process. If you are in finance, maybe the headings for the typical budget cycle. A researcher might have headings around managing a research project. Things that resonate with them and they can adapt to other unexpected questions on short notice.
I also like to have in my backpocket some sample answers to weird and wonderful questions that someone might use as an icebreaker or part of another question. They can ask:
- How you are the best candidate?
- What is your past experience?
- What are your personal strengths?
- What are your biggest achievements>?
- How would this job relate to your career goals?
- What is your biggest weakness? (Very rarely asked, as difficult to mark) and what you are doing about it (obviously you will not give an example that something needed / relevant to the job!)
- What is a challenging project or situation with a difficult employee that you have dealt with?
- Do you have any good examples of teamwork or partnering?
- Tell us about your leadership style / communications style / personal values and ethics?
These questions are generally answered badly by everyone, so most managers never ask them. However, if used properly by the hiring manager, they can be good questions to use as icebreakers or just to see how they answer a difficult question in terms of communication styles, etc. I wouldn’t spend a lot of time on them, but their worth reviewing every so often.
For the summary of yourself or your experience, it can be the same summary for best candidate, past experience, personal strengths, achievements, weakness, etc. It’s up to you to decide how you want to respond, and again, they are not likely scored so there are no wrong answers in terms of an answer grid. They are really just trying to get to know the real you. And to make sure you’re not a general whackjob who says their greatest weakness is poor integrity or low attention to detail for a job that requires high values and integrity and a lot of precise details.
For me, I’m a manager, so I often get asked a general question about my management style. I’ll embellish a bit, and make it a bit more hypothetical, but I could say. “You know, I think my management style is tied tightly to my values and ethics and how I deal with other people. For me, it starts with respect for others. Embracing diversity, the use of french and english in the workplace, and a strong commitment to lifelong learning. But I think my biggest accomplishment as a manager has been tied to transparency. I focus heavily on sharing information when I can, and using that information to create a shared vision with my team that is clear and open, and I feel like I have had a lot of success with this in my last 10 years as a manager.” Off the top of my head, is that a perfect summary? No. But I can tweak it, practice it a bit, improve on the structure and then voila! I’ll have a handy dandy little speech module that I can use in different ways depending on what “weird” or “unexpected” question comes along.
Interviews are complex, and you need to be ready for all the parts that come your way.
E. Best Fit
At the beginning of the chapter, I mentioned there were five types of interviews, and the one that is left is what is called the “best fit” interview. This is the interview where they are seeing, amongst a small pool of fully qualified candidates, who is the best fit for the team.
Let’s go back for a second to an earlier example. Let’s say someone has a bunch of tech support workers working for them, and also say that they have three areas to cover – mainframes, PCs, and Macs. So they have an opening and run a selection process looking at experience in providing tech support, knowledge of various elements of different systems, abilities to be a front-line service worker and the personal suitability factors for dealing with a lot of different types of people all coming to you for help. Now suppose they have an opening, and have found three really good candidates who have been tested, evaluated, all good – any one of them could do the job. But there is only one position available. And you have to choose one that will fit well with your needs.
Suppose for example that you have existing workers who are really good with mainframes and PCs, but you’re a bit weak on Macs. And one of the three candidates is REALLY strong with Macs. Then you might choose them as the best fit for completely legitimate operational – yes, all of them are qualified, but this one brings a little extra experience with Macs to the table, and you’re short in that area. Tomorrow, someone might leave from the mainframe team and suddenly you’ll pull a mainframe person off the pool.
That’s partly what best fit is about – seeing which candidate fits your basic and extra needs the best.
But I need to warn you of something else. That previous example could have probably been decided just on paper. So why an interview? Often the processes are large and complex undertakings with lots of managers doing the interviews. So it is quite common for a hiring manager not to have seen EVERYONE that was interviewed earlier. They may not have met YOU for example. So if they are good managers, they’ll narrow the pool down to a potential sub-list that looks good and then call 3-4 of them in for a quick conversation.
What are they looking for? They’re making sure you’re not a whack job, for one. I’m not joking. Just because someone passed an interview or wrote a test doesn’t mean necessarily that you want to work with them on a day to day basis. Anyone can clean up nice for a formal process, answer the right questions in the right way, and maybe no alarms go off. But they’re a whack job. Look around your own work unit…chances are there are a couple of people you would rather not work with, but hey, somebody hired them.
The “nicer” way of thinking about this best fit interview is partly just getting to know you and partly to see how you interact on interpersonal skills in an informal setting. Are you shy? Are you aggressive? Are you constantly joking, are you deadly serious? They just want a feel for who you are, what you’re like.
Another area they want to gauge is how interested you are in the job. I know what some of you are probably thinking…what do you mean? We applied for the job, of course we want it, doesn’t every one of us want it the same? The short answer is no.
Some people applied just to be in a competition and hopefully make a pool so their own manager could pull them and appoint them where they are working now. They don’t want the job AT ALL. They’re just playing the game to get promoted.
Some other people are victims of time…they applied nine months ago but since then, their lives have changed. Maybe they have a divorce in the works, or a new baby, or a new boss, and they don’t want to move right now after all. They want to stay put. Or their boss has offered them another opportunity. Or they made another pool somewhere else, or are about to make one. Lots of things could cause them to change their minds since they first applied.
Are managers going to outright ask you if you still want the job? Probably not. They’re instead going to ask you to tell them a bit about why you want the job. Maybe ask you what elements in your past experience make you think you’d be a good fit. Ruh roh. Yeah, that’s right, it is still an INTERVIEW. And you need to be ready.
Your main focus is different though. Instead of knowledge or abilities or personal suitability factors, they’re mainly judging two factors – indirectly your experience (it will be what you use to populate your stories and flesh them out) and more directly your interpersonal skills.
But you have to make a choice at this point in how you choose to respond.
Some people will say, “If you want the job, you have to be the duck.” Just like in the rest of the competition. Don’t deviate from that message. What do you like about the job as a duck? Being able to quack. What did you like in your past jobs? Whenever you got to quack. Quack, quack, quack. You’re still going to answer the questions, but every third sentence should be about quacking. It’s safe, it’s conservative, it’s traditional.
However, what if you’re actually a swan? Then you have three options.
First, if you REALLY want the job no matter what, just quack. Less risk.
Second, if you want the job but you also want to be yourself, quack and also show off your swan features. Let your wings unfurl. Strut a bit. It’s a compromise of being true to yourself while still pursuing the job strongly.
Third, if you are interested in the job, but you aren’t going to be happy if you can’t be a swan, then fully unfurl and strut. You have to. Because you don’t want them thinking you’re a conforming duck and hire you into a job that is a bad fit for you.
But this also leads to some good news.
You get to interview them too. You can ask what it’s like to work in the unit. Chances are they will tell you anyway before you ask. They’ll often describe the job in detail, or the division, or the branch. They’ll give you a bunch of info you didn’t get reliably earlier…and you may or may not like it.
Some people have thought the job was like X and then found out in the best fit interview that it was mostly about Y. Which they had no interest in, and now they’ve wasted a huge amount of time to get that far and they’re not interested in the job anymore. It happens. Mostly to people who applied for anything and everything without finding out what the job was about at least in general terms.
You also get to see the manager and / or director in an informal setting and see if you want to work for THEM. You can see how they describe files, people, the work, etc, and decide whether there is a whack job in the room, and it’s not you.
Those are the basics, and the challenge for giving advice on this section is so many of the questions you might have are “what if…” scenarios. Too many to address in their entirety, but I’ll attempt to address some common general themes.
Option 1: What if I’m invited but I actually don’t want the job?
Remember all those other factors I mentioned above? Life happens. You can politely decline the best fit interview and say you’re not interested in the job at this time, with or without an explanation, no harm, no foul. They might be a little annoyed, but they’ll get over it. If you have something else, just say so and move on.
However, I advise against declining. First of all, they ran a competition, invested a lot of time and resources in it, and you DID apply. The least you can do is here their pitch at the end.
Second, you actually don’t know what they’re considering. Tons of pools get used to fill OTHER jobs than the first one posted. You might think it is about training programs, and you’ve decided it doesn’t interest you in general, but in reality, they have a new initiative looking at training geared towards gender equality that is one of your passions. You don’t know, and you won’t know unless you go and have that little interview. And after you hear from them, if you don’t want it, email them the next day and thank them politely for their consideration but tell them it doesn’t seem like the best fit for you at this time. Even if they offer you the job, you CAN say no.
Option 2: I had the interview, seemed to go well, and I want the job. Now what?
Ideally, they offered you it on the spot and you said, “Quack yeah!”. More likely, they said, “Thanks for coming in, we’ll let you know.”
But you should also give them an extra bit of info – you WANT the job, now that you’ve heard more about it and met your potential bosses. So email them the next day and say thank you for considering me, and that you remain very interested in the position if they think you would be a good fit in the team. Lots of people think this is redundant, but the reality is that it is new info for them. They may THINK you will say yes if offered, but they don’t know for sure – they know you’re interviewing them for best fit too. So telling them you’re interested (or very interested) lets them know that for sure if they offer you the job, you’re going to say yes. You’re a sure thing. All uncertainty is gone. And there is a small psychological element in there too – just like in dating or friendships, it’s nice to be wanted, and you’re telling them you want to work with them.
On both the upside and downside, their response will likely tell you which way they’re leaning. Now they may have to interview lots of others too, you can often tell by their response if it is GREAT, thanks for letting us know, or just okay thanks.
Option 3: I had the interview and I don’t want to even KNOW them, let alone work there
So email them the next day and politely tell them it doesn’t seme like the right fit for you at this time. No harm, no foul.
Option 4: I want the job, but one detail is a dealbreaker for me, when do I tell them?
The short answer is whenever you feel comfortable raising it. Not very helpful, I know. So let’s tease that out a bit more. It depends a bit on what the detail is about.
If it is about the job, you need to at least raise it as a concern in the best fit interview because that is pretty clearly linked to your best fit. For example, if you hate public-speaking and you find out that there is a component of that in the job and you didn’t realize that previously, try and probe a bit to find out how extensive it is. They’ll be able to tell that you don’t like or have a problem with that component and the conversation will address that to some extent.
Or perhaps there is a need to do a lot of outreach during the week, but every Tuesday at lunch, you are doing Toastmasters. You could mention that as something you do, and ask if that would likely be an issue. You aren’t trying to say “no”, because they’re not offering you anything yet to say yes or no to anyway, you’re just working out the ramifications of the job and another commitment you have. You can do all of this in the best fit interview.
However, if the detail is something about YOU, not the job, then you can wait for an actual offer before raising it. They’ll call you to let you know they want to choose you, at which time you can ask to meet to discuss a couple of issues you just want to clarify before you say yes fully. You’re still telling them it’s a likely yes, you just want to mention a couple of things.
Some of these things might be highly personal. For example, suppose you have to pick up your son every Tuesday at 4:00 without fail. It’s not an everyday thing, as that could have been discussed at any time in terms of the workhours for the team, etc. Instead, this is a dealbreaker for you. Will that be a problem? Usually it isn’t. But you want to know before you say yes.
Or perhaps you have a one-week trip planned in six months where you’re taking your great grandmother back to the home country. It’s planned, booked, and you’re going no matter what. If it is that important to you, you may say, “Is this oging to be a problem?”. Usually not, particularly with advanced notice, but this category is about something YOU decided was a dealbreaker for you, so you need to know if it is a problem or not.
After that, there are a huge number of potential really personal issues you might want to raise. Maybe you have a religious ritual that you do at certain times each day, and while they’ll accommodate you, maybe you want to know it isn’t simply accommodations but they are actually supportive and would never ask you to do it after you finish some urgent task. Many of these areas could even get into questions of human rights, but you want them to know before you start.
Which takes me back to the original response. Tell them what you want to tell them when you feel comfortable doing so.
Now, lots of activists out there will tell you that you don’t need to share, and I agree. You don’t HAVE to tell them. But you also don’t want to necessarily be faced with having to fight for something with neanderthal bosses…you want to know their views before you accept.
For me, it is the blog I write. I tell them in my best fit interviews, if not earlier, that I have a blog. And give them the URL if they want to check it out to see the types of things I write. Am I allowed to have a blog? Yep. Does that mean a boss might not give me a hard time about it? No, they could, and if that’s their attitude, I want to know that before I agree to work for them…mostly because I won’t accept the offer. I’m also going to feel them out about HR, training supports for employees, ways to approach certain types of situations. And all of that will be informally during the best fit because that is where I feel comfortable sharing it. Others might wait for an actual offer, but to me, that’s a waste of time. But I’m also not looking for just “any job” or trying to get a promotion. I will only accept jobs that are the right fit for me.
Hi Paul. It’s me again. I have an interview with TBS and one of the competencies to be assessed is Strategic Lens.
Strategic Lens: Aligns responsibilities with organizational priorities to reflect the strategic direction of the Public Service and position the sector and/or the organization for effective results.
Appreciate your insights on this.
Thanks!
Hi Anwil,
That’s a challenging one, I’ll give you that. The only option I see is breaking it into the three pieces:
a. Align responsibilities with organizational priorities — for the most part, this is about judgement and analytical thinking (both a bit easier to define and come up with headings for). Once you can identify the priorities, the “strategic lens” would be to use your judgement and analysis to inform the alignment.
b. Reflect the strategic direction of the PS — I don’t particularly like this part as it can include a lot of things. Are we talking IT? RTO? Staffing? Performance? Audits? Expenditures? Enabling services? Programs? But I think the way out is knowing it is at TBS, you can be assured you have it covered if you know the broad priorities of TBS. It is NOT likely related to policies of politicians or parties, it is limited not to “govt” (very broad) but to “public service” which means administrative and bureaucratic priorities which are generally set by TBS. Look at their own planning docs, like their Departmental Plan, and pick out 4-5 big priorities from their Ministerial or DM statements.
c. Position the sector and/or org for effective results. This last part is the hardest of all because it depends heavily on what type of job it is. If it is an expenditure management job in TBS, I would expect you will be guided mostly by Policy on Results and sub-guides on PM. If instead it was within CHRO of TBS, that would be more about managing HR results, and the examples would be different.
Good luck, that is a tough one. Usually when I get one that is really hard to define, I ignore it and focus on answering the question over understanding the permutations/combinations of headings.
Paul
Thank you so much for this detailed guide! I had a written test and interview this week and I do feel like they both went well, and it’s in big part thanks to this guide. Knowing a bit what to expect and how to formulate answers, especially during the interview, has been invaluable.
I just received my invitation to move on to the language tests, I imagine this is a good sign? I will be sure to read your guide on these evaluations asap!
Thanks again Paul!
Moving to the next “stage” is always at least a neutral sign, and often a neutral sign. It doesn’t always mean you passed the previous level, sometimes they just “complete” the file even if they’re still evaluating an earlier stage, but it is at least neutral or “absence of a bad sign” like being screened out 🙂
Paul
Hi Paul!
Thank you so much for this fantastic guide! I got selected for an interview however, the interviewer did not mention what competencies I would be evaluated on. Also, since I found this posting through Facebook, I am unsure about what qualities and skills they are looking for. Do you have any recommendations on how I can prepare for this EC interview? Do we have a website that outlines the EC levels and the competencies? Thank you so much for your help I’m a recent grad and hope to start my public servant journey soon 🙂
Hi Dani,
Sorry, you got stuck in my SPAM queue, just saw this. Congrats on being selected for an interview. As you saw it thorugh FB, that means it’s basically an informal interview. They may not have a list of what they’re “rating”, it’ll likely be a much more general interview about what you’ve done in the past, etc. They are probably thinking either EC-02 or -03 for a recent grad. There are sites internally taht show what the various require, but if you go to Jobs.GC.CA and look at EC-02 jobs and EC-03 jobs, you’ll see the expected elements for each…
Good luck!
Paul
Hello Mr. Paul , thank you a lot for everything , is very very helping. I want to ask you if ok — how can I make sure I have the “right amount of detail” in my answer at interview point , when I have to cover 2-3 competencies? What is an acceptable time frame for that? I think you said 8 minutes — but can we do it longer , without marks deduction?
Hi Samich,
I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve answered the same question three times now, and you keep coming back to frame it slightly differently. There is no answer to your question…you cover what you need to cover, and you’re done. You seem to think it’s a mathematical calculation, that they’re standing there with a stopwatch and if you go 8m, 33s you’ll be okay but 8m, 42s, you won’t. None of that matters.
If you want to be rigid for some reason rather than focusing on what you have to answer, here is a rough rule of thumb. And I do mean rough. I wouldn’t tell anyone to do this, but for some reason, you insist that there must be some magic element even though I’ve told you three times there isn’t. So, here is the magic formula. Take the total time you have for the interview. Let’s say 30m. Reduce it by 20%. That takes you down 6m to 24m. Divide that by the number of questions you have to answer, let’s say 3, 4 or 5. If you have 3, then you have 8m per question. 4Qs = 6m per question. 5Qs = 4m48s per question. Every question is generally equal in value.
But, as I’ve already said, going long on one question doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll lose marks. What matters is what you’re saying. If I ask you how to get from Ottaawa to Toronto by train, and you start talking about Vancouver’s rail system, you’re not losing marks initially. You’re not getting any, but you’re not really losing any, just extraneous and irrelevant. However, if you go longer and talk for 5m about Ottawa to Toronto and 5m about Vancouver, I will start to think you didn’t understand the question and your marks will drop. It’s not a penalty, I don’t give you marks until we’re done the Q, but when I’m done, it looks weird holistically. If you talk for 10m about Ottawa to Toronto, you likely won’t get a lower score, but you also won’t get a higher score — the 5m answer was likely enough.
Your bigger issue is that you continue to focus on the mechanics. If you can answer the Q in 3m instead of 4m48s, then that’s your answer. If your answer to Q2 takes you slightly longer (10%), no biggie. It reduces your time available for other Qs but it won’t hurt you. And maybe by the way you structured your answer, you feel you need a bit more time on that one. Okay.
Hence why I suggested removing 20% up front — that’s time for meet and greet or if a Q goes long. The only real “rule” for interviews is that you can’t go past the time for the whole interview. If they give you 45 minutes, that’s a hard stop. How you manage your time within there is up to you.
But I think you’ve mangled this issue to death at this point. You’re seeing gremlins and possibilities or variables that don’t really exist and aren’t really relevant.
Plot your answer, pick 3-4 points to make, answer, and be done.
Hi Paul!
I want to say thank you for the amazing guide!! It was extremely helpful in my preparations for my exam and interview. I was successful placed in a pool a a result!
My question is, I noticed you mentioned in a response to someone that you can check on the government website if someone has been appointed to a position in the selection process already. How exactly do you check?
Thank you very much!!
Hi Kyle, Congrats on your work paying off! 🙂
If you go to the Jobs site, where you can see the list of jobs (you don’t even have to be logged in at first), at the very bottom on the left is a way to search by Process Number. If you went there now, and searched for 23-DIS-BC-LED-EA-574002 (the number for a process, listed at the top right of a job ad), you would see the search result of an environmental assessment officer, closing today. However, since you are not logged in, you will ONLY see the ad (under “jobs open to the public” tab). If you do the same search while logged in, you should see other tabs for NOC and NAPA which are notices that are posted when someone is being considered or appointed under that process number. If you go back to an old process, maybe 6m since finished, and search for it, you should see some other postings.
Hope that helps,
Paul
Thank you so much for the detailed instructions! I am extremely grateful. Thanks Paul 🙂
Hello and thank you for this wonderful guide! I have an interview this week for a position within my team at a higher level. I’ve only been with the government for 6 months, and I’m wondering how important it is for me to use examples from my current role, especially given that it’s harder to exaggerate when managers know the project I would be talking about. I would also like to know if you think “Make things happen” is the same as showing initiative. Lastly, is it important for me to ask questions at the end of the interview when I’m already familiar with the role and the team structure? Thank you!
Hi Isabelle,
Really good questions. Since you only have 6m, yes you can use your current stuff (within govt) but you should also use prior work experience too. You’ve already seen the danger of not being able to play up your role on the current project with your other team people, but you also want to avoid another common risk. Suppose your supervisor X is on the board…it can seem really odd to tell X what you did on the project when they already know, BUT they can only give you marks for what you say, not what they know. So you should assume they KNOW NOTHING about your role and explain it as if it was someone in another sister division. YOu don’t want to exaggerate, but you don’t want to not explain it properly either.
For “Make Things Happen”, initiative is part of it. But so is focusing on results, being cooperative, reliability, etc. For me, it would be seeing someone as a reliable catalyst, not someone waiting to be told what to do, but also not necessarily having to lead, could be helping others in the team shine. The secret sauce that makes the hamburger taste great. Teamwork is just as important as the initiative side.
As for Qs at the end, know that none of the ending is “marked”/graded. So, you can ask whatever you want to know, but you don’t have to ask anything. A common one is if they know when they expect to be able to make a decision, or something benign like that. Some people like to be creative and say, “If I was successful and chosen for this position, what would success look like to you a year from now?”. The downside to that approahc is it is a bit contrived, and some managers may feel YOU should tell them that OR feel like they don’t really know, so not able to respond. It’s a popular idea in the private sector, but I’m not personally sold on it.
Good luck!
Paul
Thank you – I appreciate the prompt response! If I can ask one more question, I’m wondering what your advice would be on how to approach the question of “ability to lead multi-disciplinary teams”. I have experience working WITH multi-disciplinary teams, but not directly leading them. If I’m asked about my experience, would I gain points if I were to flip the question and answer it as if it was a situational question?
Hi Isabelle,
I’m not normally this prompt, I just happen to be off work today and at my machine. 🙂 You have three options generally when you don’t meet an element very well. None are wonderful solutions, but you go with it depending on what they ask you.
1. Cobble multiple experiences together…so going sideways, if you were asked about “managing finances”, maybe you worked as a bartender at a university bar, and you did bank deposits for collections at your church, and you did etc etc etc. In effect, you can demonstrate you have all the skills of doing X but it is with multiple examples. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, because you don’t have one perfect example. Some people start with the small stuff, showing the trajectory to bigger stuff at work that comes close; others start with the biggger things at work, and add “on” the smaller examples from the past.
2. Make it more hypothetical/situational…if you do this, make sure you cross-reference WHY or WHAT you would do with past experiences and abilities so that it doesn’t seem theoretical…like if you were talking about how you would provide custom IT support for a program you’re not familiar with, you’d mention a) learning the software and b) identifying the needs of the client, what are they trying to do more than what they are asking for, etc.
c. Build up a previous experience and make it larger than it was…Some people call it embellishing, some call it outright lying. Some like to do it by saying, “We envisioned the roll more this way, and even though I wasn’t formally leading, I did this”. In essence, moving away from teh “lead” aspect of being in charge and more about leading from below/by example/contributing to the design. Leadership doesn’t mean you’re in charge, it means you have people following your guidance/advice/directions.
Most people avoid C as they think it’s unethical, too close to lying…personally, I think it is more about how you do it. All interviews are “hypotethical” in that sense.
Your call though…
Paul
Great tips, thanks again! I have lots of experience with the guidance/advice/directions avenue, so I think I’ll frame it with that in mind. Enjoy the rest of your day off!
Regards Mr. Paul Wogg. Thank you for this information about interview. I am sorry but I am still not getting the table. Say we take random competency “Achive results” and put it on secret template number 2. How can I make sure I use an example that hits all the abilities, experiences, process and principles? Can you please share your example using the competency definitions? Thank you kindly Sir.
Hi Samich,
Let me give you two different examples for initiative, one for work and one for personal. First, let’s say you’re working at Fisheries, and your team has just received a copy of all the data from deep sea fishing licenses and quotas over the last 25 years. Your boss asks you to look into what the database can tell you. Second, you are part of a recreational league for various sports and you decide that you want to start a group for floor hockey.
The first element under initiative is that you came up with it yourself, you weren’t expected to do it. Well, for Fisheries, you were assigned it, which starts off weak. For Floor Hockey, it’s your decision, so you start off strong.
The second element under initiative is planning — that the “approach/answer isn’t obvious”, you have to think about it. For Fisheries, it’s strong, you have to analyse what’s there, see what you can do with it, be creative. For Floor Hockey? The approach looks like every other sport in the group, not much to figure out in approach.
The third element is effort — I use the example that if you are walking down the hall, pick up a piece of trash and throw it recycling, you can’t say you “greened government”. The Fisheries example may have lots of steps, linking with other groups, linking to Stats Can, consulting with coworkers on other data available, figuring out how to represent it, let alone all the different statistical techniques you could run on the data, what sort of granularity it has. For Floor Hockey? Maybe all you did was advertise and wait for people to sign up, or maybe you consulted with other floor hockey groups around Ontario, contacted a coordinator in Toronto and saw that the only times that people were excited by were weekend mornings or right after work, before dinner, and that’s when you scheduled them. Maybe you found a link between floor hockey players and soccer players, or between floor hockey for summer and ice hockey players in the winter. An off-season sport, so to speak.
The fourth element is results…perhaps for the database, you did a ton of stuff, but it eventually didn’t really go anywhere. It was a ton of work, but your boss moved on, and the new boss wasn’t that interested. Maybe for floor hockey you got a TON of signups, and it is now the 2nd most popular sport in the group.
Sooooo, you’re going into an interview and wondering which to use. For Fisheries, the pros/strengths of the example are that it was work-related + planning + effort but the cons/weaknesses are that it was assigned to you (as most junior officers don’t get a lot of freedom) and it wasn’t a great result. For floor hockey, the pros/strengths are your idea + possibly effort + results, while cons/weaknesses are personal-related (harder to relate to) and not much planning involved.
You might have 4-5 examples to think about, and as you picture them in a grid to explain initiative as your idea / planning / effort / results, you realize that 1-2 are better than the other 3, so that is the one you go with. You may not have a perfect example. But you’ll go with the best one that fits. If I had to choose, I would weight results as highest variable, planning and effort 2nd, and your idea as third…which sounds weird, it wasn’t your idea but I’m recommending it? For junior positions, I would. For more senior positions, I would rate your idea as second only to results, and the planning/effort as third.
Now, if you use the template 2, you know the headings I have are the four elements I mentioned. And they are probably relatively the same for experience, process and principles. But under experience you would ALSO have Floor hockey and Database project as your headings; under process, you might have BE CREATIVE instead of “your idea”, + plan, + effort, and FOCUS ON RESULTS; for principles, it might just be the same 4. Although you might also reorder them in principles so RESULTS was first.
For two scenarios I gave you, they’re mods from ones people used in interviews with me. The person who had the equivalent example of the database did a good job all the way through, it was assigned to them, but they planned and made effort, sounded okay, and then at the end, they said they left the job and the team just deleted it all and so it was never used. A horrible ending to an okay example. No results = likely didn’t pass. They basically did a ton of work for no benefit. Alternatively, I was a bit skeptical of the floor hockey type example but when they were done, they had great results, and they put some time into the “effort” part of it to show it was work even if it looked like mild planning. The first failed the element, the second passed, although not just for those reasons. I’ve simplified the examples.
Ultimately, you chooose the headings you need to prove initiative (in this case) and then pick the examples that demonstrate those headings for your experience options.
Hope that helps…
Paul
Hello Mr. Paul Wogg. Thank you greatly for you wide & complex explanations. Everything I understand, but the table is not clear to me, sorry for this one. I am confuse. From this sectione: “Now, if you use the template 2, you know the headings I have are the four elements I mentioned. And they are probably relatively the same for experience, process and principles. But under experience you would ALSO have Floor hockey and Database project as your headings; under process, you might have BE CREATIVE instead of “your idea”, + plan, + effort, and FOCUS ON RESULTS; for principles, it might just be the same 4. Although you might also reorder them in principles so RESULTS was first.” —> When you say “headings”, do you mean “ability” (as per the table)? Or ability is “initiative” to be demonstrated in my example at interview meeting? Experience sections from the table is clear to me, thank you. But when you say “the headings and elements are probably relatively the same for experience, process and principles”, that I do not get. I believe the principles in table 2 means the competency’s elements (planning, effort, results, etc.) right? I am confused how the headings, experience, process and principles can be the same… Sorry for asking two times for this
Hi Samich,
I’ll simplify it a bit for you, in a second, but I’ll go more advanced first. All three types of questions — experience, process, principles — are really variations of the same question … can you demonstrate initiative? Sooooo, in that sense, whatever you put for the experience headings, process headings, or principles headings, they’re really all variations of the same rating guide. In fact, their rating guide might simply be that they need to see you talk about making a decision on your own, planning, making an effort, and getting good results. The actual FORM of the question really doesn’t matter, the rating guide (aka their expected answers and ways of marking it) would be the same for all three forms.
For the table:
1. Ability = Initiative (or working with others, etc.)
2. Experience = Floor hockey or Fisheries database (knowing that you’ve chosen them because they let you demonstrate decision / planning / effort / results).
3. Process … here is where it diverges a bit for initiative. Because the form would be, “What would do in situation X to demonstrate initiative”. So you might start with a different heading like:
….a. Planning — analyse situation, come up with options, figure out what’s important
….b. Results — Focus on the options that give the best possible results
….c. Make decision yourself — although might consult with others
….d. Implement — take action
4. Principles … again, depending on YOUR personality, you might decide to start with RESULTS as the order
….a. Results — Need to focus clearly on results, it’s not just about doing the work, it’s to make things better
….b. Decision — need to commit early
….c. Planning — look at downstream issues, upstream optins, blah blah blah
….d. Implement — take action, manage the process, check to see how it’s going, update bosses
Soooo, you can put the headings above in each box for initiative as the ability … if you’re doing another ability, say achieve results, you’ll figure out what the headings should be FOR YOU, that resonate WITH YOU, and then choose 1-2 experiences that let you talk about those headings, decide on order of hte headings for process and principles too. Sometimes it is the same for all three, but if you walk through HOW to answer a question like “What would do to focus on achieving results in situation X” vs. “What is the most important elements to you of focusing on achieving results”, you might quickly find that the typical order for the experience element, say ABCD if you had four headings really don’t fit the flow as well for process (maybe you want BACD) and for principles (maybe you want CBAD). It’s more about what YOU feel comfortable for answering the exact question you’re asked.
The point of the prep is that there three types of Qs they normally ask, and if you skip ahead and just say, “THey’re all the same”, you won’t see that the order may be different. And for a more advanced thought, the list may even be slightly different. For initiative, for example, you may decide that for an experience question, you will hammer hard on “make a decision by yourself” to show you own it. For principles-based questions, or even process-based questions, the “decision” part may be more implied than explicit and you may NOT have to mention it. Doesn’t hurt if you do, but your flow might be easier without it. But again, that’s more advanced philosophy of interview questions.
Hope that helps…
Paul
Hello MR. Paul . Now I totly get it! Thank you sooooo much for your efforts in explain everything to me! I read all article one more time and I know that experiences , process and principles means past present future.
I also have one more question — Say for interview there is 2 competencies for you to use for your answer. What if you also talk little bit about another competency not part of these 2 that are must for you to mention? Is that will mark down your score?
Hello Samich,
Glad to be of help! Good luck as you prepare!
For your new question, if you have a Q that is marking competencies A and B, and you also give part of your answer in a way that addresses C, it won’t “hurt” your mark, but it also doesn’t necessarily help it either. Let’s say there are two Qs in total:
Q1 — marking A and B
Q2 — marking C
When you answer 01, if you talk about C too, they don’t care (* in most cases) — they’ll only mark you for A and B. They won’t carry over what you said to C. Equally, if you answer 2, and talk about A and/or B too, it doesn’t matter, they only mark C. Now, if talking about some other element a bit helps you round out your answer, I wouldn’t avoid it, but it is not required by the question. And there is a small risk that while talking about C, you don’t adequately talk enough about A or B OR you talk too long for Q1 in total and mess up your time for the interview. In higher level interviews, sometimes they do NOT tell you what each Q is marking, they just give you the Q. So you kind of have to guess if Q1 is about initiative AND working with others, or ONLY initiative and WWO is under something else. I once did an EX-01 interview like that and I totally messed up THREE questions by not guessing correctly what they were even asking/marking with that question (but so did a whole bunch of other people, so I didn’t feel bad about my performance, it was just a stupid way to run a process!).
I noted (*) above that it USUALLY doesn’t count. There is one small exception to that. Let’s say you have five questions, and you knock 1, 2, 3 and 4 out of the park. But 5 you’re kind of on the line. BUT in Q2 you talked about some of the elements that are in #5’s purview, so you DO know them, you just didn’t say them IN your answer to Q5. SOME boards will screen you through. It’s not wrong, they can choose to be holistic even when they didn’t plan to be, as long as they are open to being holistic for everyone. In my experience, boards ONLY choose to do this if you are a strong candidate and missed a small element on one question i.e., they think you’re good enough to make the pool, but you just missed some parts of one Q by the way you structured your answer. Or for time. But if you got 7/10 and passed Q5, they won’t bump it up to 8 or 9 cuz you said something somewhere else. They treat them as individual Qs normally.
Hope that helps,
Paul
Thank you a lot for your detailed response , this is very great and useful. If the interview only has one question about competency A and B only and nothing about any other competency , and my answer explains them but also has something that is from another compatency , will this cause marks down?
Hi Samich…no, adding more doesn’t mark you down, but it doesn’t help you either.
Hi! I have a follow up question to this. I understand how you structure process and principle responses, but how does one best structure an experience response? I feel with process and principle questions you are easily able to set up the response by saying I would take steps XYZ, and then elaborate. But how do you layout and experience response in a way that is clear for marking?
Hi Carolyn,
It’s interesting that you have more problem with the experience one than the other two, as I think more people have issues with the others. Everybody is a bit different in which ones challenge them, and it’s fascinating to me. 🙂 Let’s do an example with initiative…so, you’ll know from my general approach I’ve mentioned, I want to hit four headings — not something I was assigned, took some work to figure out what to do, took some effort to do it, and I got results.
So, “Tell you of a time when I demonstrated initiative?
CAME UP WITH IT ON MY OWN: Okay, well in 2018, I was a new administration officer working at Transport Canada in the Beaver division. We were responsible for regulating the industry of people who ride beavers for work or pleasure. It was a large team, and there were a lot of financial contracts with different researchers. When I arrived, things had been fairly flexible in the way contracts were approved and administered, no real central coordination function in the team. It had been working for them, but as we growing, there were some cracks showing in the administration. Some people were missing deadlines, it was hard to know when different items were due, etc. I proposed to my boss that we pilot an internal tracking tool to see if we could get a bit more symmetry.”
NOT OBVIOUS SOLUTION –> “I didn’t want a tool that duplicated what was already in financial systems or other trackers, I wanted more like a dashboard. I met with each of the managers to see what type of information they need most often, or were missing. I also met with two other groups in the same branch who had similar, but not quite as active, contract situations. One was using the default systems, and one was doing it with a really complicated system that duplicated a lot of the info already in the financial system. I narrowed the list of possible tools to three.”
EFFORT –> I set aside some time in my schedule to test all three tools, attempting to set up a basic structure for tracking info. One was X which was a bit simplistic but easy to use. One was Y which was really complicated. And one was Z, which seemed to hit the sweet spot in the middle. It wasn’t overly complicated for the interface, so other users would be able to input directly as well as see reports for their area. But I worked through both the design of the tool in an incremental fashion AND the process steps for contracts to make sure it was a tool tied to what people were actually doing, not just a repository for ad hoc tracking.
RESULTS –> We started with a simple interation with 3 of the 8 managers, and they suggested some major improvements/additions. I upgraded the tool to include them, including some additional reports that some of them wanted to see quarterly. Then we tried it for another quarter, by which time the director was asking for it to be rolled out to all managers so she could use it as a dashboard at the start of their weekly management meeting to check that everything was on track. The other 5 managers were also asking for it, before the pilot was complete. We’ve made another incremental update to the tool since then with input from the director and the other 5 managers, and we ended the year with all of our commitments completed a full month ahead of the deadline and no need for PAYEs. I was given the resources of one of our co-op students with a graphics background to help make some of the reports a little more graphically-friendly next semester, and several of the other divisions in the branch have asked me to demonstrate our tool. I’ve even managed to connect the tool with another data bridger that can pull analytics directly from our financial system for real-time updates, although only 2 of the managers need that functionality.”
As you can see, you are telling a story more so than the other two types, and as much as I hate the tool, the STAR structure tends to work well for this in most cases — situation, tasks, actions, results. It’s not quite that, and it works mostly because it fits well with “initiative”, but it works. Mostly though, you’re just telling your story, with a nod to how you group it and in which order. Set the situation that shows it was your idea, not something you were assigned NOR were expected to do anyway; that it took a bit of effort and judgement to figure out what to do to solve a problem, you had to work through some planning; that it took effort to do, it wasn’t 10 seconds worth of work, and even better if you can incorporate working with others or client service orientation, piloting, innovation, etc.; AND that when it was all done, you had better results than you would have had otherwise.
On this last point for initiative, but for any answer, lots of people forget to talk about how it benefited things. You’ll notice in my example, I hammered on not replicating existing systems and that MANAGERS and DIRECTORS are USING it when done. It isn’t creating something just to create something, it is creating something useful in this case (for initiative). Fortunately, for experience, MOST people can answer those more readily by instinct.
Paul
Thank you for your quick reply!!
My issue was less with the content, and more so how to I frame it in such a way that the selection board can easily follow. It seems like the experience questions are storytelling and slightly less rigid in their structure. (still structured, just less explicit). Your example is very useful and I’ll use this header breakdown to frame my response.
Hi Paul, thank you very much for the detailed insight into the interview processes in the government. I am an early career professional (from outside government, and with consulting experience) and secured an interview for a Policy Analyst position. The position I applied for was not advertised on Government of Canada jobs; rather I saw it through LinkedIn and emailed the contact info provided. I already submitted a written assessment, after which I secured the interview. Now, the job poster did not explicitly have much details on requirements, but did divulge a fair bit on the team’s objectives and position responsibilities. What kind of interview can I expect for this position? I am thinking there will be some communication, collaboration, and technical questions maybe? Thanks very much and looking forward to your insight.
Hi Mikayla…It’s hard to say as it is not the normal process. But yes, comms, collab and technical are the likely areas. There may be some around interpersonal skills, which is a bit different from collaboration i.e., collab is often project / file / task specific while interpersonal might be more general?
As it is for a policy analyst position, you might want to google “policy development process” and click on images … there are a few that come up regularly that show the standard process. However, to be honest, it isn’t a whole lot different from things like “decision-making” or “research” or “project management” either. Some have 4 steps, some have 9, others are in between. Just something good to have in your back pocket if they ask you a general policy question and ask how you would approach it. It doesn’t matter WHICH model you choose, just that you have a good set of headings to pull from. Some of the google images / diagrams can even be narrowed to governmetn of canada sites only.
Good luck!
Paul
Hi Paul, I really appreciate all that you have done. You truly are an unsung hero to a lot of us navigating the Public Services byzantine hiring practices. I am currently in a FS-02 competition at GAC testing the following competencies: 1) Intercultural Proficiency 2) Influence and Alliance Building 3) Resilience and Adaptability 4) Judgment within a global context 5) Effective interpersonal relations.
During the interview, I will be given 40 minutes to read over an unspecified number of questions and prepare my answers. After the 40 minutes, I have to log in to a video call with the interview panel who will do a short introduction after which I’ll have 40 minutes to give my responses (consulting notes is allowed). What do you think is the rationale behind 40 minutes for prep and 40 minutes to deliver? Have you seen interviews like this? I’ve only ever participated in interviews where I had 10 minutes to prepare my response to one question and 10 minutes to respond. I would really appreciate any insight you have!
Whew, Peter. I was worried you were going to ask me what any of the Five competencies would be looking for 🙂 Those are definitely unique attributes/wording to GAC. Good luck on that front.
For the actual process, things have shifted over the years a bit. In the past, lots of FS (and all GoC) interviews were “live fire” exercises…you walked in, they started asking you questions, and you just did your best answering on your feet / on the fly, so to speak. You often didn’t even know how MANY questions there would be let alone what they were looking for/marking. But the downside to that is quickly evident in two ways.
First, you’re no longer testing if someone has initiative or judgement, you’re testing if they can demonstrate initiative or judgement with no preparation at all. In short, you’re testing their ability to answer questions off the cuff aka their improv skills more than testing the actual elements. Many candidates who were excellent workers already at GAC (or elsewhere) would bomb out and everyone would go, “Huh?”. Because of the form of the interview, not the actual elements.
Second, if you don’t give the questions ahead of time, you get really stupid responses. I don’t mean bad ideas, I mean they repeat themselves, they don’t have a good structure, they repeat themselves, they say umm, uhh, errr a lot, they repeat themselves. Which also makes it very hard to mark the answer as the interviewer.
Instead, in about 2002 to 2008 or so, most depts started doing the same thing — they would set a time, give you the questions ahead of time with 10,20,30 minutes of prep, then take your notes away, bring you into the interview, give you back your notes, and start into the interview. Sometimes they’ll insist on reading you the questions formally, although most give you the option to say, “No, I don’t need them read to me, I can just answer”. After 2008 or so, most depts not only tell you in advance which elements they are going to test when they invite you for the interview (i.e., the five you mentioned), they’ll also often say on the list of questions that Q1 isa bout Judgement within a global context, and Q2 is about effective interpersonal relations, and Q3 is about blah blah blah. They’ll actually spoon feed you so there is no chance you misunderstand the question and blow your answer. Lots of people think that is overkill, but what is the alternative point? Suppose you’re really good, but the wording of the question makes you think it’s about judgement instead of alliance building, and so you give the wrong “take” on your answer. As a manager, I could miss out on a good candidate because they didn’t understand the question? Who benefits? Not hte org, the manager or the candidate. Sooooo, most HR people suggest making it as clear as possible, with prep time.
Setting a time limit on an interview is also useful in two ways. Obviously, it stops someone from droning on for 3 hours. But it also gives an approximate estimate of what they expect. If you go in, and you have 40 minutes with 5 questions, you know that they think you can answer in less than 8 minutes per question. That doesn’t mean you have to take 8 minutes, but it does suggest that they think it may take more than 5-6 or they’d cut it at 30. You manage your time, don’t be too short but don’t go long either. On a 40 minute interview, I would generally expect to take about 25-30 of it. Don’t talk really fast to do it, people miss things. It’s better to slow down and talk normally, relaxed if you can. An FS-02 interview is substantive, it’s not about simple process. They will expect you to have examples you might use, the ability to elaborate, 3-4 points for each one probably, etc.
However, note that the last one — interpersonal relations — is often a role-play situation. If it is, and GAC likes them, allow MORE time for that question than the others. Small tip, a bit simplistic…if they test interpersonal, they aren’t looking for the “right” answer, they’re looking to see how you make the other person feel, how you interact with them. Warm and fuzzy elements are more important than “getting the outcome perfect”, even if you know the likely outcome. I’ve covered somewhere in the guide, I forget what page, but I did a role play with them, had to fire someone, and I knew how the Embassy Admin Officer would do it. So that’s what I did. They hated me, I was short, abrupt, didn’t do the warm fuzzy thing, etc. Because I forgot what they were marking. Not did I know how to run an embassy, but whether I could do warm interpersonal stuff. Ooops.
Hope that helps…most interviews tend these days to have 30m prep (at least) with a 30m+ interview if any of the questions are about substantive elements more than processes.
Good luck!
Paul
This is the fifth in a series of questions (after a bit of hiatus) and it is mostly about pools.
For the longest time I assumed that pools were created only at the very end of the process, recently I was informed that this is not the case and a pool can be created at any stage during the selection process.
1. Assuming one is placed in a pool _after_ the formal interview, what is the best way to maximize one’s chances of getting hired?
2. One piece of advice I have heard is to be pro-active and contact hiring managers in the department (Deputy Directors for example) directly. Is this sound advice?
3. To what extent do departments use other departments’ pools? Is there a government-wide norm? Suppose you are in a pool of (partially) qualified candidates for X in ESDC, does that help if you are applying for X in NRCan? Does it depend on X? For example, is it more likely if X = EC-02 and less likely if X = EC-06? Does it depend on the departments? For example, is Treasury Board is more likely to use a pool in Finance than one in Agriculture?
3.5. Suppose you are in a pool of (partially) qualified candidates for X in ESDC, there are no job postings in NRCan but you know a manager who is interested in hiring you. Can they use the pool as a basis for hiring you?
4. How often are pools extended? What determines whether there is an extension or not?
Hi Sam,
Hoping you wanted this one kept too. Your Qs 1-3 are all interrelated so I’ll take them together.
1-3. Yes, you can create a pool (of sorts) at any stage of the process. But at any stage other than the end, it is only a partially assessed pool, not a fully assessed pool. Note that they don’t normally say fully assessed pool, they just say pool and partially assessed pools. What can be done with them is a bit situational, so let me give you an example. Suppose there is Education 1, Experience elements 2-4, Knowledge 5-6, Abilities 7-10, Personal Suitability 11-13, Language 14, and Security Clearance 15. Often Security is left until the time of appointment since people may already have a valid clearance and just need to transfer it, it’s expensive and time-consuming, etc. So let’s ignore the security clearance for now and ONLY talk about 1-14 as if they were the only elements.
A [fully-assessed] pool would have all 14 elements assessed, completed, rated. EVERYONE who makes that pool would have had to meet Ed1, EX2/3/4, K5/6, A7/8/9/10, PS11/12/13, and L14. Anyone who can pull directly from that pool (often only the dept that ran it) and who has a job with those 14 elements can look through the list of say 10 people who made the pool and choose one of them. Maybe they like that the person already worked in their area previously so has relevant work experience too; maybe they like that they did a lot of presentations previously; maybe they bring in 3 of them and do a “best fit” interview and pick one. More likely? They were on the interview board and saw someone really good that impressed them and they’re taking them from the pool. You don’t have to explain why you’re taking person 3 over person 1-2 or 4-10, you just have to explain why person 3 is able to do the job — and the proof is they are in a fully assessed pool with all the same elements.
If another department is interested in you, the fact that you’re in a pool is great. You’ve already been tested. Now, whoever ran the pool, right at the start they had to tell the PSC who would be able to pull directly from the pool. In an ideal world, this would be ALL DEPARTMENTS. But it usually is limited to ONE DEPARTMENT. So, if ESDC runs a pool, Transport cannot pull DIRECTLY from the pool. And by directly, I mean that when they go to staff, people at ESDC would say “I am directly pulling Jane from an advertised process ESDC 2023-XXXXXXXX where she was fully assessed and made the pool” and the proof is all the assessment materials they have on file from the process. They have Jane’s scores, her exam, etc. all sitting in their HR department. So no other proof is needed. They have everything, they can appoint her from an advertised process the way Parliamentarians, HR gods, and PolyWogg intended hehehe. However, if TRANSPORT wants to pull, they’re stuck. They weren’t on the list at the beginning (and there are union rules for this — there are priority lists and you can’t run a comp at your dept for an EC-04, for example, if there are a bunch of EC-04s sitting on a priority list who could do that job, but you can if it is a priority list for Transport and you’re at ESDC, at least sort of anyway…it’s messy). So TRANSPORT is not part of the advertised job — it didn’t say there was a job at Transport, in the advertisement, it said ESDC. So TRANSPORT can’t do an advertised appointment. They CAN however do an non-advertised appointment. If they have a job that has all 14 elements the same (in an ideal situation), they can say, “Hey, Jane was tested at ESDC. She demonstrated to them all the elements for this job too. Therefore, under my own authority, and relying on the letter she has from them saying she’s been found fully qualified, I’m going to use my managerial discretion and delegated authority to do a NON-ADVERTISED appointment of Jane to this job”. In other words, NOBODY ELSE is being considered, they’re not running any notice to attract people, they’re choosing Jane based on another pool that was close enough to their job. This is what other depts are doing rampantly. They’re “matching” the other pools and pulling indirectly from them because they can’t pull directly. As an aside, lots of people think this is awesome but there are two downsides I will flag — first, the person who ran the pool at ESDC could have dozens pulled from their pool from other departments and get NO ONE after THEY ran the pool and did all the work! This is not hypothetical, it is happening regularly these days. Second, maybe there was someone who WOULD have applied for the job at Transport because they really LIKE transportation issues, but TC didn’t run a pool, they just chose Jane. So other people at TC didn’t even get a chance to compete for the job, because they wouldn’t apply to ESDC but would have if it was at TC. Regardless, someone with a similar job at ESDC can pull directly, someone from another dept probably has to do a non-advertised match.
Which means…dun dun dun…if you’re in a fully assessed pool, absolutely you can contact anyone to tell them you’re in a pool they can pull from. That fact alone isn’t enough to get you hired, but it is a HUGE consideration for any manager who WANTS to hire you. Same as making a pool and posting on FB groups. It’s a tool they can use to hire you quickly, if you’re in a pool. Is it a good idea to cold email / call a whole bunch of deputy directors? I think it is a very low rate of return. People get these emails every day, if they have a need, maybe they look at it. If they don’t have an immediate need, maybe they put it in a folder of resumes. If they don’t regularly have needs for that classification, they round file it. I have got emails form people saying “Hey, I’m an engineer in a pool.” Great. Except they’re emailing managers who don’t hire engineers, it’s not the job, they hire policy analysts or program management or admin. Not a very efficient process for the sender. But there are lots of people who have views about cold calls. Can you do it? Sure. Will it get you a job? Maybe. The more tailored your approach is to the area, the more likely they’ll open it. If you’re an engineer, and I don’t have work for an engineer, not the best approach.
Now, here’s where it gets messy. Partially assessed pools. Let’s say they have assessed Education, Experience, and both Knowledge. Then they do 3 of the 4 abilities and 2 of the three personal suitabilities, and for fun, let’s say they assess language too. Which means they haven’t done Ability 10 and Personal Suitability 13, both of which they intended to be assessed through reference checks. In other words, they have 12 of the 14 elements fully assessed, and 2 not assessed at all, so overall, partially assessed pool. And they have decided to stop there, as is common, and say they have 15 people in that partially assessed pool (instead of the 10 they might have ended up with if they did all 14 elements). Now here is where the process differs from the fully assessed pool, because it diverges.
If someone at the dept (ESDC in the example) wants to pull you for a job that needs all 14, they will have to complete the assessment for the remaining 2 elements for anyone they are interested in from the group of 15 in the partially assessed pool. They look at the pool, decide they like 3, 9, and 12, and call their references. They assign scores, assume they all pass, they tell HR, and maybe pick #9 to proceed. They offer #9 the job, and they say “Sorry, being hired by my own department through another pool, thanks anyway!”. And they go back and say, “Okay #12” and #12 says “umm, no I don’t want that job!”, so they go with #3 who says Yes. Now, HR actually has fully assessed info at this point for 3, 9 and 12 and they will note it, but not usually create a formal new pool. They will likely remove #9 from the pool as they said they’re going another way; they will leave #12 IN the pool because they didn’t say no to everything, just that job; and remove #3 because they’ve been pulled. The next manager from ESDC who comes along and wants to pull, they’ll see that #12’s references are already done, so they could just pull them immediately, but maybe they like #1 and #5 too. So they check them out, and hire #12. HR updates the info for all three (#1 and #5 have been assessed for the other two elements, and #12 has been pulled). I should note however that HR does not HAVE to update the info for #1 and #5, they could let multiple managers call the same references again, but that is annoying, so they usually won’t, they’ll just try to pull the info from the hiring managers. If you are #1,3,5,9 or 12, you love this process. If you are 2,4,6,7,8,10,11,13,14, 15? Not so much. You don’t even know those others are being considered UNTIL their notice of consideration goes up on the site if it’s internal instead of external.
If someone at the dept wants you for a job that doesn’t have all 14 requirements, maybe it has ONLY 10 (and no others, so it really is a subset), and all 10 have been assessed, they can pull you directly from the partially assessed pools. Suppose they don’t need A10 nor PS13 nor K2, nor EX3. For their job, everything has been assessed, they don’t need to do anything, they can just pull directly. However, if anything is DIFFERENT, AND they have to do another assessment, maybe they have A11 that wasn’t in the original list, they can’t pull from the pool as if it was advertised (although some depts are soft on this rule), they are supposed to do it as a non-advertised although their rationale internally will say “Hey comp XXXXXX already assessed 10 of the elements, I’m only additionally assessing this which is evident on their resume and I did a reference check where they told me blah blah blah”.
For another dept, this is where it starts to get really messy. If someone at another department wants to match a partially assessed pool? They’re usually not as comfortable relying on a partially assessed pool if it has any substantive elements. Missing language? No problem. Missing “Working with others”? They may not treat the partially assessed pool as worth anything at all. All they HAVE to do is check that element too, they’re ALREADY going to have to do a non-advertised appointment to match, but many depts treat partially assessed as “incomplete”.
So what does this mean if you’re in PA pool? Host depts will still access them, other depts may not. You will need to make it clear what has already been assessed (include the elements that HAVE been if you can, maybe as attachment to CV) and/or what REMAINS to be assessed. If you can say, “Hey, I’m been put in a partially assessed pool for EC-04, the only thing remaining to be assessed is language”, that’s as good as fully assessed. If you have to say, “Hey I’m in PA pool for EC-04, all the substantive elements have been tested, just need to assess oral communications”, that’s probably also good. If you have 2-3 or more elements remaining? Most managers will treat you as if you aren’t in any pool at all.
In the end, a lot of how it is handled depends on what the pool looks like, what remains to be assessed, whether it is across depts, AND whether manager X is interested or not. A pool gives them a fast pass to hiring, making it way simpler. That doesn’t mean they want you though, just makes it easier if they DO.
4. How often are pools extended? What determines whether there is an extension or not?
There’s an easy answer, but it’s not very reassuring or satisfying. The answer is “regularly” but the variables are unsatisfying. Backing up, the goal of any staffing process is to meet a current, future or ongoing need, or all three. If I want to hire an EC-04, and I don’t know any that I can recruit already (who I’ve worked with before or who are -03s already in my area and in a pool or who are in sister divisions or who have already contacted me), I’ll contact HR and say, “What do you have in the way for EC-04s?”. And they’ll come back and say, “The dept ran 3 EC-04s in the last 4 years, and here are the current status of teh pools:
EC-04 (pool 1) — 10 people remaining of original 20 — Evaluation focus, pool is 18 months old, 6 months remaining
EC-04 (pool 2) — 2 people remaining of original 40 — General focus, pool is 32 months old, 4 months remaining
EC-04 (pool 3) — 8 people remaining of original 9 — Researcher, pool is 1 month old, 11 months remaining
When the pools are established, HR will ask, “And how long would you like the pool to remain active?”. The responding manager will likely say, “Huh?”, but they’re asking, how fast are you going to pull people and are you going to need more from the pool next year, etc. They’re basically asking you as manager what your updated need is…current (1 person), future (2 people), ongoing (none). If you are likely to need 3 people in the next year, and then nobody, they’ll likely suggest you put it for a year and let it expire after that. Lots of people assume that pools should NEVER expire
Why does it matter? So let’s say I want to hire an EC-04 researcher, and I go through pool 3 above and don’t see anyone I want. Maybe they were 8 quantitative types and 1 qualitative who was hired already, and I want someone who can do qualitative including social media. Not really who’s left. Yet pool 3 is “open” for another year. If I launch a new process for an EC-04 researcher? The 8 remaining people in the pool are going to say, “WTF?”. I have legitimate reasons, but the union will smack me silly. Or if you look at pool 2, there are 2 general analysts in there. Maybe they’re okay, they made the pool so they’re qualified, but the “best of the original 40” have all been taken, and there’s a good chance I don’t want either of the remaining 2. Maybe they’re more introverts and I need extroverts who can do presentations. But again, if I want to run a new comp, those 2 are going to say, “Hey, wait a minute, why not ME?”. And again, I have legit reasons for not taking them, but there’s a good chance labour relations is going to tell me I can’t launch a new comp until that pool formally expires.
By contrast, let me tell you about a pool I ran for PM-06. I had 7 people make it through, it was immediate need, so I said, “6m” initially for duration. We hired 2 immediately, 2 other branches took one each, down to 4. Another department matched, down to 3. Of those 3, one didn’t want anything we had to offer, she just wanted to stay in the pool to try and leverage it elsewhere; one other was in the dept but with a very unique profile and was waiting to see if anything came up like that in the department. She didn’t want to change types of work or departments. So if she got a specific offer of a specific type, she would take it; if not, she wasn’t interested. That left 1 who was awesome in my opinion. A great addition to our branch and dept if we could figure something good out for her. So at 6m, I talked to the remaining 3 and said, “Hey, are you still interested if I extend the pool?”. I don’t have to do that, it’s a bit unusual, but there was no “cost” to me or the dept by extending, nobody else was being held up, and another branch was thinking about one of them. All three said “yes”, so I extended to 12m. At about Month 11, one of them got pulled by another branch. That left the person at another dept hoping to leverage and the one I wanted to recruit if we could, but nothing had solidified yet. So I extended again. Made it 18m in total. In that last 6m, the other dept person got matched (it’s easier if it’s a live pool not a previous one, although it makes no difference really), and dun dun dun, the person I wanted us to hire SOMEWHERE got hired in my branch for a great job. It was a small pool, and I actively managed it. The people IN the pool have told me it was the best run / most transparent process they were ever in. But it was easy, it was small numbers and I managed the crap out of it myself, which most managers do not do past creating the pool. We had 9 good people and I was trying to make sure they all went good places, the only time I’ve ever felt that about a competition that I’ve run. So I extended for very practical reasons. Ironically, about six years later, we did a reorg of our branch and I ended up working for her for six months as she was now EX-01 (now EX-02!). I didn’t really know the people who made the pool other than from the process, but they seemed good, so I put extra effort.
Most managers say “huh?” and ask, “what is standard?”. HR will say “There is no standard” and then tell them 6m or a year. Most branches or depts have defaults to either 6m or year to start. For an extension, they usually come back and ask the hiring manager who is normally “done” by that point, they’ve pulled everyone they want, and then the branch HR coordinator usually responds. And they’ll look at their list of planned staffing in the next year, and look at what’s left in the pool (lots of good people or already picked through pretty heavily) and decide to let it lapse or extend it. There’s a Billy Joel song with lyrics about being put in the discount rack like a can of beans, and it can feel that way sometimes when trying to decide to extend or not.
My overall impression is a year is standard, 18m is probably common. 6m is often too short, and longer than 18m usually means the pool is highly specialized (like an evaluator where they might hire one every 2y).
Hope that helps.
Paul
Hello,
Thanks for putting together so much helpful info. I wrote an exam for CO-01 (Competition Law Officer) and now I have been invited to interview where I will be evaluated on
-Communicate effectively orally
-Plan and prioritize
-Ability to provide analysis based on complex information
-Demonstrating integrity and respect.
-Working collaboratively with others
-Showing initiative and being action-oriented
I have looked through the comments and I have seen a couple of suggestions for some of the above but there is one I have yet to see. I was wondeirng if you could give some guidance on what a question may look like on:
-Ability to provide analysis based on complex information
Follow up question: for “Ability to provide analysis based on complex information”, was this not already evaluated on the exam I wrote? Or perhaps will they will ask me further questions based on the scenarios that I covered in exam?
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Mysterious Stranger
Hi MS,
Analysis on complex information is far easier to assess in an exam than an interview, I must say. The normal way would be to give you a bunch of info and ask you to do just that. In an interview, I can imagine three scenarios…
1. The one you mentioned, where they ask you to present something from your exam…this is quite common, although rarely do they have a score again for the analysis part in the interview, it’s often just for comms purposes. But could be that scenario. Note that in an interview though, they won’t be asking you to be quite so comprehensive. You can’t cover everything, so you will have to summarize, use bullets, group stuff into smaller digestible chunks, etc.
2. The worst form would be for them to say 30m ahead, “hey here’s some material with a question”. Very few would ever do it, and while it would suck, the saving grace is that it would suck for everyone. Everyone would struggle with it. If they do that, they’re idiots, and you may want to rethink working for them (!), but just do the best you can and don’t stress — very few people will “shine” if it is that way.
3. They could ask you, “Tell us of a time when you had to…”. Now this would be a bit interesting for an approach as some of what you would want to discuss is your APPROACH to doing something like that “in general”, not just what you did. So, for example, maybe you feel that your first step was to get a general thrust of the info by reading it all through once. And then secondly reading it while noting subthemes and supporting evidence. Then third looking at the evidentiary sources, weighing the relative weight of opinion in the literature etc (I’m making it very generic, you’ll have to tailor it to your field of study more). But if you have a structure that lets you be able to handle this type of Q, if you haven’t done it already while I was on holiday!, you would have a good frame to answer it generically.
Paul
Hi Paul,
During my interview, they started with an icebreaker question ‘Introduce yourself, and why do you think you are a good fit for this job’, which is not on the question list they sent earlier. And they said this question will not be scored. I think I mumbled a bit on this one. My question would be since this is not scored, will that matter? If so, how?
Hi Zach,
There is good news and bad news. On the good side, officially, it doesn’t matter. It was an icebreaker question, just to get you talking. Many interviewers choose not to read your resume before you start the interview so they are not biased one way or the other — they’re supposed to only grade what they hear in the interview. So they ignore everything else. Others want to know more about you before so they see the types of jobs you’ve done. 30s with a resume would be enough. Others will read every word you’ve ever written. Heck they may even Google you. They’re not supposed to, but some will. So they have a “complete” picture of you in the room. But officially, it doesn’t count, no issues.
The bad news is that there is no second chance to make that first impression. It’s a cliche but it’s true for interviews. Most experienced interviewers will chalk it up to nerves, sure, and they don’t care what you said, but they might already be thinking, “Okay, we’ll have to evaluate their comms ability as we go, that was a weak start”. They’re human. They saw you mumble through it (if you did — lots of nervous people THINK they did, and the interviewer didn’t even notice — we’re always our own harshest critics).
As an aside, this used to show up HEAVILY in the old style french tests and people are suggesting it may be again. If you go in, and you’re going for say a B, and they do their warm up asking you about the weather, and you fumble your way through it, they’re already calibrating their future scores. I know people who have gone in, ACED the warm-up that doesn’t count, had 3 quick questions, out in 10 minutes wiht a C. Or out in 10 minutes after flubbing and have an A. Retest? B.
Personally? I wouldn’t worry about it for two reasons — you don’t actually know if they noticed, and more importantly, there’s nothing you can do about it now!
Paul
Thank you Paul for always being so helpful!
Small additional thought…no one has ever failed an interview from an icebreaker error. All it means is that they might pay more attention to your comms ability through the rest of the test. But if you are on the line, you would have been on the line anyway. If you aced icebreaker, it might nudge you over; if you flubbed icebreaker, they won’t give you that extra nudge.
Yes, I think I did well on the ‘real’ questions. Just wish I was more prepared for the icebreaker. Totally unexpected. But thank you for the reassurance! I will move on!
Hi Paul,
Thank you for putting together this blog, it has been super helpful and I appreciate the detail and easy-to-understand language being used. I will be doing an interview Learning designer role and I am being considered for 3 levels: EDS-01, EDS-02, and EDS-03. I’ll be assessed on the following components, I was wondering in terms of creating a grid or 3 principles to be assessed on, if it would be the same for all three levels for a given ability, and would the interview question most likely be at the EDS-03 level to cover all three levels?
• Effective Interactive Communication
• Thinking Things Through
• Focus on client service
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Working effectively with others
• Initiative and action-oriented
Thank you in advance for your help!
Hi Meetra,
It is common but a bit painful for people to ask one question to people who are applying to all three levels at the same time. In theory, they should have three rating guides:
– EDS-01 –> This is what we expect for Thinking Things Through
– EDS-02 –> This is what we expect for Thinking Things Through
– EDS-03 –> This is what we expect for Thinking Things Through
However, as I said, that would be REALLY painful for them to mark / use in interviews and exams. Soooo, the usual default is they come up with one mega answer, and that would be considered the full answer to the question for 10/10 points. Then they’ll say the cutoff for EDS-03 is 9 or 10; EDS-02 is 7 or 8; and EDS-01 is 6/10.
So to qualify as a -03 for that element, you would have to give pretty clsoe to their full answer, more robust, more in depth, i.e., a really solid answer covering all the major elements. If you have most of the big elements, you’d still qualify for a -02. And if you do a good job, missing a few, you could qualify for the -1 level.
Then at the end, suppose that was the way for all the elements, and you got 9, 9, 8, 7, 9, 8, you’d qualify for the -02 (all elements 7 or higher) and the -01 (all elements 6 or higher) but NOT the -03 (3 elements below 9).
That isn’t to say that will be EXACTLY how they do it, but it is the most common way.
Paul
Hi Paul,
Thank you so much, this was helpful! I passed the interview stage at the 01 and 02 levels, I didn’t hear back about the 03 level interview results, I am guessing that means I did not meet that level?
I am wondering what happens once you are placed in both pools. I am thinking of a scenario where I get offered an 01 level, and if I do accept it do I get removed from the 01 and 02 pools? Or would you wait it out until you get something in the 02 level? Ideally, I would want to start at the 02 level position, I am wondering what typically happens when you are placed in two different level pools. Also, can you move around from levels easily?
Thank you in advance!! I really appreciate your insight so far in this process!
Mithura.S
Congrats on passing the -01 and -02 levels. The fact that they didn’t say anything about the -03 is a bit ambiguous. They SHOULD tell you YES to 01 and 02 and NO to 03 so that there is no doubt…either they assume it’s obvious OR they haven’t finalized the -03 pool yet. Fair game to ask.
For the 01 and 02 pools, you MAY be offered a 01 job, but even if you are, you still remain in the -02 pool. Technically, you still remain in the 01 pool, but almost every dept will remove you procedurally and any manager looking at the pool will be told you’re already taken and discard you from consideration. However, in my experience, in the conversation about a 01 job, you should say, “So I’m in the 02 pool as well, any chance of being pulled from it?”. Some managers are flexible on their boxes; others are rigid. No way to know until you ask. And then you can make a decision. Generally I say take the 01 until a -02 offer comes along. 🙂
Paul
Hi Paul,
Thank you so much again for all your time and efforts to this blog. I posted in your written exam section on this blog couple of weeks ago. So, I finally heard back from them 4 weeks after the exam.
I passed the written exam and now am invited to an interview for a CR-05.
I am working on the assess factors list and just wondering how you would address when asked what techniques did you use to ensure that your work was accurate. I have my answer written down but feel somewhat unsatisfied/ unsure if I have it correctly.
Another area will be asked is dependability, any important key points I should mention in my answer?
Thanks so much again for all your insights!
Hi Celine, glad to hear you passed! Congrats!
For accuracy, it’s a bit hard to suggest answers without knowing the specific context, so I’ll mention some general ideas and you can see how to adapt. Generally, some of the elements you want to hit are being careful and/or being methodical. Following guidelines, having a set routine, and doing some sort of verification. Or at least reviewing before finalizing. Those are pretty basic. Another option, and I don’t know if any of it will apply to your situation but I’ll give you some ideas, and maybe you have something similar. Suppose for example you have to add up a series of numbers, say 10 x two digits. One technique they used to teach in accounting is that if you add up a list of numbers, do it one direction, and do it again in reverse order (this was before regular use of calculators, computers, etc.). A simple example could be something like mini golf…you get to 9 holes, you have to add up the 9 numbers, you’re doing it on the fly, you add it up and you get 27. You do it in reverse and you get 25. Oops, what did you do wrong? It’s easy to happen, even with a single digit, you read a 5 as a 3 because it’s written with a blunt pencil on a piece of folding cardboard! But if you check it the second time in the same order, you’re likely to make the same mistake. Going in reverse order, you have different steps, and you can’t make the same mistake, it won’t “fall” the same way. Another example for people doing spreadsheets is they add up columns, and even if they don’t need it, they’ll add up the rows too and then add the sum of the rows and the sum of the columns to see if they match. They should. If they don’t, something’s wrong with your formulas somewhere. There’s an old accounting trick that if you total up two columns that should be the same total, and you get a different number, subtract one from the other to see if the difference is divisible by 9. If it is, one of the sub-items in column 1 and 2 have two transposed digits. For another idea, often in training people for data entry jobs, they’ll give them a sample set of data, get them to do the work, and when they’re done, it is compared with a known “correct” version. If they don’t match, the errors are clear. Soooo, some people often “test” new processes against known “correct” responses to see if the new process gives the same answer.
For dependability, the obvious headings are, well, obvious. 🙂 The less obvious to add is that you ensure that the instructions you receive are clearly understood, perhaps even summarizing and repeating it back, so you know that what you’re doing is what you’ve been asked to do. Equally, if something is goign to be late or go off the rails or whatever, you will try to find a solution yourself first BUT you will also keep your boss up to date on any hidden gremlins that might cause problems. Not in a “I’ll alert you every 20 seconds about what I’ve done” or that you’ll go running to them about every little problem, but you also wont’ wait until the deadline to say, “Ooops, forgot to tell you, it won’t be done for 3 more days because finance doesn’t have all the info for us yet.” You manage your own files and will come back if/when they need to know something. It’s as important for someone to handle everything that comes their way as it is to tell me if I’m relying on you and it won’t happen for whatever reason. Manage your own files but keep your manager informed as necessary.
Hope that helps…
Paul
Hi Paul,
Thank you for all your detailed content surrounding the processes of applying and preparing for PS jobs. I’ve read through a lot, and particularly this post a few times.
I have an interview coming up with the CRA for an SP04 Test Analyst position, which I think is classed as informal, since I had already made the pool? The topic they included in the interview request email, has me a bit stumped in preparing. They say it will be 3 questions, 15 minutes and the topic pertains to effectively working from home/incorporating the hybrid work model.
I’ve been trying to use the processes mentioned above for what they might ask, and I’m struggling. I’ve come up with some standard things based on research and looking over what I could find for documentation on the wfh and hybrid models online (IE flexgc etc). I still feel like I might be missing something or maybe might also be completely over thinking it. I like to prepare and try and come up with as many possible scenarios and questions as possible to try and limit the deer in the headlights effect when asked a questions in an interview. Commonly all thinking and logic falls out my ear and I end up looking like a glitched out seal struggling with existence, which isn’t what I’d like to portray. I know I have the skills and capacity to do the job if given the chance.
I’ve made a document for myself breaking down the policies I could find, the information about effectively working from home and making use of the hybrid model. I then wrote down some questions that would be obvious to ask like “Is your house suitable for working from home? Do you have a dedicated office? Is this office a place that you can work in without distractions?” or “When working for home privacy and security is paramount. How will you ensure privacy of personal information that you may be working with? What steps will you take to ensure information is secure and cannot be accessed by visitors or other members of your household?”, I’ve also tried to identify some core skills or competencies they may be looking to see like reliability, analytical thinking, communication and interpersonal skills, integrity, flexibility, initiative.
Is there anything that I’m not thinking of, or I should be sure to prepare for that I haven’t covered?
Thank you,
Kindest regards,
Ash
Hi Ash,
I’m not entirely sure how to advise you as it seems like they are doing something they are NOT supposed to do. If you are in a pool, and it’s fully accessed, then when they invite you to an further interview, it’s about “best fit”. They are not allowed to “test” you further at that point. However, lots of managers don’t understand that. And from your description, it seems like they intend to test you. You’re already found qualified, there’s nothing else to “test”.
Now, they may be doing it wrong, and will actually test you. In which case, you should have something prepared if you want to actually keep going. That’s your call though. In my view? That’s a giant red flag to me. If they are violating the HR rules, I don’t want to work for them. I’d run the other way unless I really wanted the job. Easy for me to say, I know. But it is a flag to me. Your approach seems a bit overkill as there doesn’t seem to be a good way to test that. Are they lookign for you to analyse? Present? who knows.
Alternatively, maybe all they want to do is use it to get you talking, and they are not “testing” you, just want to see if the way you think and work fits with them. Seems sketchy, but could be just that.
Or perhaps you’re not in a fully assessed pool, just a partially assessed pool?
Personally, I would prepare 3 things that work well in RTO for me personally, and use those as my talking points. Beyond that, it’s anyone’s guess what they’re doing, sorry.
Paul
Hi Paul
Can you offer some guidance and thought on the potential exam format for key competencies for example – initiative , action oriented and leadership, thinking things through and written communication.
Terrific website. Thank you
Hi Jackie,
I’m a bit confused by your question. Almost all five of those are already addressed in the main text or in comments…not sure what else you are looking for?
The questions are of 3 forms:
– Tell us of a time when you displayed X…
– Here is scenario, what would you do to display X…
– Ability X is critical to this position. What would you do to ensure that you’re demonstrating it if you were hired?
Substitute each of those four for each. If you review Key Leadership Competencies on TBS website, you’ll see some possible headings for each.
Good luck!
Paul
Thanks so much Paul. I did see that for interviews. These are areas to be evaluated on a written exam.
So I wondered about how an exam might be structured with these areas. Thank you so much for your response and time.
Hi Jackie:
>> These are areas to be evaluated on a written exam
Ah-hah, now I understand the question! 🙂 I thought that was a typo as it is rare to do all of those in exam. Okay, so here goes:
1. Initiative / Action-Oriented / Leadership — These are likely “merged” to a similar type question. There is a type of exam/process called an “inbox” exercise, and while this won’t be THAT elaborate, it likely has similar elements. I would expect a scenario of some sort aka “You’re the desk officer, here is a series of things going on” plus some key parameters to consider. And they want you to develop some sort of detailed implementation / action plan / workplan to address all of steps you would take to do x, y or z. Note that similar to interviews, they are NOT looking for an answer that says:
– Do X
– Do Y
– Do Z
That won’t tell them anything. They need you to explain why you’re doing them and in that order. For initiative, the same type headings will apply — are you doing thing that go beyond the obvious or what you would be expected to do? Are you being innovative? Will it take effort and thought and consideration? Will you be leading people in it? Will it get you better results? etc.
For thinking things through, that may be either merged with the previous one OR might be more of a situation where you have to idnetify all the key variables in a situation and explain which are important. Less about “what do you do” and more about “what’s going on here, what matters”. For marking, it will want to see you identified variables, weighted them, understand the implications both vertically and horizontally, as well as can think of upstream impacts (root issues) and downstream impacts (service delivery symptoms/complications).
The written comms part will just be a global score and generally falls to being “Was it understandable?” It will have other elements like vocab, grammar, logic, etc., but for me, the only thing to worry about is a clear and understandable structure. Everythign else falls into place.
Good luck!
Paul
Hi Paul! I can’t tell you how happy I am that I found this information! I have been screened in to many government processes, but always struggle with the interview portion and as a result have never been offered a position. I have another interview coming up and have been using your tips to prepare for it, but cannot come up with simple headings to use for a potential rating grid. Can you possibly help me out with this and provide any other tips? I am being evaluated on the following competencies:
1. Demonstrating Integrity and Respect
2. Thinking Things Through
3. Showing Initiative and Being Action-Oriented
Thank you in advance!
Lisa
Hi Lisa,
Someone else posted recently with the same list, so must be a large comp 🙂 Initiative is covered in the guide as a clear example so I won’t repeat it here. TTT is one I’ve covered before, but basically it’s analytical thinking. On a more complicated basis, it often means being able to consider if there are implications beyond 1 or 2 steps. Deductive reasoning. So, for example, if you need to publish a report at the end of August, and you need it approved by the Minister the last week of August, and a fully translated version two weeks before, and a full English or French version 3 weeks before that, and you need a draft done before that and input from multiple people, so you have to get the detailed tasking out next week, for instance. Can you think through the various steps in a process or policy to go from macro to micro to get the job done. It isn’t just “planning”, but often planning is a good example. From a policy perspective, sometimes it is more complicated interactions such that, for example, if you want to help someone who is homeless get a job, maybe you first start with offering them health care, and housing options, and some guidance on life skills, and then eventually labour market upskilling, etc.
For Integrity and Respect, I usually tell people to go to the Key Leadership Competencies and pick out the elements that resonate with them. Transparency, honesty, reliability, repsect for diversity, etc. are all potential elements.
Good luck!
Paul
Thanks Paul, that’s really helpful. So, to confirm structure does trump content, right? I was going over my answers with my husband and he pointed out that one of my examples is too simplistic. Honestly, I I don’t have a lot of complicated examples to share. Will this hurt me?
Also, when it comes to structuring my responses, would this be the correct/most effective format:
1. mention the key aspects of the competency and explain how I have demonstrated them (past)
2. provide examples (present)
3. how I will continue to apply what I’ve learned (future)
Thanks again!
Hi Lisa, I thought I had responded to this earlier, but it shows as Unanswered in my dashboard, sorry about that.
I hesitate to say structure trumps content as blanket policy forever and ever, but I might be worrying about semantics. I do believe that an answer with fantastic content but poor structure is not as good as a reasonable answer with a good structure. An example I use in presentations sometimes is from appling to DFAIT (now GAC) a long time ago. In the interview, I was asked about organizing an event when you had no money, etc. It was meant to be a bit of creativity with some basic logistics. I had no real idea, but I answered it by breaking it into three pieces for my answer:
a. Piggybacking on an existing event that was already paid for;
b. Finding a sponsor or organization to partner with; or,
c. A free event
I gave an example for each, and when I was done, I thought it was the WORST answer ever. When I got feedback later, I found out I got 10/10. I was like, “Huh?”. So I talked to the person giving the feedback and said, if I got 10/10 for that, what did OTHER people say? In my mind, no way that was 10/10. But he pointed out that while others had some creative ideas, they were all kind of shotgun responses, with ideas flying here and there and everywhere. It was like they were simply brainstorming. Now, to be fair, we didn’t have the Qs in advance at the time, it was all “live” questions and answers. But he explained basically that while others had better content, my answer was well-organized, perfectly understandable, and hit all the elements.
Now that I’ve been on the other side of the desk, I see how it works in other interviews too. Generally speaking, someone with a well-structured answer does a better job. If instead you’re all over the place or going way too deep for content, you start to lose marks. You’ll likely still pass, though. In other cases, I’ve seen people with weak content and a good structure pass — kind of like me, my answer was probably a 7/10 but with a great structure, it bumped me to 10. Sometimes I’ve seen people with, say, 4/10 on content but a great structure and it looks like a 6 or 7/10.
Other than that, your approach seems fine. There is no perfect technique, much of it depends on what is most comfortable for you …
Good luck!
Paul
Hi Paul,
First, thanks for creating this guide. It is amazing and very helpful.
I passed the written exam section of my EC06 competition, and I will do an online interview in two weeks. The merit criteria are: oral communication, making recommendations to management, collaborative work and analytical thinking type of things.
You have already written about it. Is it really experience, process or principles? Would it be enough for this step if I prepare 3 responses/processes for each criteria?
Thanks again & best regards,
Bob
Hi Bob,
You’ve probably already done it as I was AFK for a couple of weeks. But yes, preparing for a experience/process/principle type of answer to each of them will get you probably 90% of the way there.
Paul
Thanks for your response, Paul!
Yes, I did the interview already. I got two scenarios and tried my best. But even though I gave detailed and comprehensive responses, I felt later that they were (mostly or partly) systematic but not amazing responses. I am not sure what to expect at this point.
Here are some questions. With the interview excitement, I had many, but I forgot to share examples of my previous experiences related to the things in the scenarios. The interviewers will know about my relevant experiences from my resume but I think it would have been amazing to add some more concrete examples. Is it a deal breaker, what do you think?
Do they do cross-marking? For example, do the evaluators give the candidate extra scores for analytical thinking or thinking things through in another response (making recommendations to management response)? Do they happen to see relevant elements and bump the other score 1 or 2 up?
Cheers,
Bob
Hi Bob,
Sorry for the delay in responding. Summer beckons 🙂
For your first question, it is not terminal if you don’t mention past examples in your answer to a scenario-type question. One danger I have in explaining about techniques and structures and prep etc. is you forget that you are also answering a question. Sometimes you can tie yourself up in knots trying to guess what the elements are that they want. In one comp I did, it didn’t say what each Q was marking. I did it, but it was my first real time trying for that level (an EX-01) and it was more complicated than I expected. It doesn’t really work the same way as pre-EX questions. For one Q, I had NO IDEA what they were trying to evaluate with the Q, and so I ignored it, and just answered the question, ignoring the elements. I got 9/10, the best mark in the comp apparently by a lot. Most of the answers were basic whereas I just said what I would do in full. They thought it was the best answer. A mental reminder for myself that sometimes you have to turn it all off and just answer the Q. If you do, and you answer it well, all the other stuff, including examples or headings or elements, kind of fade away.
For cross-marking, it’s a great question with no concrete answer. In most comps, the rating guide is theoretically “locked” by the time they start interviewing. And let’s say they’re marking 4 things (A-E) with 5 questions, and do the following:
1. A & B
2. A & C
3. B & D
4. C & E
5. D & E
Everything tested twice, all good. What you’re essentially asking is if in Q4, they were marking C (initiative) and E (thinking things through), but your answer also gave a really good example of B (analytical thinking), would they give you marks for B? According to the rating guide’s design, no. HR would say “just what they say for that question”, or at least by the book HR people would say that. But anyone who has done interviews for awhile in their career knows that all 5 are inter-related. And the goal is to test A-E during an interview…does it really matter if you gave part of your answer for B in another question? Not really. The only requirement is that you are totally consistent with other candidates too.
Sooooo, most experienced interviews consider final scores as “holistic”…they’ll finish your interview, say in 45 minutes, and then talk about your performance for 15m. And they’ll say things like, “Well Bob did an okay job on Q2, but it was obvious from Q4 that they really understand B better than that raw answer showed, he went into more detail in Q4. So I’m inclined to give him 7/10 for this one.” (or it might be more implicit than explicit). Newer “interviewers” might not do that. They might go by the rating guide with each Q separate. Note though that it isn’t mathematical in the sense of “oh, we’ll add 2 marks over in Q2”, it’s more that they holistically look at what you said, and let the other answer (Q4) influence the way they interpret what you said in Q2.
In my experience, it only matters for people who were on the line though. If you had 7/10 (a common pass level) already, they won’t bump you up to an 8 or 9, no need to do so. If you were at a 2, a clear fail, they won’t bump you up to a pass. They might move you to a 3-4 but it makes no difference to the outcome, you would still fail. On the other hand, if you were a 5-6/10 on element B, and passed everything else, it would be in the realm of possibilities that they bump you up to a 7 and let you squeak in. You DID demonstrate everything in the interview, they’re not gifting you anything, it just showed up in another answer. On the other hand, if you’ve failed other elemeents, they may not bother. They’ll just let your Q2 answer stand as it is with the 5/10 score.
It isn’t uncommon for someone in a informal consult to say “But I showed over HERE that I knew all about it”, and the response is normally, “Yeah, but you didn’t say it for THIS answer, that was marking something else.”
As I said, no clear answer, depends more in my view on how close you are to the line on all the elements and if the interviewers are experienced or not.
Paul
Paul, thanks so much for all your responses! They were very helpful. And sorry for my late response!
Some good news! I made it to the pool! I was feeling my responses to the questions were just mediocre, not bad but not great either. Apparently, one way or another it worked out.
It brings up some new questions 🙂 So, what happens in the pool? Can managers point to specific people (for qualifications, some personal traits, etc.) and invite them for an informal interview?
Second, I know it can be as quick as tomorrow, but what is the worst case scenario and how often does that happen? I mean, let’s assume I am not invited for a final interview soon, is it ok to expect something in 6 months or 1 year? Do all the candidates get invited at some point over the 2-3 year pool life?
Finally, one of the interviewers told that 50 candidates were invited for an interview. Approximately, how many of them reach the pool level?
Best,
Bob
Hi Bob and congratulations! Good work!
Alas, the bad news is there is no end to the potential downside. Yes, they can look at the pool of say 10 people, suppose you’re #7, and they say, “let’s interview 2 and 4”. So they do, pick #2. Next manager says, “Hey that 4 looks great, and I’ll also try 3”. And they do, and pick 3. Next manager says, “Hey I’ll try 1 and 6”, both say no, they try #4, and they say no, they try 1 who says yes. Then the first manager says they have room for another person, 4 is still available and they say yes. Lots of activity, and no guarantee you were what they wanted. I often use a computer support example…suppose the people had PC, MAC and mainframe people all make the pool. But the first few managers are full on PC and MAC and weak on mainframe, so they pull all the mainframe people first. And the next manager wants a MAC person. You’re sitting there with PC going, “But what about me?”. You’re not necessarily the right fit in their team for what they need right now. Yes, you’re qualified, but they already have enough PC people. If they didn’t, you’d be picked first!
Pools generally run for at least six months and a year is common. Over a year, and some depts start shutting them down. Depends on the category, how many people are left in it, etc. Lots of people make pools and nobody takes them. They’re qualified, but it doesn’t mean they will get a job, unfortunately. In the old system of ranked people, if you were first on a list, nobody else could be hired until you were. Which worked for good and bad…you could have a jerk sitting at #2, passed all the elements but in interactions, nobody wants to hire them. Good on paper, bad in practice. So the list died — they’d take the first person, and anyone after #2 would sit forever. It is one of the reasons the new system was created — to prevent that problem. Numerical rankings don’t mean person #2 would be the best person for Job A or B.
In my experience, and this totally depends on the pool, if 50 people were interviewed, probably 20-25 made the pool. Which is either great news if they need 50 people or terrible news if they only need 2.
No real way to know in advance, which is why you need to … wait for it … keep applying ot other ones. And make sure any manager you speak to knows you’re in a pool. 🙂
Good luck!
Paul
Hey Paul,
I am interviewing for a PC-02 position with the PSPC, the poster said that the following would be assessed at a later time I was just wondering how you think the would base the knowledge portion of the poster… im confident in the competencies but just trying to figure out how to hone in on details to review for the interview.
It’s for an environmental specialist.
The following will be applied / assessed at a later date (essential for the job)
English essential
Information on language requirements
KNOWLEDGE
K1: Knowledge of federal and provincial environmental legislation and/or regulations, guidelines, policies and best practices specific to management of contaminated sites.
K2: Knowledge of project management practices (for example: scope development, terms of reference preparation, budget and schedule tracking and QA/QC of technical reports).
CORE COMPETENCIES:
1 – Client service orientation – Level 1
2 – Showing initiative and being action-oriented
3 – Working effectively with others
4 – Thinking things through
5 – Demonstrating integrity and respect
ABILITIES
AB1: Ability to communicate clearly and effectively orally and in writing.
Thanks in advance
Hi Dillon,
Don’t know if this will still be relevant to reply as I’ve been AFK for a few weeks.
For the K1 and K2, I can’t tell you too much about the legis, obviously, but the type of questions are relatively straightforward — they’ll likely give you a scenario and ask you to write a background memo or something that explains which leg, regs, guidelines etc apply and how. Similarly for the PM practices.
Comms, working effectively with others, thinking things through, initiative are all standard, and my general stuff on the website explains it. For integrity and respect, I would use the parts of the Key Leadership Competencies that you can find on the TBS website to help you decide what those elements mean to you.
The one that is unique is the one labelled “Client service orientation – Level 1”. That means they have a separate set of definitions unique to their dept, it’s not a general thing for all depts. So look on their website to see what you can find that explains what CSO – 1 means.
Good luck,
Paul
Hey Paul,
My exam was exactly that; i had to write a terms of reference for a case study they provided on an environmental site assesment. It was better than i expected as they gave 24 hours to complete.
my understanding is that the next steps would be a panel interview asking about the core competencies; luckily they were all discussed in my PSPM as im currently a term PS employee with CFIA. Ill review in the areas that you recommend and hopefully they get back to me soon saying I am moving on to this round (im pretty confident in my response)
thanks you for your response,
Dillon
Hi Dillon, that sounds great. Fingers crossed for you (although it’s hard to typed with crossed fingers hehehe).
Paul
Hi Paul,
I am so grateful for your dedication in helping all of us make sense of the hiring process! I have yet another process where I will be tested in terms of my adaptability when faced with a major change in a project. I was wondering whether the following example would be appropriate.
I was working on a study as part of a team and we could not obtain the data needed, so we proceeded by changing our methodology based on the data we did have.
I was going to describe the way I dealt with this change. Would this example work?
Thank you again for all your dedication in helping strangers navigate this process! I truly appreciate it!
Have a nice evening,
Orchid
Hello again!
I think your example of adaptability works in general i.e., plan with one approach, didn’t have the right data, switched to another approach. As you noted, you’ll explain how YOU adapted.
There is a small wrinkle in your description though. Make sure first that it does not look like two choices from the beginning and you just chose the one that worked. If you do that, i.e. Option A and Option B, and you really look like you’re just going with option B, then there’s no real “change”. You need to show you were committed to one path, maybe with full critical path, several steps down, and ideally that the cause of the change (data not available) was as a result of a surprise. You need to have it look like both a REAL change and not one resulting from poor planning on your part.
Equally, in the second part, for describing how YOU adapted, it is good to show how you reassessed, considered several options, had to make some choices, etc. It shouldn’t be obvious what the change had to be, it shouldn’t be the only thing, and it should be significant for its impact. Showing how you adapt might include different options weighed, a choice made, and then adjustments to your implementation plan as you went. It may also go broader and talk about how, perhaps you had a vision and sold people on it, and now that vision has changed. So you need to address with the team that there is a change. It’s on my mind as recently, my team and I had a vision of how one of our files would go, we’ve been working on it for some time, and were about to present to the DG our planned approach. Think of it like a 60 page report, covering lots of details. The DG instead just announced publicly that it would only be a 5 pg report. Very different approach, significant adjustment both mentally and operatiaonlly. TBH, I was ticked as the project lead that I didn’t get to present other options. I wouldn’t talk about that in an interview, but it means a significant change for my team. Many were disappointed. We’ve come up with some ways to do some of the work we wanted through other ways, can still deliver the new report, and we’ll embrace the change without dwelling in the past. But it does require significant adjustment, and it is the adjustment that would make it to an interview.
Hope that helps!
Paul
Hi Paul, thank you so much for such a detailed and helpful message. This is fantastic. I had some concerns about how change may be perceived, but your suggestions about how to present the change I faced are very helpful. I will think about everything that you suggested and address every aspect in my prepared answer. I truly enjoy reading your responses to everyone’s questions! Have a lovely week ahead.
Best regards,
Orchid