Wednesday 11 June 2008

Recent interview feedback

Here is a query from a candidate assessed recently which demonstrates how the questioning can progress and also emphasising how you can become demoralised if you feel a question did not go well and how this can impact on your performance on the rest of the interview.
> Dear James
> Just thought I would let you know how I got on at my interview following your help with my Critical Analysis.
>
> The panel were friendly and the chairman very welcoming although one of the assessors did seem to want to question me on areas for which I did not have significant experience and seemed to enjoy getting me into a corner.
>
> The presentation went well, i feel, and the questions started relatively ok.
>
> I am concerned in particular about 2 areas:
>
> 1. I was quizzed about 'can I be sued personally if i performed my duties as an Employers agent negligently' and how does this differ in my role as a QS?? I answered along the lines of ... i understand the Merrett v babb case has increased the chances of surveyors being held personally liable but, unless i was not acting within the realms of my employment, my negligence would be covered by the employers PI insurance. He did not seem to like this and asked for a straight answer, yes or no, whether i could be personally liable. At this stage i panicked slightly and said "no, i believe i am covered by the firm's PI for both EA roles and QS". Unfortunately from this point on my performance
decreased.
>
> 2. The recent cover pricing issue - it appears as though every candidate was asked the same questions - "would you include one of the 112 contractors on a tender list - what would your recommendation to the client be?" My answer was, "if there were other contractors who had adequate resources and experience to carry out the job, then I would recommend they are not included". The chairman then asked, "is that a yes or a no". I again panicked as I didn't feel it was as straightforward as that but said "no, i would not recommend them" - i feel this is wrong looking back.
>
> It would be useful to get your opinions on these although i understand you probably can't give your views on the way the questions were asked. I am very concerned that a lot of emphasis will be placed on these two questions as they are effectively Rules of Conduct questions. Is the 'rumour' true that Rules of conduct questions such as these are pass/fail questions?
>
I did make a statement at the end of the interview stating that i knew why PI is required, I knew what the RICS requirements are for PI and if i was ever unsure if the work i was doing was covered by the firms policy, I would always check. I got no reaction from this and the feeling as I left the room was one of extreme disappointment.
> Well thats the story of the assessment ..... I am confident I have the ability but am worried these may have gone against me.
>
> Out of interest, is it the chairman that makes the decisions or must it be a majority vote?Thanks again for your help with my critical analysis and I look forward to hearing your views.
>
> Regards, Hello xxx Fingers crossed! Obviously difficult to give firm opinion, even if I had been in the room at the time. In the first question I think they were maybe trying to get you to expand and see if you understood the principle of vicarious liability. The general rule as I understand it is that both you and the employer or agent could be liable but the plaintiff will normally sue the party with the 'deepest pockets' but of course in Merritt Babb the question arose partly because the deepest pockets were no longer available.
I assumed there was a strong case for the cover pricing question hence my detailed note on the apcrics blog which I hope you read. I think a straight 'no' could be problemattic for 2 reasons. Firstly, all of the potential bidders may well be on this very comprehensive list of 112 contractors and secondly none of them have actually been found guilty of anything yet! I think they were probably hoping you would discuss in terms of ensuring you vetted the tender list and exercised due diligence possibly getting some form of undertaking from the contractors under consideration. The contractors' defence seems to rest partly on the fear that if they did not put in some bid they would not be considered for future projects so this would also be an issue you would address with the proposed short list. It is true that a lot of weight is put on the responses to Code of Conduct issues. I don't think either of the above would be seen as a pass/fail deal breaker but your responses would be taken in the context of the overall interview. Each assessor independently comes to an assessment of you before the chairman collates the overall opinion.In my experience as an assessor this is normally unanimous. Good luck.
james@cpddirect.com

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!