Competency Based Interviewing Training Course

Participants can convert role requirements into clear competencies and observable behavioural indicators.

• Competency frameworks translated into requirements for a specific vacancy
• Core, functional and leadership competencies differentiated by role purpose
• Behavioural indicators written using observable actions, decisions and outcomes
• Proficiency levels distinguish operational, managerial and strategic performance
• Performance evidence separates minimum requirements from preferred strengths
• Avoiding vague labels such as attitude, fit and executive presence
• Critical incidents used to identify successful and unsuccessful behaviours

Participants can design a structured interview process matched to role risk and assessment needs.

• Assessment criteria prioritised according to role impact and recruitment risk
• Interview duration allocated across introductions, questions, probing and closure
• Question sets mapped directly to competencies and behavioural indicators
• Panel roles assigned for chairing, questioning, observation and note-taking
• Consistent candidate instructions prepared before interview scheduling begins
• Reasonable adjustments considered within the assessment process design
• Interview packs controlled through versioning, access and retention rules

Participants can write behavioural questions that obtain relevant, comparable candidate evidence.

• Behavioural questions anchored in a specific past work situation
• Question stems prompt actions, judgment, stakeholders and measurable results
• Open questions avoid signalling preferred answers or assumed experience
• Competency wording converted into plain language candidates understand
• Technical and behavioural questions sequenced without duplicating assessment evidence
• Scenario questions used when candidates lack directly comparable experience
• Question review tests relevance, clarity, fairness and evidence potential

Participants can use neutral probing to obtain complete, attributable behavioural evidence.

• STAR method separates situation, task, action and result evidence
• Follow-up probes clarify the candidate's personal contribution and judgment
• Chronological probing tests claims that appear rehearsed or incomplete
• Neutral prompts prevent interviewers from coaching candidates toward answers
• Clarifying questions distinguish context from demonstrated capability
• Silence, pauses and redirection managed without disrupting candidate rapport
• Notes capture facts, quotations, actions and outcomes accurately

Participants can evaluate interview evidence against defined rating criteria rather than personal preference.

• Behaviourally anchored rating scales define evidence at each score level
• Ratings based on evidence quality, relevance, consistency and impact
• Insufficient evidence recorded separately from poor performance evidence
• Interview notes converted into competency-by-competency assessment judgments
• Overall recommendations derived from criteria rather than simple averages
• Red flags distinguished from unsupported assumptions and personal reactions
• Scoring records document rationale for appointment and non-appointment decisions

Participants can recognise bias risks and apply controls that support fair and consistent interviews.

• Affinity bias, confirmation bias and halo effect identified early
• First-impression judgments delayed until evidence collection is complete
• Protected characteristics excluded from assessment criteria and discussion
• Consistent questions create comparable evidence across all candidates
• Reasonable adjustments handled without lowering role-related assessment standards
• Selection records support transparent feedback, audit and challenge processes
• Escalation routes applied when interviewers identify conflicts of interest

Participants can coordinate panel interviews and reach evidence-led, calibrated selection decisions.

• Panel chair responsibilities set before candidate interviews commence
• Question ownership prevents duplication and protects interview timing
• Independent scoring completed before group discussion begins
• Calibration discussions compare evidence, ratings and interpretation of indicators
• Dominant voices managed through structured turn-taking and challenge
• Consensus decisions tested against agreed criteria and documented evidence
• Disagreements recorded when panel members cannot reach a common rating

Participants can run professional interview conversations that gather evidence while treating candidates fairly.

• Interview openings explain format, timing, note-taking and candidate questions
• Rapport built without discussing personal circumstances or irrelevant interests
• Clear transitions maintain pace between competencies and interview stages
• Candidate questions answered consistently without revealing confidential information
• Difficult conversations handled when evidence is sensitive or incomplete
• Professional closure explains next steps and decision communication arrangements
• Candidate experience monitored through feedback, complaints and withdrawal patterns

Participants can produce a role-specific interview pack and plan its use within their recruitment process.

• Interview guide assembled from criteria, questions, probes and rating scales
• Candidate briefing materials aligned with the structured interview format
• Interviewer training requirements identified for managers and panel members
• Quality assurance checks review question coverage and scoring consistency
• Recruitment metrics track completion, variance, quality and candidate feedback
• Post-hire performance data tests interview criteria against actual outcomes
• Personal application plan sets actions, owners, deadlines and review points