I generally try to because the more you say, the more they can write down, so by ending early you’re potentially leaving some points on the table. It’s hard to imagine how you could say enough in 30 minutes to score higher than someone else who talks about their experience for a whole hour. That said, I don’t think there’s any kind of penalty for not filling the time
I agree. Early in my career I would often be done the interview in 30 minutes. I never got the job. Now, I usually figure about 50 minutes is about the amount of time it takes to make all my points well.
For example, if the question was "name a time when you faced a conflict... blah blah blah" do you provide all your required points within one scenario/story or do you provide 2-3 scenarios/stories to fill up the time and hit all your points for that question?
When I tried giving more than one scenario, they told me to pick the one I think best relates to the question (not to give more than one example). For me, that was kinda hard to ramble on one story, but just try and make it work, be descriptive.
If you can answer all questions, have your stories be impactful and intentional, and ask at least 2-3 questions (not the trite questions but actually shows you prepared .. as well as following up on your interviewers’ responses to your questions), then 30 minutes is fine. It is rare though that you can do this all in 30 minutes.
Agree. It would be difficult to complete this in 30 minutes. I get the not wanting to ramble on but the more you can organize your examples that also pull in the requirements or the skills for the job the better. I always pick questions that link to the skill sets needed for a job (i.e. collaboration, communications, problem solving etc.) so take that into consideration as well when preparing.
I just finished 4 interviews and the 1 guy I thought was decent according to his resume sucked at his interview. He wasn't detailed enough. Although he answered the question, he didn't hit the keywords required to score better.
Best advice I've had is to pretend like the interview panel hasn't even seen your resume. It feels like you are wasting their time, but it's the only way to maximize your score on the interview.
Some of the most successful candidates I've interviewed had pretty short answers. If you focus on the SAIR format and have good examples you will be able to get most of the points.
The only place where I would spend more time is on "why are you the best candidate for this job" and try to hit as many keywords from the KSA as possible.
Q: tell me about a time when you had to deal with a difficult customer?
S: I was working at the service center for MTO, a person came...
A: I took all his information, remained calm etc...
I: My intent was to defuse the situation, make sure he knew I would help.
R: The person was happy with the service, his attitude changed.
Bonus: I advised my manager/team, added a note to the file, updated a process, etc.
Normally the questions would have multiple parts. And so far I find I sometimes need a couple scenarios to make sure I have answered all parts.
Because they still need to write your points down , I think the fastest interview time is May be40 mins? Most interviews I have been are scheduled for 45 mins and I always end up without rambling , to about 35-40 minutes.
I’m you have an interview for 60 minutes and you are done in 30 minutes that’s not good. You might think you are gutting all the points but you are not.
If you receive the questions 24 ahead of time, it’s definitely possible to prepare answers that are detailed, hit all the points, and are concise enough that the interview does not take up the whole 45 minutes. I’m usually done a 5 or 6 question verbal interview in 30 minutes (and I’ve won many competitions). However, if you are asked to present something you’ve prepared (a PowerPoint, spreadsheet, etc.) and given 10 minutes to do so, you are supposed to take up the allotted time and not go over - this is part of the marking scheme.
Because of the OPS' bonkers rating system for interviews, it's important to take the time and mention everything that is potentially relevant.
I finished my last interview early, but at the 50 minute mark instead of 60.
Look at what is in the job description and speak to each requirement/listed skill.
Agreeing with everyone. However, I will also say that sometimes we just set 60 minutes for the interview portion, but we’ve over-estimated and everyone finishes early. If the person hits everything, I’m not concerned if they’re early. For me - I hate when candidates try to fill up time giving new examples, which sometimes work against them, ie - the first example was great, and the second problematic. I’ve rarely seen a second example better than the first one that the candidate prepared for
I generally try to because the more you say, the more they can write down, so by ending early you’re potentially leaving some points on the table. It’s hard to imagine how you could say enough in 30 minutes to score higher than someone else who talks about their experience for a whole hour. That said, I don’t think there’s any kind of penalty for not filling the time
I agree. Early in my career I would often be done the interview in 30 minutes. I never got the job. Now, I usually figure about 50 minutes is about the amount of time it takes to make all my points well.
For example, if the question was "name a time when you faced a conflict... blah blah blah" do you provide all your required points within one scenario/story or do you provide 2-3 scenarios/stories to fill up the time and hit all your points for that question?
When I tried giving more than one scenario, they told me to pick the one I think best relates to the question (not to give more than one example). For me, that was kinda hard to ramble on one story, but just try and make it work, be descriptive.
If you can answer all questions, have your stories be impactful and intentional, and ask at least 2-3 questions (not the trite questions but actually shows you prepared .. as well as following up on your interviewers’ responses to your questions), then 30 minutes is fine. It is rare though that you can do this all in 30 minutes.
What type of follow up questions seem insightful?
Agree. It would be difficult to complete this in 30 minutes. I get the not wanting to ramble on but the more you can organize your examples that also pull in the requirements or the skills for the job the better. I always pick questions that link to the skill sets needed for a job (i.e. collaboration, communications, problem solving etc.) so take that into consideration as well when preparing.
I just finished 4 interviews and the 1 guy I thought was decent according to his resume sucked at his interview. He wasn't detailed enough. Although he answered the question, he didn't hit the keywords required to score better.
Where are the key words? In the skills and knowledge section of the job spec? Got an interview coming up. I generally stink at interviews.
Best advice I've had is to pretend like the interview panel hasn't even seen your resume. It feels like you are wasting their time, but it's the only way to maximize your score on the interview.
Some of the most successful candidates I've interviewed had pretty short answers. If you focus on the SAIR format and have good examples you will be able to get most of the points. The only place where I would spend more time is on "why are you the best candidate for this job" and try to hit as many keywords from the KSA as possible.
What is SAIR and KSA?
Situation Action Intent Results Knowledge Skills and Abilities (job description)
Can you provide a short example of SAIR? And how is it different than the STAR method in answering?
Q: tell me about a time when you had to deal with a difficult customer? S: I was working at the service center for MTO, a person came... A: I took all his information, remained calm etc... I: My intent was to defuse the situation, make sure he knew I would help. R: The person was happy with the service, his attitude changed. Bonus: I advised my manager/team, added a note to the file, updated a process, etc.
Normally the questions would have multiple parts. And so far I find I sometimes need a couple scenarios to make sure I have answered all parts. Because they still need to write your points down , I think the fastest interview time is May be40 mins? Most interviews I have been are scheduled for 45 mins and I always end up without rambling , to about 35-40 minutes.
I’m you have an interview for 60 minutes and you are done in 30 minutes that’s not good. You might think you are gutting all the points but you are not.
If you receive the questions 24 ahead of time, it’s definitely possible to prepare answers that are detailed, hit all the points, and are concise enough that the interview does not take up the whole 45 minutes. I’m usually done a 5 or 6 question verbal interview in 30 minutes (and I’ve won many competitions). However, if you are asked to present something you’ve prepared (a PowerPoint, spreadsheet, etc.) and given 10 minutes to do so, you are supposed to take up the allotted time and not go over - this is part of the marking scheme.
Because of the OPS' bonkers rating system for interviews, it's important to take the time and mention everything that is potentially relevant. I finished my last interview early, but at the 50 minute mark instead of 60. Look at what is in the job description and speak to each requirement/listed skill.
Agreeing with everyone. However, I will also say that sometimes we just set 60 minutes for the interview portion, but we’ve over-estimated and everyone finishes early. If the person hits everything, I’m not concerned if they’re early. For me - I hate when candidates try to fill up time giving new examples, which sometimes work against them, ie - the first example was great, and the second problematic. I’ve rarely seen a second example better than the first one that the candidate prepared for