Interview Errors

Hi guys!

This is basically a question for the interviewers, but the interviewees are also welcome to reply.

What were the basic errors that you spotted in the candidates during the interviews, that could/did cost them the job?

I know that it's a common question, but Actuarial interviews aren't common interviews!

The candidates who noticed errors in their own interviews may also share their experiences.

Regards,
slayedit

 

It seems to me most actuarial interviews nowadays are based on generalised HR questions, propped up by phobias. Candidates become embarrassed at how little attention the interviewer has paid to their CV after they made such an effort to turn up. References have long disappeared. The result? Self-claims become king. Very little verification takes place. Very little 'interesting' actuarial dialogue takes place.

People with 10+ years experience of actuarial work are asked things like "Give us an example of when you worked in a team". Well, there's only 10+ years of that on CV right under their noses. Perhaps they think actuaries might work in complete isolation - where?

They also enjoy asking for examples of dealing with "stakeholders". There exists a phobia of hiring someone who potentially won't talk to anyone else in the company, especially non-actuaries.

Occasionally they'll try and impress candidates by asking (often ill-defined) "technical question". Clearly that shows the upmost respect to the years upon years the candidate has spent successfully passing IFoA exams to prove their technical credentials under a controlled system. Not to mention years and years of holding down actuarial jobs - none of this enough for the interviewers obviously. Even better, they'll use in-house jargon and show disdain when candidates ask for a definition before proceeding to answer. You see you're supposed to guess in-house actuary jargon in companies you've never worked at...

Finally you're bound to be asked several other questions about things that are already on the CV had the interviewer bothered to read it e.g. how many exams have you passed? Where did you work last? Where are you based?

A tragic part of all this is the interviewers seem to believe that their interviews are somehow highly impressive or unique. A bit like how people view their own weddings, when a vicar or photographer would tell you it was 99% the same as the one last week.

If this profession wants to be taken more seriously maybe it should address why so many of the interviews people get at 'leading companies', predominantly by 'Fellows', are so amateurish, ignorant and irrelevant? They're becoming indistinguishable from interviews for any other job at these companies.

Why do recruiters consider if you've done a workplace task (or claimed you have) that this means you are a far better candidate than someone who has not, when these tasks are not exactly beyond the capabilities of supposedly educated actuaries to pick up and get on with? Oh you've not used 'that' type of spreadsheet before? Then what hope is there for anyone to move between different disciplines e.g. Life to GI. Then we must wonder how anyone in their company can get promoted to a job they've never done before when this phobia exists.

Isn't this a fundamental flaw of the qualification system in that it fails to objectively measure competence? The end result is that the profession gets more and more narrow. The thinking too often is "oh, he's done 'that' kind of work" or "oh, he's done 'those' exams" rather than "well, this person has obviously succeeded at that kind of work and those kind of exams - he/she will be absolutely fine to pick up the work we have here". I think one reason many don't take the latter attitude as they enjoy hyping up their own jobs and tasks when frankly most actuarial tasks don't require a huge IQ or intense mathematical skills to perform. Some employers have caught onto that and are replacing actuary trainees with competent admin staff.

 

Well that's an interesting first response - hope it helps you.

I've been at both ends and errors I've made or seen made include:

Not doing enough research into the role, company and industry
Not coming across as actually wanting the job; lacking enthusiasm
Not having anything to ask - you might get away with this if you can refer to queries you've sorted out before the interview
Not having any evidence to back up statements. Working in a team isn't the same as being a good team player!
Coming across as too picky
Not answering the question (it's not an interview for a politician )
Not been able to explain why they've moved from job to another
Not being to explain things in simple language

 

Pure technical knowledge isn't enough for most employers; indeed it may already be assumed given your study history or professional experience.
try googling "competency based interviews"
The idea roughly is to identify the key competencies needed for the job, and that examples of these from past experience is a predictor of future behaviours.
Otherwise you're left asking bookwork questions or "what ifs" which can simply be studied or googled in advance.
HTH

 

Don't the IFoA exams test the application of competence standards?

 

I'm referring to more general competencies in the work space, e.g. managing deadlines, dealing with unclear/changing requirements, handling difficult communications, working with team members & other professionals, dealing with pressure & setbacks.

 

Tiger, everyone's gonna turn up to interview making claims they're great at those things.

 

that's why you're asking "give me an example of" rather than "what if"

I agree the interview process is limited and flawed. People in general (& actuaries in particular I think) tend to prefer people who act & think like them. As an interviewer it's not easy to be aware & compensate for your biases.

I will often start an interview by asking the candidate to walk us through their CV. It aimed at getting them to relax and talk about what they want (sometimes people almost have a speech learned off!). It doesn't mean I haven't read the CV. Rather than hit them up front with the "give me an example of" questions, I'll have identified potential areas on their CV and then probe them for the details I'm looking for when they reach them.

Some companies are very weak after the new hire joins; ensuring that they're inducted & trained into the organisation, but also evaluating performance during a probation period (that's where you catch out the lies/exaggerations from the CV & interview).
Some companies are very narrow with their hiring; we need a pricing analyst & we work with tools X => we are only looking for someone with pricing experience & who has used tools X.
Others (more dynamic?) may feel we need X now, but who knows what you'll be doing in our organisation in 1/2/3 years time.

You also have to recognise the role HR play. For a non-traditional applicant they can be a difficult barrier to get past.
Also their job is to protect the company, not to help the employee. That's why for example you will some times have standardised questions (If you're asking everyone the same question, you're not discriminating), and why many organisations will not give references beyond confirming you worked for them between given dates and your job title.

Some thoughts from my experience, hope this helps.

 

... and for these examples presented you have no clue if true or even happened. I agree with you HR is a big part of the problem here.

 

if it's a game, then learn how to play the game, not hate the players.

 

tiger, that's a rather submissive approach and hasn't served the Profession well at all