Public Sector Interview Questions & Answers

Explain a time with two examples you had a time you handled difficult customers?

Lack of information for candidates about what was required from them. Unable to get any help before assessment , could not get through to contact centre for days. Interview process appeared to be fair and professional but would not provide any feedback related to assessment centre performance and stated in their reply that they hoped this would assist me for further applications?

Group exercise , unclear what was required and what was being assessed and it quickly became a free for all with candidates talking over each other for the sake of speaking.

May be helpful if you have a relative already working there to actually discover what is required of you on the day. Plan time off work to allow you to get through to the recruitment team , possibly a week. Repeat yourself as much as possible in the group exercise.

Assessed by probation employees , are they trained in fair and thorough assessment? Staff were welcoming on the day.

The interview is roughly 4-7 questions asking why you want the role and how you dealt with certain situation. (dealt with change, offender behavior, your own actions, PACE)
The report was summarizing a case file.
Lastly the group assessment was about making points as team and then agreeing on a desired outcome.

Provide a situation where you have caused change and this had lead to a positive outcome.

Do not worry about this assessment day. Think of examples and be yourself. Work as a team, write a quick concise report and sell yourself. It is a challenging assessment but if you have made it this far and have worked with ex offenders already, you've done the hardest part.

The assessment centre was full of friendly staff who make you feel comfortable and welcome. Everything is well organized and explained. The hardest part, in my opinion, was writing the report especially if you have never done this before within this setting.

My interview lasted around 25 minutes. It was quite stop starty, and that was quite unnerving and difficult. I was asked to demonstrate what abilities in my previous experience and education showed I was capable of undertaking a job role in which I would have to communicate with the public under difficult circumstances. I was asked about what I knew about the company, I researched this a lot and am glad I did even though it didn't mean I got this role.

Describe a specific incident of when you had to deal with communication problems in your previous work experience? How did you overcome this problem? What were the results?

Be prepared to be interrupted and don't let it fluster you like I did. For my interview they wanted very specific examples of ways you've demonstrated the companies values. A lot of the time I gave too much information and was stopped throughout.

N/A

Interview panel of 2 members, consisted of two sections. First was devoted to why I wanted to the NHS, here i had to prove that I knew a lot about the current issues the NHS are facing and show that I was passionate about improving NHS standards, focusing on the patient. The second was experience based, for example "give me an example of a time when you demonstrated the ability to work well in a team".

"Describe a situation when you had to make a difficult decision, what was the outcome of this decision?"

Show passion for the NHS and show that you have a lot of knowledge on the current issues that the NHS faces. Throughout the whole process it was essential to always focus on the patient when undertaking any task, each decision made should benefit the patient.

Had to role play as a NHS manager for the day, had to write various reports, attend a 1-1 meeting with a colleague, a group meeting and another 1-1 which a superior asked you to attend on their behalf.

We were asked to use the STAR approach in order to explain some situations relevant to the questions. Unfortunately a group of us did not receive our candidate packs due to a fault with the system including myself and so had no idea about the STAR approach. Apart form this the questions were competency based on: making effective decisions, managing a quality service and delivering at pace. I was told that my examples were good but because I had not used the STAR approach I scored weakly.

I found proving that I make effective decisions quite difficult, but I think it was more about the nerves at the beginning of the interview.

HMRC proved themselves to be really unorganised this time, with people showing up who like me hadn't received some information, or any at all, and some people whose interview times had been changed or cancelled without them knowing. Just prepare really well and don't worry if you don't get it due to their lack of competency.

N/A

I was asked on my previous work experience and asked to provide examples of situations I had been involved in that showed my ability to work with others, show assertiveness and good judgment, ability to write a good report and being able to be articulate in communication. There was a one to one interview that was followed by a written task in which I was given a scenario and asked to write a report and make recommendations to an adviser who was to implement the findings of my report. Yes, there was an overall format that had to be followed and finally the group activity had to be undertaken to enable the assessors to ascertain the suitability of candidates to work with others. The whole assessment exercise took half a day and the people who carried out the written exercise were not the same as the those who carried out the interviews or the group activity. The recruitment team sought to be fair and very transparent in their recruitment exercise!

The most difficult one were the examples I needed to give in order to determine the level of my competency to carry out the job. These were a bit more difficult because probation work is more hands on and demands direct supervision of ex-offenders which makes it a bit tricky if one has not been in the police force or prison service.

Be prepared to for the assessment and strive to remain composed at all the times. There is need for one to work very quickly in dealing with the scenario presented as time is limited and flies faster than one can imagine. Whilst the pressure is immense it is important that one has a good night's sleep and is relaxed by the time they get to the interview. Always try to remain relevant to questions asked and don't try to over-elaborate one's answers. If the interviewer wants a further information to an answer given they will ask a further probing question of to help you along.

We were split into four groups of six each and asked to study a scenario in which each candidate had to participate in giving their views as to how they can best handle the situation and why they chose to handle it the way they did. It was nerve wrecking trying to study the scenario in very limited time and asked to come to a decision under the hawkish gaze of the recruitment team in an atmosphere in which one knows that they are contesting with those who are sitting on the table with them for a limited number of positions to be filled.

I knew prior to the date that this was a role play assessment consisting of 4 scenarios relating to the prison environment. There were 3 other candidates. We were taken to a room and told there would be 5 scenarios. We were given 15 minutes to make notes on all of these. We were then given 2 minutes to look specifically at the first scenario. We were then taken to a corridor and asked to stand outside our designated room and knock when we were ready to enter. Inside each room was one other individual - a role play actor - and a discrete camera used by a marker who was watching our performances live and marking according to the 6 competencies : non verbal communication, suspending judgement, respect for diversity, assertion, exploring and clarifying and showing understanding. We were allowed a maximum 10 minutes in the room. After this time, we were told to leave and go back to the note-making room where we were given 2 minutes to revise for the next scenario.

The most difficult scenario involved a girl playing a prisoner who would not stop swearing and insulting me. It was difficult because no matter what I tried, she wouldn't stop cursing. I knew I must be doing something wrong but I didn't know what. This made it very difficult to address the problems she was having because, due to the prison rules outlined in the pack we were given, we had to address any inappropriate language.

Be yourself. I had watched a "how to pass your prison officer role play assessment" video and I wish I hadn't. I think for this particular assessment, as long as you know the 6 criteria they are marking you on and how to demonstrate those behaviours, you'll do fine. Afterwards, I knew the mistakes I had made and wished I had done less preparation as the video was not focused on the prison environment. I therefore believe that I showed too much compassion for this organisation and not enough assertion.

We had to enter 5 rooms for 10 minutes each. Each room had a different role play actor acting out a different situation. I was playing a prison officer throughout. The first involved me meeting with my mentor on my first day. The second involved an upset member of staff. The third involved a prisoner which was suspected of carrying a sharp object. The fourth was a prisoner who hadn't received her methodone. The fifth involved gang culture and a mobile phone.

The INTERVIEW itself was one on one and competency-based. It lasted 40 minutes. Questions included one on my present employment, one on what attracted me to a civil service career, and one on what the biggest challenge would be if I joined and how I would overcome it.

Otherwise, I was asked 4 or 5 questions on examples of when I had demonstrated an aspect of one of the competencies that are examined at interview. Note that it is not on the competencies themselves (e.g. 'when have you delivered at pace?' - these 9 competencies are available on the fast stream website) that the questions are asked, but on the little sub-competencies which go into each of them (e.g. 'when have you dealt with challenges in a responsive and constructive way?'). These sub-competencies are too numerous for most people to write a compelling story for each, so I think the best thing to do is prepare a story or two for each competency and then think about how to tailor it depending on what you are asked.

The competency questions. I had prepared examples that demonstrated the 4 (or 2, depending how you count) main competencies examined at interview: Managing a Quality Service/Delivering at Pace and Collaborating and Partnering/Building Capability for All. But I was instead asked about the components that make up each of these (e.g. 'being open to learning'); I hadn't always thought of how I had specifically demonstrates these components, so I ended up having to think of some of my examples on the spot and they were not so structured or persuasive.

Think hard about examples of the DETAILS of competencies for the interview. Practice telling engaging stories using the STARLET technique.

Practice making presentations, and also writing to time (an example for the Policy Recommendation is available in one of the Fast Stream online leaflets).

Bear in mind that the time will soon start passing very quickly. And that although tea breaks (and tea!) are in theory provided in between each exercise, sometimes you just won't have time for a breather. It is (at the risk of stating the obvious) intense and tiring.

Besides the interview proper, there was lunch (a buffet, with Q and A from a current fast streamer), a group exercise, a leadership exercise, a policy recommendation exercise and a re-test of the numerical and verbal tests you will have done online.


In the GROUP EXERCISE, six candidates had to choose which two of six policy options to put forward (each of us having one to promote, one which was OK, and two which needed to be opposed). We also had to produce a set of points (not to be handed in, but the assessors can hear what we decide on) justifying our choice to a minister (or superior) in light of the policy priorities we had been given.

There was no chair, although there is a stopwatch which it is good to volunteer to take. The people in my group were all pretty talkative and bad at timekeeping: for example, it took a lot of intervention by me and another member to get us even two minutes left at the end to agree on the justification. People would just get carried away with debates on single points, and the timing meant that the best and second best policies we chose were selected pretty much arbitrarily, according to who was talking most at that point. Anyway, that's a one sort of fairly likely scenario you might encounter, and maybe you can anticipate strategies for dealing with them. At any rate, if things get a bit chaotic like that it needn't come as a surprise to you.

Following the Group Exercise, we returned to individual desks and had a written exercise in which we had 20 minutes to choose the best policy option in terms of value for money, justify our choice, and highlight up to three principal risks it entailed and how these might be countered. Remember to turn over the instruction sheet to find the explanation of what is meant by 'value for money', which is somewhat counter-intuitively described as 'not really a financial consideration' or something similar! It is worth getting the idea though, as the concept of 'value for money' is meant to be about more than just numbers. It is based on consideration of 3 Es which were, I think, economic sense, efficiency, and effectiveness. A description can probably found on one of the Fast Stream online resources.

The last bit of the Group Exercise involved a handwritten self-assessment (everything else is on a computer) which took 15 minutes. There were four questions. They asked me about two competencies: making effective decisions and collaborating and partnering (of course, it is not clear if this choice of two changes each time). For each of these two, I was first asked to select which aspect (which 'sub-competency') I felt I achieved best during the exercise, and specifically how I did this. I was then asked which I felt I could most improve on, and what I would do about it over the intervening time if I were to be facing another Group Exercise in four weeks' time. So, look out accurately for areas of high and low performance during the exercise, and if there is an area you do badly in then at least you can get extra marks just for noticing it and responding constructively.


The LEADERSHIP EXERCISE basically followed the description in the FSAC leaflet. Half an hour preparation, ten minutes presentation, and twenty minutes Q and A. The focus is broadly on management. My situation involved taking charge of a team that was trying out a new programme related to health. A lot of the most salient problems, or the problems at the root of all the others, were about relationships and division of workloads within the team, but the overall aim of the presentation was to tell the assessor, who poses as your superior, in a structured way about my plans for all the challenges facing them - and of course, here it is good to open with an 'opening bang' and close with a 'closing bang'.

The questions were partly designed to bring up areas not covered by the presentation (which along with the friendliness of the assessor made this 30 minutes much less painful than expected), and partly designed to help me talk about the policy itself. The latter sort asked about new challenges or more specific ideas related to the policy itself, which test out your on-the-trot thinking. E.g. 'what do you think is the aim of this policy?', 'the minister has just said that ______ should have the right to know if ________ [but it will also bring significant drawbacks if the information is available]. How do you intend to respond to that?' or 'and how, specifically, do you intend to address the reluctance of some organisations to go along with these reforms?'.

the leadership exercise was also followed by a self-assessment following the same format used above, but this time testing Collaborating and Partnering/Building Capability for all, and Leading and Communicating.


For the POLICY RECOMMENDATION EXERCISE, the main part is writing (in prose not bullet points) an analysis of two options against four or five criteria defined by a superior (e.g. social impact/regeneration; environmental; value for money; and public perceptions). You choose one option to recommend, and justify your choice. It is recommended that you save about 15 minutes at the end of your 1h45 to do the second part, which is a brief in note form for, in this case, the minister to use at a high-level committee meeting to justify this choice.