The best advice I or anyone can give you is that the answer to this question will be a "real" weakness, however, one that is 

1) irrelevant to the job (if it's heavily analytic, you can say you're not as creative as you'd like)

or

2) something you've identified AND CORRECTED ("I used to have difficulty organizing my time - but once I started using spreadsheets to plan my days/weeks, things began to fall into place. Occasionally, when I feel overwhelmed, I micromanage my days in advance to make sure I get everything that I need to get done, done.")

Something along those lines - the "I work too hard" or "I'm a perfectionist" is the oldest cop-out in the book. 

I've only partaken in one "oral panel," and it was an odd one. Don't get intimidated, remember to smile, and be succinct in your responses. If you ramble, take a breath and refocus. Don't lose sight of the question or your answer. The best preparation is having a friend (or two or three) give you the once over in advance.

magnetar wrote on Mar 16^th, 2006 at 7:01am:


Hey, I have a question:

I understand structured questions on an oral interview are designed to solicit and evaluate specific responses.  So let's say the interviewee thwarts the process by coming on a website such as this one and being given advise on how to manipulate his responses...

Isn't that a "countermeasure?"

Gee maybe we should eliminate oral boards???

Regards,

Nonombre  

nonombre wrote on Mar 17^th, 2006 at 1:20am:

Imagine if the first question asked of all oral board interviewees was, “Have you ever researched the oral board process or studied any ways to improve your score?”

If the oral board was conducted like the polygraph, anyone who answered in the affirmative would have to then be warned to ignore anything they’ve studied or they would automatically fail the oral board.

Any interviewee who wanted to score well so they could be hired and thereby took the time and effort to research how to stay calm during the oral board and how to not let the pressure get to them would be instructed that if they were detected using any of that knowledge they would fail the board due to “purposeful non-cooperation.” 

I believe most people would perceive that scenario as being hideously unfair to the interviewee.  Anyone who answers all oral board questions with honesty and integrity should not be penalized simply because they also display the very admirable trait of not allowing themselves to become unduly stressed during a stressful situation.

But that is exactly what happens to polygraph examinees all the time.  The polygraph is purportedly used to detect deception.  Anyone who submits to a polygraph exam and is not deceptive in any way should pass.  But that doesn't happen all the time, and not even the examiners on this board can claim it does.  An interviewee exhibiting the ability to keep themselves calm in a stressful situation should not be seen as a problem, since that is in fact a highly desirable trait for a law enforcement officer to possess.

I think the comparison between oral boards and polygraph exams is actually a fairly illustrative one.  Both rely on subjective reactions in order to score the interviewee/examinee.  Both tend to be seen as a stressful situation by those who have to submit to them.  Yet only the polygraph carries with it such untenable restrictions as, “You cannot breathe in a manner other than how I tell you,” and “You cannot think about something that might distract you from my question.”

I think that if anyone tried to place similar restrictions on oral boards they would immediately be seen as arbitrary, unfair, and virtually unenforceable.  Yet they are commonplace on polygraph exams.  If they were ever to become commonplace on oral boards I’m sure it wouldn’t be long until a web site with the name “AntiOralBoard.com” popped up.

dimas wrote on Mar 18^th, 2006 at 3:51am:


Yeah, c'mon folks - I'm not sure if Nonombre's reply was meant in jest or to goad others into an argument about preparing for what is essentially a panel interview, but sheesh...

I've always had an issue w/ board interviews, whether administered by laypersons or law enforcement types. Bullshit artists always ALWAYS prevail. Such an interview is hardly an interrogation - if you're a good actor, have some compact, pre-prepared stories (real, exaggerated, or downright FABRICATED), you can hit any question anyway you like. Hell, if you're good at improv and can think on your feet, you can manufacture each response on the fly. 

Now most people can't do that - most need to prepare ad infinitum in advance - get their stories right, have lots of em in mind, and so on. However, I happen to know a certain individual who can - and has - succeeded by pretty much BSing his way through. He's well into the background check with a certain Full Blooded Institute of law enforcement. He simply has a knack for the oral interview thing (he previously turned down an offerfrom State). 

Interestingly, he also took and passed the poly, DESPITE admitting to me he straight up LIED on the drug question. He's actually pretty honest - but he saw no way he could tell the truth on the poly and not get burned. For the record, he hadn't heard of this site and had no idea about polygraphy (beyond what's out there) going into the examination. When i explained CMs to him, he dismissed them as too complicated - he simply relaxed and spoke confidently - and passed.

Ahhh yes. We use that question.  It is designed to see how well the applicant thinks on their feet and also to see if any serious character flaws are spontaneously blurted out.

Not long back, we had a candidate respond to that question by saying, "Alcoholism".  He then followed up by saying that he had been in recovery for eight years.

He was hired.