I have an interview next week which includes a presentation on how I would tackle the first year of the job’s responsibilities. Without knowing the role in and out, it’s hard to guess what these would be so I’ve contented myself for the last couple of nights to reading and re-reading the brief of the organisation as a whole.
A few years ago I applied to join the Police. One of the categories was a roleplay where you had to see how you handled a domestic abuse situation. How is someone who hasn’t been trained as a police officer meant to know how to deal with a domestic violence situation appropriately as a police officer?
Without the benefit of experience, how do you work out how to do something you need experience to know?
It was the same dilemma leaving university a few years ago (and may still be) for many people, you can’t get a job without experience, but how do you get the experience?
I suppose that may highlight people who are either a) very lucky, b) good at guesswork or (as I suspect they’d prefer) c) intuitively good in the roll.
-pj
Obviously ‘good in the roll’ could be considered a little rude. I meant, of course, ‘good in the role’.
– pj
Self-employment is the only way forward!
Without experience of a situation you’ve got to extrapolate.
With the domestic violence example you’d have to try your best to keep the victim and the criminal in different rooms, keep everyone calm, and try to get charges pressed.
That’s very lightweight – but I’d guess the interview had a bit more details – but a lot of it is human psychology – we’ve all got some experience in that.
With the “first year of the job’s responsibilities” interview Q – think about difficulties you’ve encountered in other jobs – problems with supply, training, personnel, information, etc – and bring them over into what you see as ‘the first year’. Should give some ideas of what’s to come.
Have you thought of contacting someone with similar experience? Might get some tips that way too.
just give the bloke a big kick in the bollox, men like that only understand violence
Hi nivek,
Interesting that your assumption was that the man was the aggressor.