05 / BEHAVIOURAL EVIDENCE

Competency assessment

Examines the candidate’s past behaviour through an AI-supported, structured interview approach. Questions and evaluation criteria are set according to the job family and the requirements of the role.

KEY QUESTION: Through which concrete behaviours does the candidate demonstrate competence?
CONTRIBUTION TO THE REPORT: Behavioural evidence per competency and the interviewer’s evaluation

A competency framework by job family

The same competency becomes visible through different behaviours in different jobs. The interview first addresses shared competencies, then behaviours specific to the role and to managerial responsibility.

Core competencies: Analytical thinking, problem solving, communication, collaboration, results focus, learning and ethical conduct.
Role-specific competencies: Negotiation and understanding customer needs in sales; accuracy and control in finance; systems thinking in technology; safety and following instructions in production.
Leadership competencies: Setting direction, making decisions, delegating, giving feedback and supporting team development.

Assessment priorities by job family →

Structured interviewing with STAR

Situation

In what context did the event take place?

Task

What was the candidate responsible for?

Action

What did the candidate personally do?

Result

What changed, and what was learned?

The role of AI in the interview

Interview preparation: Generating question and probing suggestions based on the defined job family and competency framework.
Organising the evidence: Summarising answers under situation, task, action and result headings; flagging missing or unclear areas.
Supporting the evaluation: Linking the competency interpretation to the relevant answer. The interviewer reviews the original answer and confirms or corrects the interpretation.

Behaviour-based evaluation

The rubric is defined by concrete behavioural indicators for each job family. The example below shows how the quality of evidence is treated.

Insufficient evidence: There are not enough concrete examples to evaluate; a follow-up question or a different assessment is needed. This is not interpreted as a low competency score.
1–2 · Below expectation: Sufficient examples exist; the observed behaviour does not meet, or only partly meets, the expectation defined for the role.
3 · Expected level: The candidate concretely demonstrates the behaviour the role requires, their own contribution and its outcome.
4–5 · Strong evidence: Effective behaviour in a complex situation, measurable contribution and the transfer of learning to later practice are observed.