A competency-based interview question is tied to a specific skill the job needs. Instead of asking how a candidate might handle a task, you ask them to describe a real time they already did. For example, "Tell me about a time you resolved a conflict with a teammate." The answer gives you evidence, not a guess.
This guide explains what these questions are, how the STAR method shapes a good answer, and how to run a competency-based interview that is fair and consistent. The goal is to help you understand the method and use it well, whichever side of the table you are on.
Key takeaways
- Competency-based (behavioural) questions ask "Tell me about a time you..." and look for evidence from real events the candidate handled.
- They rest on one premise: past behaviour predicts future behaviour.
- The STAR method structures answers: Situation, Task, Action, Result. A STARR variant adds Reflection.
- They work best inside a structured interview, where every candidate gets the same questions and the same anchored scoring.
- Structured interviews are among the strongest single predictors of job performance (Schmidt and Hunter 1998; Sackett et al. 2022; McDaniel et al. 1994).
Why it matters
Hiring on a gut feeling is risky and hard to undo. Competency-based questions reduce that risk because they ask for proof. The premise is well established: as SHRM puts it, if an applicant has done something in the past, they are likely to do it again in the future. So a real past example tells you more than a polished hypothetical.
The method also has a strong research record when it is structured. Schmidt and Hunter's 1998 meta-analysis put the average validity of structured interviews at .51, against .38 for unstructured ones. Sackett and colleagues (2022) later argued that the older range-restriction corrections overcorrected, and applied more conservative ones; under their revised estimates structured interviews still ranked as the strongest single predictor of job performance, at about .42. The exact number depends on the correction method, but the direction is consistent: structure and real evidence beat free chat.
The key ideas
What a competency-based question is
It is a structured interview question tied to a defined competency the role requires. You ask the candidate to describe a specific real situation that shows that competency in action. SHRM describes this as focusing on past experiences, behaviours, skills and abilities by asking for specific examples, as a way to predict future behaviour and performance.
The past-behaviour premise
The whole method rests on one idea: past behaviour predicts future behaviour. SHRM states the principle plainly, that if an applicant has done something in the past, they are likely to do it again. That is why these questions ask for a real event, not a hopeful plan.
The STAR method
STAR is a four-part framework for answering and probing behavioural questions. Situation sets the context or challenge. Task is the candidate's specific role or goal. Action is the specific steps they personally took, led with "I". Result is the outcome, ideally quantified, and what they learned. A STARR variant adds a final R for Reflection: what they learned and would do differently.
Behavioural vs situational questions
Behavioural questions are past-focused: "Tell me about a time you..." and seek evidence from real events. Situational questions are future-focused: "What would you do if..." and probe how someone would approach a hypothetical scenario. Both are recognised structured-interview types. Huffcutt and colleagues (2004) found that for higher-complexity jobs, job complexity reduced the validity of situational interviews while behaviour description (behavioural) interviews held their validity; for moderate-complexity jobs the two performed similarly.
Fit within a structured interview
Competency-based questions work best inside a structured interview. That means every candidate gets the same predetermined questions in the same wording and order, scored against the same anchored criteria. Schmidt and Hunter (1998) found structured interviews far outpredict unstructured ones (.51 vs .38). Structuring both the questions and the scoring is what raises reliability, fairness and predictive validity.
Scoring with a rubric (BARS)
A behaviourally anchored rating scale (BARS) defines each numeric level with concrete example behaviours. Interviewers rate an answer against observable anchors, not a vague overall impression. Kell and colleagues (2017) associate BARS with greater predictive validity, better inter-rater reliability, and reduced bias against protected groups.
How to run a competency-based interview
Step 1: Define the competencies first
Start with the role, not the questions. Decide the small set of competencies it really needs, such as teamwork, problem-solving, or communication. A competency framework lists each one with observable behavioural indicators, so you can assess and score it consistently. Every question you write should trace back to one of these competencies.
Step 2: Write one question set for everyone
Write behavioural questions tied to each competency, for example "Tell me about a time you had to address a conflict between two team members." Ask all candidates the same questions in the same wording and order. This is what makes a structured interview structured, and what lets you compare people fairly.
Step 3: Build an anchored scoring rubric
For each competency, build a BARS rubric. Each numeric level should be defined by concrete example behaviours, so a strong, average, and weak answer each have a clear description. This shifts raters away from holistic impressions and toward observable evidence, which improves inter-rater reliability.
Step 4: Probe each answer with STAR
As the candidate answers, use STAR to fill the gaps. If they skip the context, ask for the Situation. If they say "we", ask what they personally did, the Action. Always push for the Result and what they learned. Probing keeps a vague answer from passing as a strong one.
Step 5: Score independently against the rubric
Have each interviewer score each answer against the anchored rubric on their own, before any group discussion. Independent scoring protects the consistency that drives reliability and fairness, and makes the decision more defensible. Only after scores are recorded should the panel compare notes.
Example questions by competency
Use these as a starting set. Tie each one to a competency the role actually needs, then probe the answers with STAR.
Teamwork
- Tell me about a time you worked with a difficult colleague to finish a shared task.
- Describe a time you supported a teammate who was struggling to meet a deadline.
Leadership
- Tell me about a time you used your leadership skills to move a project forward.
- Describe a time you had to motivate a team that had lost momentum.
Problem-solving
- Walk me through a problem you solved from start to finish.
- Tell me about a time you faced an unfamiliar task with no training and worked out how to handle it.
Communication
- Tell me about a time you had to explain something complex to a non-expert.
- Describe a time you had to deliver difficult news to a client or colleague.
Adaptability
- Tell me about a time priorities changed suddenly and you had to adjust.
- Describe a time you had to learn a new tool or process quickly to get the job done.
Conflict resolution
- Tell me about a time you had to address a conflict between two team members. What was the outcome?
- Describe a time you disagreed with a manager and how you handled it.
Time management
- Tell me about a time you managed competing deadlines to finish a task on time.
- Describe a time you had to reprioritise your work at short notice.
Do this
- Tie every question to a defined competency the role actually needs.
- Ask all candidates the same questions in the same wording and order.
- Use "Tell me about a time you..." to get real past examples, not hypotheticals.
- Probe each answer with STAR, especially the Action and the Result.
- Push for what the candidate personally did, not what "the team" did.
- Score each answer against an anchored rubric (BARS), not a gut feeling.
- Have interviewers score independently before any group discussion.
- For higher-complexity roles, lean on behavioural questions over situational ones.
Common mistakes to avoid
Accepting a hypothetical instead of a real example
If you ask for a past example and get "I would usually...", you are getting a plan, not evidence. The method only works when the candidate describes a specific real situation they actually handled. Ask again for a concrete time it happened.
Not probing the candidate's own Action
Candidates often say "we" to describe team wins. That hides what they personally did. STAR's Action step exists to separate their contribution from the group's. Ask directly: what was your part?
Skipping the anchored rubric
Without a BARS rubric, interviewers fall back on overall impressions. That lowers reliability and lets bias creep in. Kell and colleagues (2017) associate anchored scales with better validity, better inter-rater reliability, and less bias against protected groups.
The halo effect
One strong trait can colour the whole rating, so a confident talker scores well on everything. Anchored scoring per competency, rated separately, keeps one good answer from inflating the rest.
Inconsistent questions across candidates
Asking different people different questions breaks the comparison. The point of structure is that everyone faces the same questions, scored the same way. Even small tweaks weaken accuracy and fairness.
Asking leading questions
Hinting at the answer you want pulls the candidate toward it and spoils the evidence. Keep questions open and neutral, then let STAR probes do the work of filling in detail.
Frequently asked questions
What is a competency-based interview question?
It is a structured interview question tied to a specific skill the role needs. You ask the candidate to describe a real past situation that shows that skill, such as "Tell me about a time you resolved a conflict." SHRM describes behavioural interviewing as focusing on past experiences and behaviours to predict future performance. The premise is that past behaviour predicts future behaviour.
What is the STAR method?
STAR is a four-part way to structure and probe answers to behavioural questions. Situation is the context. Task is the candidate's specific role or goal. Action is the specific steps they personally took. Result is the outcome, ideally quantified, and what they learned. A STARR variant adds Reflection, on what they would do differently.
What is the difference between behavioural and situational questions?
Behavioural questions are past-focused ("Tell me about a time you...") and ask for evidence from real events the candidate handled. Situational questions are future-focused ("What would you do if...") and probe how they would approach a hypothetical scenario. Both are valid. Huffcutt and colleagues (2004) found behavioural questions held up better for higher-complexity jobs.
Do competency-based interviews actually predict performance?
When structured, yes, they are among the best single predictors of job performance. Schmidt and Hunter (1998) put structured interviews at .51 average validity against .38 for unstructured. Sackett and colleagues (2022) applied more conservative corrections and still ranked structured interviews highest among single methods, at about .42. McDaniel and colleagues (1994) reported about .44 for structured interviews.
How should I score the answers?
Use a behaviourally anchored rating scale (BARS). Define the competencies and their behavioural indicators in advance, ask all candidates the same questions, and rate each answer against anchored numeric levels. Kell and colleagues (2017) associate this with greater validity, better inter-rater reliability, and reduced bias. Have interviewers score independently before discussing candidates.
How many competencies should one interview cover?
Keep it focused. Pick the small set of competencies the role genuinely needs, set them out in a framework with behavioural indicators, and write questions for each. Covering fewer competencies well, with proper probing and scoring, beats rushing through a long list.
The bottom line
Competency-based questions are a simple, well-tested idea: ask for a real example of the skill the job needs, because past behaviour predicts future behaviour. Pair them with the STAR method so answers have a clear shape, and put them inside a structured interview with anchored scoring. That combination is what the research keeps pointing to as the strongest, fairest read on a candidate.
You do not need a heavy process to start. Define your competencies, write one question set, build an anchored rubric, probe with STAR, and score independently. Get those parts right and your interviews become both more accurate and easier to defend.
A cleaner read before the interview
Competency interviews work best when you start from a clear CV. RefineCV formats candidate CVs into one consistent, branded template in one step. Try it free with 10 CVs, no credit card.
Related reading: structured vs unstructured interviews and what actually predicts job performance.
Sources
- SHRM, Using Behavioral Interviewing Techniques to Select the Right Employees (Accessed 2026): Behavioural (competency-based) interviewing focuses on a candidate's past experiences, behaviours, skills and abilities by asking for specific examples. The premise is that past behaviour predicts future performance: if an applicant has done something in the past, they are likely to do it again. Common pitfalls include accepting hypotheticals instead of a real example, leading questions, the halo effect, not probing the candidate's own Action, and inconsistent scoring.
- CIPD, Selection Methods factsheet (Accessed 2026): Competency-based interviews are a form of structured interview: the same main questions are delivered to every candidate with the same wording and order, scored with the same system, each linked to a defined competency. A competency framework defines each competency essential to performance in a role.
- Schmidt & Hunter (1998), The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology, Psychological Bulletin 124(2) (1998): Schmidt and Hunter (1998) reported the average validity of structured employment interviews at .51, versus .38 for unstructured interviews, for predicting job performance.
- Sackett, Zhang, Berry & Lievens (2022), Revisiting Meta-Analytic Estimates of Validity in Personnel Selection, Journal of Applied Psychology 107(11) (2022): Sackett et al. (2022) argued traditional range-restriction corrections overcorrected and applied more conservative ones; under their revised matrix, structured interviews had the highest mean operational validity of any single procedure at about .42, the strongest single predictor of job performance.
- McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt & Maurer (1994), The Validity of Employment Interviews, Journal of Applied Psychology 79(4) (1994): McDaniel et al. (1994) meta-analysis found structured interviews more valid than unstructured interviews, with the mean corrected validity for the structured interview at about .44.
- MIT Career Advising and Professional Development, Using the STAR method for your next behavioral interview (Accessed 2026): The STAR method stands for Situation, Task, Action, Result, used by candidates to structure answers and by interviewers to probe each element of an example.
- Indeed Career Advice, How To Use the STAR Interview Response Technique (Accessed 2026): STAR definitions: Situation (set the context), Task (your specific role or goal), Action (the specific steps you personally took, leading with "I"), Result (the outcome, ideally quantified, plus what was learned). Standard behavioural example questions map cleanly to competencies.
- Indeed UK, How to use the STARR method in interview responses (Accessed 2026): A common extension is the STARR method, which adds a final R for Reflection (what you learned and would do differently).
- Huffcutt, Conway, Roth & Klehe (2004), The Impact of Job Complexity and Study Design on Situational and Behavior Description Interview Validity, International Journal of Selection and Assessment 12(3) (2004): Huffcutt et al. (2004) found job complexity reduced the validity of situational interviews for high-complexity jobs but did not reduce validity of behaviour description (behavioural) interviews; for moderate-complexity jobs the two performed similarly.
- Kell et al. (2017), Exploring Methods for Developing Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales for Evaluating Structured Interview Performance, ETS Research Report Series (2017): Use of behaviourally anchored rating scales (BARS) to evaluate interview responses is associated with greater predictive validity and inter-rater reliability and tends to reduce bias against protected groups.
- Workable Resources, Conflict management interview questions (Accessed 2026): Employer question banks provide ready-made competency questions, for example conflict resolution ("Tell me about a time you had to address a conflict between two team members; what was the outcome?").