Failed Tea-Occ & MMI. Is it the end of a driving career?

[ComUtoR]

So were you failed on that part first time round? And if so, what, if anything, did you do differently next time (if you were asked another 'emergency' question)?

I passed the first time.

She asked "do you have an emergency situation" So I went on and gave my example. She turned around and said. "we don't accept that because we don't consider it an emergency" So I gave a second example. Then she said "we cannot accept that either" and then went on to tell me that I had to give her another example or it was over. It was a horrible experience and the "emergency" I gave in the last example wasn't something I considered to be an emergency at all ! You certainly get pulled through the ringer. In retrospect and reading this forum I really do get the impression that its how you answer and not the content. The other one that comes up is 'describe a time when you were alone' People always seem to want work examples and IIRC someone posted about going fishing and their example was accepted and they passed on that. Those that form their answers using the "Star Method" also have better success. I don't recall anyone saying their MMI didn't have something that tripped them up or the Interviewer just accepted an answer. Everyone says that they delve deeper and really kinda push and pull you about.

I couldn't be a Signaller or a Guard. Driver was something I fell into. Signaller is a great job maybe Fate was just calling you home

 

[nom de guerre]

Thanks, Com. I can only conclude that the real reason for the fail was the way I dealt with being pressured (which sounds uncannily similar to your experience!). I don't remember losing it, but I didn't provide a second example - no matter how ropey. Perhaps they wanted me to offer something - anything! - at that point. Who knows...

I'm sure I've read on here at least one person claim that their successful answer to the MMI 'emergency' question was, 'I've never been involved in an emergency situation'. Perhaps it was the way they said it...

I'm happy with where I've ended up, but it still annoys me 15 years later! I know, I know - get over it

 

[johnck]

I was failed on the MMI 'emergency question' way back when - long ago enough that my strikes have been reset since - and remain mystified as to how they reached that conclusion.

The question was simply, 'Tell me about a time you've dealt with an emergency situation'. I answered with a textbook (and true!) example, only for the interviewer to suddenly switch into full Paxman mode and start micro-questioning every detail, before informing me that my answer "wasn't good enough". She then asked me if I had another example - I replied that I didn't. That, apparently, constituted a fail.

Perhaps she was deliberately trying to rattle me and the way I responded to that was actually the important part, i.e. 'Let's see how he copes under pressure'. But I didn't suddenly dissolve into a gibbering mess - I remained relatively calm and restated my position. How else was I supposed to respond?

That was nearly 15 years ago and although I've been happily working as a signaller for the past decade, and no longer have any aspirations to be a driver, that unjustness of that decision still rankles. It remains the only important railway industry interview that I've ever 'failed'.

I have to say, it's really bugging me! My "emergency" question answer related to a train surfer I dealt with - which also shows I follow R&P? I wasn't even given the option of providing another example, like many were - and with 2yrs experience on the railway & no incidents, clearly R&P are followed every shift!

 

[ComUtoR]

I have to say, it's really bugging me! My "emergency" question answer related to a train surfer I dealt with - which also shows I follow R&P? I wasn't even given the option of providing another example, like many were - and with 2yrs experience on the railway & no incidents, clearly R&P are followed every shift!

I did a few things during my emergency that in retrospect I shouldn't have done. Rules and procedures went out the window and I just acted on instinct. Something I have found to be a little consistent was that during all the questioning everything was focussed on MY actions and not that of others. I have also found that having a resolution to the situation also helps the chance of success. This thing happened, this is what I did, this was how it was resolved. Weirdly, at no point were the emergency services involved.

 

[TO123]

Surely if an interviewer is grilling you and picking apart your answer to gain more information, that’s a sign of a good interviewer?
I recently went through this process and certain questions were ticked off quickly and I knew I’d done well; then others I felt like I was getting a grilling and it was pretty tough, the interviewer would ask me to expand, then break down each part of my answer as I was saying it and say “what, why, how“ etc related to each bit. I’d then see him ticking other boxes on that answer page.
Although it initially came across as a bit harsh and abrupt, once I realised why he was doing it, it made perfect sense. They might need you to say or emphasise a specific phrase or word or action that you did, and you might almost be saying it. I’m thankful to the interviewer for what they did, as I might not have hit the mark otherwise. Never say never, but I don’t think it’s ever personal, but they need you to hit a mark. They could just fail you and not give you a second chance or not develop your answer if you’re a bit short.
Try not to take it personal and really listen to what they’re asking or trying to get out of you.

 

[iwasyoungonce]

IMO the problem with the MMI is the possibility of the interviewer's unconscious bias, or maybe even conscious bias !

 

[ILoveLamp]

IMO the problem with the MMI is the possibility of the interviewer's unconscious bias, or maybe even conscious bias !

Exactly...or perhaps even the addressing of any shortfalls without having to acknowledge the fact. They can do/say what they want and pass/fail accordingly.

 

[PaulBusDriver]

Exactly...or perhaps even the addressing of any shortfalls without having to acknowledge the fact. They can do/say what they want and pass/fail accordingly.

My subjective analysis of the MMI was that they will deliberately act in a way to see how you react. I could be biased though as I passed.

 

[choochoochoo]

IMO the problem with the MMI is the possibility of the interviewer's unconscious bias, or maybe even conscious bias !

Could this be prevented if they had a two-person panel? That would mean both would have to be biased. Therefore removing some of the subjectivity.

Of course testing centres would never do this as it would mean more resources/interviewers being used, costing them more.

 

[Tom Quinne]

2008.. last external underground vacancies.

Which were then withdrawn halfway through the process due to the recession at that time..

Yes, I applied passed the assessments (Which where much harder than the Mainline assessments I took 3 yrs later and passed)..I’m stilling waiting on TfL to contact me to say whether they’ll take my app any further.

should I call them to say I’ve moved ?

 

[rakoczigabi]

I think it’s definitely depends on the interviewer.
My emergency was “ fire on the train at the station “, when I was a dispatcher.
I don’t think I’ve started off well because I said to him “ we’ve done this and that etc ... “. Then he said he wants to know what I’ve done, not the team.

the question what threw me off was when he asked many times “ So how did that make you feel ? “.

I said to him I kept my calm and followed rules and procedures etc.

But then he asked again. So I’ve said the same.

At the end I think he wanted to see if I crack under pressure or if I change any of my answers or get confused etc.

The other tricky question was if I’ve done similar to train driving or something along the lines. Well I haven’t. But did say I drove back home (other side of Europe ) with my dogs and that required planning and concentration.
Luckily he accepted that answer. I couldn’t have said anything else to that.

But he wasn’t the nicest person. He didn’t look at me once at the interview , just kept writing things down.

When I had my DMI the 2 managers were really friendly and chatty.

Ohh and my MMI interview part was just over an hour. So not long at all.

It was on a Wednesday and he said they’ll call me by Friday if I passed. They haven’t. So I really thought that was all and I’ve failed.
Got a call the next Tuesday that I’ve passed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I passed the first time.

She asked "do you have an emergency situation" So I went on and gave my example. She turned around and said. "we don't accept that because we don't consider it an emergency" So I gave a second example. Then she said "we cannot accept that either" and then went on to tell me that I had to give her another example or it was over. It was a horrible experience and the "emergency" I gave in the last example wasn't something I considered to be an emergency at all ! You certainly get pulled through the ringer. In retrospect and reading this forum I really do get the impression that its how you answer and not the content. The other one that comes up is 'describe a time when you were alone' People always seem to want work examples and IIRC someone posted about going fishing and their example was accepted and they passed on that. Those that form their answers using the "Star Method" also have better success. I don't recall anyone saying their MMI didn't have something that tripped them up or the Interviewer just accepted an answer. Everyone says that they delve deeper and really kinda push and pull you about.

I couldn't be a Signaller or a Guard. Driver was something I fell into. Signaller is a great job maybe Fate was just calling you home

Wow. To be honest, having read that, that sounds not like good interviewing but rather typical British poor management straight out of "The Office" and the 1980s. "We don't accept that because we don't consider it an emergency"? Really? Surely the right way is to guide the interviewee towards a situation they have experienced that suits by developing the question further?

There are no interviewers (other than military interrogators I guess) who delve deeper than the people who do the interviews for Government security clearance (e.g. DV - Developed Vetting - which is the highest level you commonly get). I've not had one of those myself, but I know people who have, and they said the interviewers generally use a friendly, "get you on side" approach so you feel comfortable being completely honest, given that you have to reveal some pretty deep secrets to them - they basically need to know literally everything about you to pass you on DV.

That sort of interview will work for some people, but not others. I guess because the railway has far more applicants than it ever has jobs, it's got no motivation to actually deal with it, just like Blackpool North is too much effort because the passengers still travel anyway, but really it seems incredibly poor interview technique which won't necessarily get them the best people.

 

[ComUtoR]

Wow. To be honest, having read that, that sounds not like good interviewing but rather typical British poor management straight out of "The Office" and the 1980s. "We don't accept that because we don't consider it an emergency"? Really? Surely the right way is to guide the interviewee towards a situation they have experienced that suits by developing the question further?

As others have said, the impression is that challenging the interviewee is seemingly deliberate. This MMI isn't a traditional interview. It is, by its core design, a test. Part stress test, part communication test. The main reason why the interviewer is looking down all the time is because they are looking for specific criteria that needs to be met. Certain core terms and phrases are listened out for and responses are noted. People often compare this to the DMI but it really shouldn't be.

My second example was passing a fire down a country lane. I stopped and called 999. I would have thought that was "dealing with an emergency" but in retrospect all I did was call 999. I can understand why that answer wasn't accepted. Imagine what would happen if they just sat back, smiled and let me go down the proverbial path and then just slyly ticked "fail" If anything, she pushed me to the right answer.

That sort of interview will work for some people, but not others. I guess because the railway has far more applicants than it ever has jobs, it's got no motivation to actually deal with it, just like Blackpool North is too much effort because the passengers still travel anyway,

I think this is the lazy answer. Granted there is a deluge of applicants and yes there would be little incentive to change but... The entire process is about getting the right people and getting people at the right standard. Everyone must hit the same criteria and everyone must go through the same process. They don't play friends and they don't play family. (also don't play nice) How many applicants, and not just for railway jobs, are simply unsuitable. Staff turnover is also relativly slow. Even those who go elsewhere still tend to stay within the industry. Of all my previous jobs I've had. The railway has a decent staff retention rate. Many staff have quite a few years in their pockets. As previously mentioned. The process is subject to a 5yr review cycle. The "incentive to change" is already built in. Lives have been reset previously and I have no doubt they will again and I would urge people with no lives to reapply when possible.

but really it seems incredibly poor interview technique which won't necessarily get them the best people.

Again, this entire process is designed to weed people out. I've been in high pressure railway situations, I've dealt with fires on trains and on stations. It's very intense and you get battered from all directions. I think there will always be people who don't get through but would make great Driver and those that pass who go on to fail miserably. Personally, over the years I've come to understand why we have such a safe railway. Part of that understanding is that ruthless nature of weeding people out. Both you and I have read those RAIB reports. Some of the smallest things have lead to disaster. If you can't get through an MMI I would worry about how you would deal with some rail situations. One of the big complaints about the process is that it doesn't reflect the reality of the proverbial coal face. These tests (including the MMI) are designed so that those who do make it through have the aptitude and personality type to meet the often demanding railway environment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again, this entire process is designed to weed people out. I've been in high pressure railway situations, I've dealt with fires on trains and on stations. It's very intense and you get battered from all directions. I think there will always be people who don't get through but would make great Driver and those that pass who go on to fail miserably. Personally, over the years I've come to understand why we have such a safe railway. Part of that understanding is that ruthless nature of weeding people out. Both you and I have read those RAIB reports. Some of the smallest things have lead to disaster. If you can't get through an MMI I would worry about how you would deal with some rail situations. One of the big complaints about the process is that it doesn't reflect the reality of the proverbial coal face. These tests (including the MMI) are designed so that those who do make it through have the aptitude and personality type to meet the often demanding railway environment.

That's an interesting way of putting it (your whole post is; I just didn't want to clog up the thread by quoting all of it).

I did wonder if that might be the case, though modern practice would tend to be that if you wanted to see how someone performed under pressure in a given situation that you would instead of just doing interviews do an "assessment centre" type approach with more realistic and specific "role playing" scenarios[1]. I suppose the railway can be very traditional, though.

I may be biased because I don't think interviews (of any kind) are a particularly good way of assessing a person at all, anyway, unless your job is being an interviewer. It seemed more to me like this was the sort of interview that the likes of Alan Sugar do (watch the Apprentice) which is just a bit old fashioned and not something modern businesses really tend to do.

[1] Obviously you can't go out and "play trains", but these sorts of thing tend to be simulations anyway.

 

[ComUtoR]

I love "scenario" based days...

You're in a boat, with just 3 packs of crisps, 2ft of rope, and a step ladder

Interviews aren't great and we need to remember the MMI is just part of the day(s) There are other tests in the whole process. The DMI is what gets you the job. Even the DMI is still a "modern" criteria based interview :/

 

[Reece E]

Do you mind elaborating on this a bit more please?

London Underground do not use these tests, but Crossrail and Overground do.

LUL run their own testing system, as they are a metro and not a mainline operator.

 

[221129]

Do you mind elaborating on this a bit more please?

What is there to elaborate on? London Underground are not part of the national network so therefore run their own testing centre and have their own requirements.

TfL rail, London Overground and CrossRail are part of the National Network so therefore the OPC tests are required.

 

[TeaTrain]

I was under the impression that the MMI was there as a test to check that you were suitable to be a Train Driver. But your answers did not have to relate to the railway, or work experience at all. I have taken the MMI twice and passed twice with 3 years in between. The interviewers were worlds apart. I remember my first one being very gentle and then suddenly aggressive...then silent... I think it’s a tactic to see how you cope with the pressure. My second interviewer was calm all the way through. Stone cold and expressionless.

Both pressed for the same key words, phrases, information. How did it feel evacuating my train? As others have said they kept asking how it made me feel. What did I think? Until in the end I told them it doesn’t matter how many ways you ask me you will get the same answer!

STAR system gives you the best chance of success because there is a narrative, a beginning an ending etc. You should refer back to your question and repeat it. Equally you shouldn’t waffle or mumble. Um ah etc. I think there is an element of being able to articulate yourself properly and communicate effectively. Also very important as a Driver.

As many have said. It seems to be very inconsistent and yes it is a human that marks you. But they also have set criteria to adhere to and I don’t believe that the blame can be solely pointed on them. I am just saying my thoughts hopefully I do not offend anyone!! That’s the last thing I want! ✌️

 

[Reece E]

I misread the LUL to the Overground bit you was saying.

But don't Overground do a more enhanced test system?

What is there to elaborate on? London Underground are not part of the national network so therefore run their own testing centre and have their own requirements.

TfL rail, London Overground and CrossRail are part of the National Network so therefore the OPC tests are required.

 

[DunfordBridge]

I was going to start a new thread for the following, so as not to incur the wrath of admin again but I am presently working on the old Microsoft Edge browser and many of the thread options were greyed out.

She asked "do you have an emergency situation" So I went on and gave my example. She turned around and said. "we don't accept that because we don't consider it an emergency" So I gave a second example. Then she said "we cannot accept that either" and then went on to tell me that I had to give her another example or it was over.

I did a few things during my emergency that in retrospect I shouldn't have done. Rules and procedures went out the window and I just acted on instinct. Something I have found to be a little consistent was that during all the questioning everything was focussed on MY actions and not that of others. I have also found that having a resolution to the situation also helps the chance of success. This thing happened, this is what I did, this was how it was resolved. Weirdly, at no point were the emergency services involved.

I always thought that an emergency situation was any situation which required the emergency services in one form or another, until now. Probably more accurate to say that an emergency situation is one which poses an immediate, unexpected threat to life, etc, and one which requires immediate action.

sure I've read on here at least one person claim that their successful answer to the MMI 'emergency' question was, 'I've never been involved in an emergency situation'

But you cannot be sure about how the interview developed. I think the question is worded so that it can be either an emergency or a pressurised situation. I am not sure how the two differ in the context of the interview but I would expect that both are unexpected and require immediate action.

My "emergency" question answer related to a train surfer I dealt with - which also shows I follow R&P?

What is a train surfer, someone who travels on the outside of a train by clinging onto the hand rails perhaps?

That sort of interview will work for some people, but not others. I guess because the railway has far more applicants than it ever has jobs, it's got no motivation to actually deal with it, just like Blackpool North is too much effort because the passengers still travel anyway, but really it seems incredibly poor interview technique which won't necessarily get them the best people.

The bad press for Blackpool North never ceases to amaze me.

My second example was passing a fire down a country lane. I stopped and called 999. I would have thought that was "dealing with an emergency" but in retrospect all I did was call 999. I can understand why that answer wasn't accepted. Imagine what would happen if they just sat back, smiled and let me go down the proverbial path and then just slyly ticked "fail" If anything, she pushed me to the right answer.

Looking at my notes, I have got listed such questions as:

1. How did you take charge of the emergency situation?
2. What did you do until the emergency services arrived?

No idea if these questions are from my own personal experience or from whatsome else has described from the forum but I am thinking it is not enough to call the emergency services then take a back seat, although I would think that there is a certain amount of communication skill involved in describing the incident and its location, especially to someone who is not familiar with the area.