Application question - interpretation

[northwestern]

I wonder if I could ask for some advice on the interpretation of an application question. It states discuss a time you had to adhere to instructions/guidelines or rules, which were not clear to you.

My question is around interpreting the "which were not clear to you".
If it was a question about discussing a time of adhering to rules/instructions then this would be ok but the "which were not clear to you" part has thrown me?
Thanks for any advice on interpreting this.

 

[Horizon22]

I wonder if I could ask for some advice on the interpretation of an application question. It states discuss a time you had to adhere to instructions/guidelines or rules, which were not clear to you.

I think it is basically asking you about a time where there was an instruction, but as it says, it didn't quite make sense; such as whether the instruction was worded oddly, was missing context, or you were asked to do something you were unfamiliar with / was a rare occurence.

It is basically asking you about communication styles (repeating back instructions, coming to a clear understanding), your diligence in following procedures and checklists, especially if you are being talked through something and your ability to challenge something in a professional manner if you believe something is unsafe or contrary to other instructions.

 

[KNN]

What is the job?

As the previous poster said, my instinct is that you should clarify what is required until it is clear, rather than trying to fill in the gaps and hoping for the best.

Ironically, something you might want to do before submitting the application.

 

[northwestern]

I think it is basically asking you about a time where there was an instruction, but as it says, it didn't quite make sense; such as whether the instruction was worded oddly, was missing context, or you were asked to do something you were unfamiliar with / was a rare occurence.

It is basically asking you about communication styles (repeating back instructions, coming to a clear understanding), your diligence in following procedures and checklists, especially if you are being talked through something and your ability to challenge something in a professional manner if you believe something is unsafe or contrary to other instructions.

Thank you this has helped to clarify very much.

 

[twpsaesneg]

If I had set that question in an interview, I would expect the candidate to come back with something along the lines of going back to seek clarification about what they were being asked to do rather than just having a crack at it and doing something that was potentially incorrect.

Some of the biggest problems / incidents I see in engineering generally are caused by people being unsure what they're supposed to do and not wanting to or being confident enough to ask for help. Nobody knows everything whether you're at the beginning of your career or at the end.

 

[Horizon22]

If I had set that question in an interview, I would expect the candidate to come back with something along the lines of going back to seek clarification about what they were being asked to do rather than just having a crack at it and doing something that was potentially incorrect.

Some of the biggest problems / incidents I see in engineering generally are caused by people being unsure what they're supposed to do and not wanting to or being confident enough to ask for help. Nobody knows everything whether you're at the beginning of your career or at the end.

Yes over-confidence, a lack of situational awareness and poor communication are at the heart of at least 90% of all incidents in my opinion.

 

[Ducatist4]

Failure to come to a mutual understanding is a big reason for incidents (between drivers and signallers usually).