Career Navigation

SMART Method

7 min read

SMART Method

Dimension: Pursuit · Type: Stage

A five-element structure for answering competency-based interview questions: Situation, Mission or Task, Action, Result, Teachability. The Teachability element is what distinguishes SMART from the better-known STAR. Including a brief lessons-learned reflection turns a difficult situation into evidence of self-awareness rather than a confession.

Introduced by Luisa Zurek (HR Associate, Talent Planning and Acquisition, UNIDO) at the Building a Winning Profile from Application to Interview session, on 7 May 2026. Reinforced and extended at the Mastering Job Interviews session by Aicha Abdoulhanzis (OCHA), Florette Niyongere (IOM), and Tamara Roura (OCHA), who used the STAR+L form with three operational rules. Reinforced again at the Working for Justice session by Daiga Barone (ICC) under the STAR or CAR label with a fifth Learning element. The four labels are the same family.

The framework

When to use it

  • When preparing for a competency-based interview where you expect “tell us about a time when…” questions.
  • When the question allows for a longer, more nuanced answer (typically three to five minutes of speaking time).
  • When the example you are about to share involves a difficulty, a setback, or a lesson learned. The Teachability element shines here.
  • When you want to demonstrate growth and reflective capacity, not just past competence.

What you need

A specific past situation that demonstrates the competency. The vacancy notice and the competency framework the panel is assessing against. Honest reflection on what you actually did, what worked, and what you would do differently. Practice; the structure must feel natural under pressure, and reading it does not produce delivery quality.

The five elements

S, Situation. What was the context. Programme, country, scale, constraint, time period. One or two sentences.

M, Mission or Task. What you, or your team, had to accomplish. The specific objective or responsibility you were owning.

A, Action. What you did. Personal actions, in verbs. This is the load-bearing element; the panel is assessing you, so “we” is not enough. Set the team context briefly, then pivot to your specific actions.

R, Result. The outcome. Quantify where possible. Numbers, percentages, time saved, milestones reached.

T, Teachability. What you learned. What you would do differently. Phrased as growth, not as confession: name the lesson, the change in your future approach, and the generalisable insight. The Teachability element is not a self-criticism. It is evidence that you reflect on past work and carry forward generalisable lessons. Panels read this as senior-grade behaviour.

The 70% rule on Action

A consistent prescription across both the Day 4 and Day 5 sessions: the Action element should take roughly 70% of your speaking time. Situation and Mission together are scaffolding (around 15%). Action is the load-bearing element (around 70%). Result and Teachability are the close (together around 15%). If you find yourself rushing the Action because you over-ran the Situation, restart from a tighter Situation.

Steps

  1. Pick the situation. From your BASIC achievement bank, choose an example that fits the competency the panel is asking about. If you cannot find one with all five elements (especially a meaningful Teachability), choose a different example.
  2. Draft each element separately. Write the five elements out in full before stitching them together. This prevents the common failure mode of running the Situation past two minutes and rushing the Action and Result.
  3. Practise out loud. Three to five minutes total. The Action should be the longest element. The Teachability should be 30 to 60 seconds, no more.
  4. In the room: be specific. Replace “stakeholders” with named partners. Replace “we” with “I” once you have set the team context. Replace “challenges” with the specific challenge.
  5. Do not theorise. The panel does not want what you “would” do; they want what you did. Theoretical answers signal either inexperience or evasion.

On example selection

When choosing which example to use for a given question, the right answer is the most relevant, not the most impressive or the most recent. The Day 5 panel ran a live poll on this and 90% of the audience picked correctly. Relevance is the test the panel is applying.

Worked example

A P-3 candidate is interviewing for a P-4 senior programme officer role. The panel asks: “Tell us about a time when you led a complex cross-country initiative under significant time pressure.”

  • S. In 2024 I was leading a multi-country food-security response across three West African countries during a regional drought.
  • M. My responsibility was to design and deploy a results-based monitoring framework across the three countries within ten weeks, in time for the donor’s mid-cycle review.
  • A. I structured the framework around five sex-disaggregated indicators, ran four alignment sessions with implementing partners, built a Kobo Toolbox data-collection form, trained twelve enumerators across the three countries, and consolidated the data into a weekly Power BI dashboard for the country directors.
  • R. We delivered baseline data three weeks ahead of plan with 92% completeness, the donor mid-cycle review proceeded on schedule, and the dashboard was adopted as the standard reporting tool for the wider portfolio.
  • T. Looking back, I underestimated the variation in partner data-collection capacity. Next time I would add a one-week capacity-assessment phase before launching the indicators. The lesson generalises to any cross-country results framework, and I have applied it twice since.

Total speaking time: about four minutes.

SMART vs STAR vs STAR+L vs CAR

Across the sessions, four closely related structures appeared, all valid. STAR is the most widely recognised and is SMART or STAR+L minus the lesson. STAR+L is the form used by OCHA and IOM, identical to SMART in spirit. SMART is the form used by UNIDO; the “Mission” framing emphasises ownership of an objective. CAR is the most concise; use it when brevity matters and the situation context is simple. Pick the one that feels natural under pressure and use it consistently.

Two operational notes from the ICC session

The “I not we” cultural note. In some cultures it is more natural to say “we” than “I” when describing team work. In a competency-based interview at the ICC and across the broader UN system, the panel is assessing your specific contribution. Set the team context briefly, then pivot to “I” for the action. This is a structural requirement of competency-based assessment, not a cultural correction.

The pre-test prep step. Before going into a written test or interview, re-read the vacancy notice (responsibilities, competencies) and read the public information on the organisation’s website (strategy, recent reports). The panel can tell who has done this prep and who has not.

Pitfalls

  • Over-running the Situation. The most common interview mistake. The Situation should be one or two sentences, not the bulk of the answer.
  • Saying “we” throughout the Action. Set the team context briefly, then pivot to “I”.
  • Treating Teachability as a confession. “I made a mistake and I felt bad about it” is not Teachability. Name the lesson, the change in your future approach, the generalisable insight.
  • Using SMART for every question. Some questions do not need a five-element answer. A factual technical question deserves a direct technical answer.
  • Theorising instead of recalling. “What I would generally do is…” reads as evasion. Bring a specific example.
  • Failing to scale the answer to the level you are applying for. A P-3 candidate using a P-2 example signals you are not ready for the move.

When not to use it

When the question is technical and asks for content rather than competency demonstration. When time is severely constrained (a 30-second video pre-screen response): use CAR for brevity. When you do not have a specific past example: do not force-fit a theoretical scenario.

How I use it

Personal note pending. Davide to fill.

Notes compiled by Davide Piga. Last updated 2026-05-09.

Graph View

Backlinks