HR-Fachmann BP common mistakes
HR-Fachmann BP · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When a case describes a termination, the candidate immediately cites the ordinary notice periods in OR Art. 335c (e.g. one month in the first year) without first checking whether a special statutory period, a contractual deviation, or a probationary period applies.
Candidates memorise the default notice periods as a single number and treat them as a reflex answer, forgetting that the statute distinguishes probation, years of service, and individual contractual arrangements.
What to do instead
Before answering any notice-period question, run a fixed checklist: probationary period? contractual agreement? special protected periods (OR Art. 336c)? then apply the graduated OR Art. 335c scale. Write the checklist out in practice cases.
In payroll cases the candidate computes gross salary and deducts only AHV/IV/EO, forgetting BVG, ALV, NBU, and the employer's share, or applies the wrong coordination deduction for part-time employees.
Candidates learn each social insurance in isolation and lack a mental model of the full deduction chain and the employer/employee split, so they drop components under time pressure.
What to do instead
Practise with a one-page payroll template listing every branch (AHV/IV/EO, ALV, BVG, NBU, KTG, FAK) with rate, base, and who pays; run five complete gross-to-net calculations from scratch.
The candidate answers a recruitment case by listing every possible selection instrument (interview, assessment centre, references, tests) without justifying which fits the described position, level, and budget.
Exam questions often ask for 'possible measures', and candidates optimise for volume rather than fit, treating breadth as a proxy for correctness.
What to do instead
For every instrument named, add one sentence on why it fits this role and one on its cost/validity trade-off; cap the list at three instruments and defend them.
The candidate confuses the legal requirements of a termination with those of a mutual agreement or an immediate termination, and applies the wrong form requirements (written form, reasons, consultation).
All three appear as 'ending an employment relationship', and candidates pattern-match on the word 'Kündigung' without distinguishing the legal construct.
What to do instead
Build a comparison table (ordinary termination / immediate termination / mutual agreement) covering form, notice, reasons, and consequences, and classify every practice case before answering.
When asked for HR key figures, the candidate reports raw numbers (headcount, fluctuation count) without defining the calculation basis, period, or benchmark.
Candidates equate naming a metric with answering a controlling question, and the underlying formula is often only half-remembered.
What to do instead
Always state formula, data source, period, and comparison value; practise computing fluctuation and sick-leave rates for two sample periods and interpret the difference.
The candidate designs a development or appraisal concept without linking it to a competence model, target group, or evaluation criteria, producing a generic list of seminar topics.
Concept questions reward structure, but candidates default to brainstorming training content instead of deriving needs from a defined gap.
What to do instead
Use a fixed chain: needs analysis → competence gap → measure → transfer → evaluation (Kirkpatrick levels); state the target group and success indicator for each measure.
In work-safety and working-time cases the candidate cites general good practice (breaks, ergonomics) without naming the concrete ArG/ArGV provisions on maximum weekly hours, rest periods, or compensatory rest.
Candidates treat Arbeitssicherheit as a soft topic and answer with plausibility rather than the specific statutory limits.
What to do instead
Memorise the core ArG numbers (weekly maximum hours by category, minimum rest, break rules) and quote the article alongside every recommendation.
The candidate answers an equal-treatment or discrimination case by asserting that unequal pay is unlawful, without naming the legal basis (e.g. equality in the Federal Constitution, OR Art. 328, GlG) or the burden-of-proof rules.
The moral answer feels obviously correct, so candidates skip the legal grounding the exam is actually testing.
What to do instead
For every equality question, name the statute, the protected characteristic, and who must prove what; practise two short cases on equal pay and on discrimination in hiring.
The candidate presents a change-management or digitalisation concept without stakeholders, communication plan, or resistance handling, treating the technical solution as the whole answer.
Candidates from operational backgrounds focus on the tool or process and underestimate the people dimension the question is probing.
What to do instead
Structure every change answer with: driving force, stakeholders and concerns, communication sequence, quick wins, and success metrics; explicitly address resistance.
The candidate answers leadership or teamwork cases with generic traits ('good communication', 'motivating') instead of situational behaviour tied to the leadership model or team-development stage described.
Trait language is easy to produce and feels safe, but exam questions ask for situational diagnosis and concrete action.
What to do instead
Diagnose the situation first (e.g. team phase, maturity level of the employee), then name a matching leadership style and two concrete behaviours with an expected effect.