Psychology questions during interviewing (CV, employees, alternative, interview)

[Thoreau424]

I'm curious to hear about other's experiences with job interviewing.

Where I used to live - and what I'm used to - is getting a call from an employer who has seen my resume, and has expressed interest in hiring me. They set up a time for me to come in for an interview, we have the interview, and they ask me questions about my experience, and we discuss the potential position and how my skills meet the requirements. Pretty clear-cut and no-nonsense.

But where I've moved to in recent years, the interviewing process is radically different. Here, they call or email me to set up time for a phone interview. The phone interviews generally run from 45 to 60 minutes, and many/most of the questions are of a psychology-based nature. Stuff like "Tell me about a time when you had difficulty with another employee, and how you handled it" or "What has been your best work experience, and when has been your most trying experience". Much of the 'interview' doesn't even cover skills and job requirements. It almost like a game, and I find myself sometimes making up answers because they're matters that I don't dwell on or try to remember. Of course, the successful phone interview then leads into the in-person interview. Alternatively, there is no phone interview, but the in-person interview consists of the psychology investigation.

There seems to be a link between men leading the first type of interview, and women conducting the second type.

Maybe the second approach is more common, and maybe I'm spoiled by the straightforward first approach. Maybe this is a regional thing? The first approach was in a southern and reddish area, the second in a blue-ish midwestern one.

[Winter Sucks]

I hate those scenario type questions too. This thread also talks about that.

https://www.city-data.com/forum/work-...questions.html

[Thoreau424]

Thanks for the link to the other thread. Lots of great information there, though not answering all my queries.

I still wonder if it's a regional thing. I can't see anyone in my original area trying to ask those kinds of questions. The other area is just weird (to me at least) and nothing surprises me. I wonder what leads people to asking those kinds of questions, and/or where it all started from. A popular book?

[Parnassia]

Originally Posted by Thoreau424

I'm curious to hear about other's experiences with job interviewing.

Where I used to live - and what I'm used to - is getting a call from an employer who has seen my resume, and has expressed interest in hiring me. They set up a time for me to come in for an interview, we have the interview, and they ask me questions about my experience, and we discuss the potential position and how my skills meet the requirements. Pretty clear-cut and no-nonsense.

But where I've moved to in recent years, the interviewing process is radically different. Here, they call or email me to set up time for a phone interview. The phone interviews generally run from 45 to 60 minutes, and many/most of the questions are of a psychology-based nature. Stuff like "Tell me about a time when you had difficulty with another employee, and how you handled it" or "What has been your best work experience, and when has been your most trying experience". Much of the 'interview' doesn't even cover skills and job requirements. It almost like a game, and I find myself sometimes making up answers because they're matters that I don't dwell on or try to remember. Of course, the successful phone interview then leads into the in-person interview. Alternatively, there is no phone interview, but the in-person interview consists of the psychology investigation.

There seems to be a link between men leading the first type of interview, and women conducting the second type.

Maybe the second approach is more common, and maybe I'm spoiled by the straightforward first approach. Maybe this is a regional thing? The first approach was in a southern and reddish area, the second in a blue-ish midwestern one.

Well, they already have your CV which should have described your skills and experience. Now they want to gauge the human behind all that; how you address the intangible aspects of work. How you express yourself. If they assume you'll be honest in your replies, the manner in which you handled these past situations tells them a lot. They are hiring a complete human, not an automaton that will never need to deal with awkward situations, stress, or workload problems. That is where "psychology" type questions enter into it. Are they ready to take on the whole person just to get the work done? Maybe they feel that the potential problems that come up with employees are in the "conduct" and behavior realm, not the productivity/skills realm. If they also talked to your past employers and references, they may be comparing your responses to those of other who worked with you.

[Thoreau424]

I can see how some might justify the approach, but I've seen the other side of the coin where none of those questions were asked, and everything worked out fine. For three decades (I had to do the math) I lived in an area where those questions were never asked, and yet the interviewing and resulting work process worked well.

Witnessing the job environment in the newer area, I even detect seem some weirdness where personality rules instead of education / work experience / skill-set, and value brought to the company.

What if you have Person A who's a master wordsmith but skill-less and a joke at working, and Person B who's not so snappy and polished with the word game and yet highly skilled. Are we saying Person A is the better choice? That's what this tends to reduce to.

I have no problem gaining employment through these tactics, but it tends to be a joke. I just make up good stories - tailored to the interviewers - to 'win the contest'. There's no reality to it. That's what this approach seems to breed and encourage. But maybe that's the point? "We BS you, so you BS us back" (?)