Public institution interview FAQs and answering techniques

Public institution interviews FAQs and answering techniques

Use provocative language traps to cover up. This is a common tactic used by interviewers to eliminate most applicants. Interviewers who use this technique often look at the other person with suspicious, sharp, and aggressive eyes before asking questions, first making the other person's psychological defenses collapse step by step, and then unexpectedly angering the other person with an obviously unfriendly question.

For example: Your experience is too simple, and what we need is people with rich social experience. Your personality is too introverted, which may not be suitable for our profession. We need a famous hospital. If you are a graduate of a prestigious school, why is your major not consistent with the position you are applying for? Faced with such aggressive questions, as a candidate, the first thing you must do is not to be angered at all costs. If you're provoked, you've already lost. So, how to answer such a question?

□ If the other party says: Your experience is too simple, and what we need is people with rich social experience.

■ You can answer with a smile: I am sure that if I have the chance to join your company, I will soon become an experienced person in society. I hope I have such an experience.

□ If the other party says: You are too introverted, this may not be suitable for our profession.

■ You can answer with a smile: It is said that introverts often have the quality of concentration and perseverance. In addition, I am good at listening because I feel that I should leave more opportunities to speak to others.

□ If the other party says: We need graduates from prestigious universities, you did not graduate from a prestigious university.

■ You can say humorously: I heard that Bill Gates did not graduate from Harvard University either.

□ If the other party says: How come your major does not match the position you are applying for?

■ You can answer cleverly: It is said that the most sought-after talents in the 21st century are compound talents. A layman's inspiration may be greater than that of an expert's, because they have no set thinking and no rules.

If the other party says: Your previous unit is so good, but you want to leave, are you unable to survive in the original unit and have to move to another place? If you stutter, have no words to reply, or are angry. If you are lustful, argue with reason, have a red face and thick neck, you will fall into the trap set by the other party. When applicants encounter this kind of situation, they should be calm-headed and understand that the other person is acting, and there is no need to compete with him.

Challenging language trap. The characteristic of this type of questioning is that it starts from the weakest point of the job seeker.

For fresh graduates, the interviewer will ask: You have relatively little relevant work experience. What do you think? For female college students, the interviewer may ask: Women often lack confidence in their abilities. , what do you think? If you answer: Not necessarily, I think that may not be the case or it is not the case at all, then maybe you have fallen into the trap, because what the other party wants to hear is your opinion on this issue, rather than a simple and blunt rebuttal.

For such a question, you can use such a statement, which may not be completely correct. Such a view is worth exploring. There is a certain truth in such a statement, but I am afraid that I cannot fully accept it as an opening statement and then express myself tactfully. of different opinions.

Interviewers sometimes raise questions that may embarrass job seekers. For example: Your academic performance is not very good, what is going on? From your resume, you have no experience as a student cadre during college. Will this affect your ability to work, etc.

When faced with such a problem, some job seekers will often involuntarily put on a defensive posture, or even fight back hard. Doing so will only fall into the trap of overconfidence and lead to arrogant evaluations. The best way to answer is not to hide or avoid it, but not to be too straightforward, and to cleverly go around it by talking about the shortcomings and actually discussing the advantages.

For example, when the other party points out that your academic performance is not very good, you can admit it frankly and then bring out your other strengths by analyzing the reasons. For example, the reason why my academic performance was not very good during school was because I was the leader of a club and invested too much energy in club activities. Although my hard work in the club has brought me a lot of gains, my academic performance is not the best, which has always bothered me. After realizing this, I have been trying to correct my deviation.

Michael, who has repeatedly won interviews, had such an interview experience. Michael's academic performance is not top-notch. During the interview, this became the key point for the examiner to launch an attack: Your grades don't seem to be outstanding. How can you prove your learning ability?

Michael doesn't Don't be in a hurry: In addition to studying, I have other activities. Not only grades can reflect a person's learning ability. In fact, my professional courses are quite good. If you have any questions, you can test my professional knowledge on the spot. Michael cleverly avoided embarrassing questions and directed the examiner's attention to his best expertise.

Inductive language trap. The characteristic of this type of question is that the interviewer often sets a specific background condition to induce the other party to make a wrong answer, because perhaps no answer can satisfy the other party. At this time, your answer needs to be expressed in fuzzy language.

For example: Based on your current level, I am afraid you can find a better company than ours?

If your answer is yes, then it means that you may have two feet on your feet. Only a boat, I am in the Cao camp and my heart is in the Han Dynasty. If you answer no, it means that you lack confidence in yourself or there is a problem with your ability.

For this type of question, you can start with the statement that it cannot be generalized, and then answer: Maybe I can find a better company than your company, but other companies may not pay as much attention to talent training as your company, and the opportunities are not as good as yours. Not as many as your company; maybe I can find a better company. I think it is most important to cherish what you have.

With such an answer, you are actually throwing a vague answer back to the interviewer.

There is another kind of inductive language trap. The other party’s question seems to be a multiple-choice question. If you choose it, you will fall into the trap. For example, the other party asked: Which do you think is more important, money, reputation or career?

For newly graduated college students, all three are of course important. But the other party's question is misleading you, making you think that these three are contradictory and you can only choose one. At this time, we must not fall into the trap of the other party. We must analyze it calmly. We can first clearly point out that this prerequisite does not exist, and then explain the importance and unity of the three to us.

You can organize the language this way. I don’t think there is a contradiction between the three. As a college student with higher education, pursuing career success is of course the main theme of his life. And the way society affirms our career is sometimes in the form of money, sometimes in the form of reputation, and sometimes in the form of both. Therefore, I believe that we should gain money and fame in the process of pursuing our career. All three are important to us.

Similar to this, there is a misleading trap. The interviewer already had the answer, but deliberately gave the opposite answer. If you blindly please and follow the interviewer's wrong answers, the conclusion of the interview will definitely be: this person has no independent opinions and lacks innovative spirit. Naturally, he was listed as eliminated.

There is also a testing language trap. This type of question is characterized by imagining a situation and then asking the candidate to respond. For example, there are nearly 10 candidates participating in the interview today. How to prove that you are the best? This type of question often tests the applicant's ability to adapt to changes. No matter how many advantages you list for yourself, others will always have advantages that you may not have, so there is no point in answering such a question head-on. You can go around it from the front and answer this question from the side.

You can answer: This point may depend on the specific situation. For example, what your company needs now is administrative management talents, although the applicants are all talents in this area. But I firmly believe that my experience as a student cadre and in charge of club work during college has laid a solid foundation for me. This is also what I think is more outstanding. This kind of answer can be said to be more tactful, making it difficult for the other party to grasp the situation and fight back again.

Sometimes, the interviewer will also ask this question: Do you like or hate trivial work, and why?

This is a dilemma question. If you answer like it, it seems to go against the current situation. The actual psychology of educated youth; if you hate it, it seems that every job has its trivial aspects. Therefore, according to the general psychology, people are unwilling to do trivial work (unless they are in special positions, such as part-time work at home). That is, the examiner knows what he is asking. We can infer that his drunkard's intention is not to drink, but to work.

We can express our attitude like this. Trivial things are inevitable in most jobs. If there are trivial things that need to be done in my work, I will do it seriously, patiently and meticulously. Get it right.

This sentence not only euphemistically expresses the general psychology of most people who do not like trivial work, but also emphasizes their professionalism, patience, and meticulousness in trivial matters. It is both authentic and credible and in line with the other party’s employment psychology.

Among various language traps, the most difficult and dangerous one to guard against may be the language trap that leads you into an urn.

For example, if you are applying for a position as a financial manager of a company, the interviewer may suddenly ask you: As a financial manager, what if I (the general manager) asked you to evade taxes of 1 million yuan within one year? Yuan, what would you do? If you scratch your head and think about tax evasion strategies on the spot, or if Wen Siquanyong immediately lists a lot of tax evasion plans, then you will be trapped and fall into the trap. Because the interviewer who asks this question is using it to test your business judgment and business ethics. Remember that compliance with laws and regulations is the most basic requirement for employee behavior.

For example, you are about to move from one company to another. The interviewer asks you: Is your boss difficult to get along with? Otherwise, why did you change jobs? Maybe his guess is the reason why you want to change jobs. Even so, remember not to be fooled by this sympathetic tone. Don't even climb up the pole. If you angrily lash out at your boss or sue your company with righteous indignation, you're doomed because it reveals not only your intolerance but your narrow-mindedness.

During the interview, the interviewer may devise various language traps, but as long as you spot them correctly, you will be able to block them when soldiers come, and when water comes, you will be able to cover them up. ;