Iceberg structural psychology of interview

Iceberg structural psychology of interview

The iceberg structural psychology of interview, when people interview a job, they need to prepare for the interview in advance if they want to win the favor of the interviewer. Interview pays great attention to details, and the iceberg structural psychology of interview will teach you to gain a foothold in the workplace!

Interview iceberg structural psychology 1 If everyone describes their work behavior with the theme of "completing the task", we will find that a complete task includes the following four behaviors:

How to make a plan (scheme) before the task;

After planning, how to plan (execute);

How to cooperate with others in implementation;

What are the consequences (responsibilities) after the task?

Planning, execution, cooperation and responsibility are the four behaviors necessary to complete a task. Without one of these behaviors, the task cannot be started, executed, or the result cannot be seen. So these four behaviors are necessary elements to complete the task, and I gave them a name, called element behavior.

If a person has four necessary behaviors, it means that he can advance the whole task alone and he has independent ability.

Li Hongzhang, the main hall of the late Qing Dynasty, was an official businessman. Judging from his work, he may be independent. In modern history, Li Hongzhang signed the most traitorous treaties. If you only look at this, he is undoubtedly a corrupt official who betrays his country and seeks glory. Li Hongzhang himself knew that signing dates left a bad name, but he didn't shirk it or avoid it, and he could bear the bad consequences on behalf of the imperial court. Compared with the princes and ministers of the same dynasty, Li Hongzhang may have to share more.

In most people, one, two or even three of these four essential behaviors will be missing. It is normal to be short of one of the three, and it does not necessarily affect the work. In fact, most tasks are undertaken by teams. As long as the team members can gather these four behavioral elements, the task can be successfully completed.

If a person, in him, does not have any of the four elements of behavior, it is abnormal. Such people may just make trouble at work, and their behavior has nothing to do with the task. In the company, the more people like this, the greater the resistance to doing things, because people who do things have to deal with troublemakers at the same time. So the first step in the interview is to pick out the troublemakers.

How to pick it out? If it is a campus recruitment, you can ask the following four questions to examine the planning, implementation, cooperation and responsibility one by one.

Question 1: Do you have a plan to find a job? What is your plan?

Question 2: What do you think is the most important activity related to job hunting?

Question 3: Who did you ask and what did you learn in order to find a job?

Question 4: If you didn't pass this interview, what might be the problem?

The above questions are only suitable for campus recruitment. For students looking for a job, finding a job is the most important job. If a student can't show planning, execution, cooperation and responsibility when looking for a job, it can only be assumed that he can't show these four behaviors in other things.

Social recruitment, candidates are mainly people with jobs, they apply for a job change, not looking for a job. For such candidates, you can use the following four questions to examine the behavior of factors, not campus recruitment:

Question 1: What plans do you have to make in your work? Tell me about a plan you made recently.

Question 2: What is the most important activity in your work? What are the main points of the activity?

Question 3: Who do you want to work with? Tell me about an unpleasant cooperation.

Question 4: What mistakes are you prone to make at work? Tell me about a mistake you made recently.

If an applicant answers the above four questions, he can't say a feasible plan, can't remember the main points of the activity, has no unpleasant cooperation and has never made any mistakes. Interviewers should be careful when they meet such people. He can't name any of the four essential behaviors. Recruiting him may only add chaos to his colleagues.

Based on the understanding of factor behavior, we should adhere to a principle when recruiting, that is, we can only judge heroes by success or failure, not talents by success or failure.

If a person is a great hero in the result, he should be more careful in the interview. For a great hero, we only know his achievements, but we don't know what his personal contribution is, planning and execution. Or cooperation and responsibility? If we use factor line to analyze great heroes, we will find that in another environment, great heroes are not necessarily talents.

If a great hero, in the original team, his role is execution, and he is replaced by a team with strong execution and weak planning, he will lose his value. There is also an extreme possibility that in the great hero's achievements, his own role is only to add chaos. He picked a peach when others achieved something.

In 2005, Carly Feoli, CEO of Hewlett-Packard Company, suddenly announced her resignation. Once the news was announced, HP's share price rose 10% that day. This shows that investors are not optimistic about Carly and think that she will only make trouble. In the eyes of investors, HP without Carly will be more valuable. After several years of observation, the board of directors who made her CEO also thought that she would only add chaos to HP. In order to make her resign, HP paid her $45 million in compensation.

Coincidentally, in 20 13, Microsoft CEO Ballmer issued a statement saying that he would retire within one year. After his statement, Microsoft's share price rose by 7% that day, because investors thought that Ballmer would only add chaos to Microsoft.

Carly who brought down HP and Ballmer who brought down Microsoft all have dazzling resumes. They can come up with a long list of achievements to prove that they are great heroes. However, their factor behavior does not match their position. This is a costly mistake for the company; For them personally, this is a stain on their resumes.

The board of directors should take responsibility for this lose-lose situation. Interview their director, lazy to think, try to show their personal ability with enterprise achievements.

Just because a person doesn't have dazzling achievements doesn't mean that he is incompetent. Perhaps the company he works for has defects in structure and process. He has the ability to execute gold, but it is equipped with silver cooperation, black iron plan and stone responsibility. This kind of collocation, what he can achieve, can only be stone.

Therefore, in the contemporary society with a high degree of division of labor, we can only talk about heroes by success or failure, not talents by success or failure.

Every applicant is an iceberg at present. The applicant's achievements are the iceberg on the surface and the underwater part, mainly the market competition, the company's business process and the division of labor and cooperation of the team. For personal achievements, the applicant's own contribution may or may not be there, which is the current iceberg structure.

There is a formula for the campus recruitment of iceberg structural psychology in interview 2: talent = top students of famous schools, athletes and club leaders.

The standard in this formula is the gold standard of campus recruitment. Almost all countries and institutions recruit graduates from universities according to the gold standard. Since its establishment, the Federal Foreign Affairs Office of the United States has been conducting campus recruitment according to the gold standard, which has been used for more than 100 years.

196 4, the United States federal government further standardized personnel management. According to 196 civil rights act, the federal government should publish job descriptions of all positions and evaluate the performance of staff according to the job descriptions. Racial discrimination, religious discrimination and gender discrimination unrelated to performance are not allowed in the evaluation.

As a federal agency, the Foreign Affairs Bureau should also evaluate the performance of its staff according to law. By 1970, after several years of performance appraisal, the foreign affairs bureau had a clear performance file.

In an accidental file arrangement, the Foreign Affairs Bureau compared the performance files of diplomatic liaison officers with the files of campus recruitment, and they found that the overlap between outstanding employees in the performance files and outstanding talents in the recruitment files was very low. Students who meet the gold standard best may not perform well when they come to work in the Foreign Affairs Bureau. Students who don't meet the gold standard don't necessarily have poor grades. This phenomenon has attracted the attention of the foreign affairs bureau, indicating that the performance of diplomatic liaison officers has nothing to do with the gold standard; It also shows that the recruitment standards that have been used for hundreds of years may be invalid.

What standards are effective? In order to find the real gold standard, the Foreign Affairs Bureau turned to McLelland, the world's top psychologist, and asked him to do a survey.

McLelland agreed to do research, so he went to Europe, Asia and South America, visited local consulates, observed the work of liaison officers and interviewed them. In addition, he also designed a series of tests to test the personal characteristics of liaison officers. These tests are mainly intelligence tests, including a collective empathy test.

After the test, McLelland found that among all the test results, the test results of collective empathy were highly coincident with the performance ranking. High test scores lead to high performance rankings, while low test scores lead to low performance rankings. This phenomenon surprised McLelland. He thinks it must be the result of some kind of intelligence test, which is related to grades. The survey shows that the intelligence factor of the test has nothing to do with job performance. This discovery is revolutionary. For McLelland personally, this discovery is the biggest gain of this survey.

As far as the Foreign Affairs Bureau is concerned, the direct result of this survey is to find a single factor that can predict outstanding performance for the post of diplomatic liaison officer, that is, "group empathy".

What is collective empathy? If you face a group of people, you can understand their emotional differences according to their expressions, and you can also find out the reasons for their emotional differences. Your ability is collective empathy.

People with strong collective empathy can see the rationality of the story when reading novels; Watching movies can distinguish good movies from bad movies. If you are a screenwriter or an actor, collective empathy is very important. If the screenwriter doesn't have collective empathy, the plot will be too dramatic and will make the audience feel unreasonable. Without collective empathy, actors will not experience the interaction between emotions, and the performance will be very fake and stiff.

In other jobs, the influence of collective empathy on performance is hard to attract people's attention, because this ability is not universal and easy to identify.

In order to determine the collective empathy, McLelland used the "thematic apperception test". The operation method is to look at the picture and talk, so that the testee can see a picture with five or six people with different expressions. The subjects should tell what these people with different expressions are doing. People with strong collective empathy can identify the expressions of each character in the picture and find the same event background for different expressions.

Take Leonardo da Vinci's famous painting The Last Supper as an example. Let me explain what kind of pictures can test collective empathy.

There are 13 characters in The Last Supper. Christ sat in the middle. He lowered his head, spread out his hands and told disciple 12 that one of you had betrayed me. Hearing this, the disciples were surprised and wanted to know more about the situation, so they all leaned forward. These people's surprises are mixed with other emotions, either anger or sadness. Only Judas leaned back, with his head tilted back and a purse in his right hand. There was no surprise or other expression on Judas' face, because the news was not unexpected to him.

Leonardo da Vinci arranged 13 people's expressions at the same time just right, which shows that he has a strong collective empathy ability. If the bystander can interpret all the emotions arranged by the painter, it shows that the bystander has strong collective empathy ability.

You can't use the last dinner for the test during the interview. There are too many characters in 13, and it takes a long time for the subjects to understand the emotions of each character and find the same event background for various emotions. Moreover, The Last Supper is widely circulated, and the subjects may have heard of it. Using it to test, the result may not be true.

To do the collective empathy test, we must first make a picture. You can find five or six people to discuss a controversial topic, such as who is the greatest hero. During the discussion, a special person kept snapping photos. The photos taken in this way can be used for collective empathy test if the expressions of the characters are different. Because the photos come from real scenes, the emotional relationship of the characters is reasonable. Only by looking at such photos can subjects discover the emotional logic.

The test designed by McLelland for the Foreign Affairs Bureau is a thematic apperception test. He didn't know in advance that this test could measure collective empathy, nor did he know that collective empathy could predict grades.

Combined with the research experience, McLelland made an analogy. During the interview, the interviewee looked like an iceberg. The superficial iceberg is knowledge and skills, which can predict general performance. The icebergs under the surface are self-awareness, motivation and values, which can predict excellent performance, but they are all deep-seated features that the interviewer can't see.

McLelland's iceberg metaphor accords with people's life experience. Like lawyers, doctors and teachers, all have professional licenses, but licenses can only distinguish between "teachers" and "non-teachers" and cannot distinguish between "excellent teachers" and "ordinary teachers". McLelland's viewpoint verified people's experience and spread widely. He used icebergs on water and icebergs under water to compare the surface ability and deep characteristics respectively. This metaphor is called "iceberg model"

In operation, the iceberg model brings two inspirations to the recruitment interview. The first point is the master, and the second point is the test. Expert means to send an expert as an interviewer during the interview, because experts can identify experts.

Take collective empathy as an example. If my collective empathy ability is weak, I meet a candidate who randomly makes up stories during the interview. Not only did I not recognize that he was making it up, but I also felt that I had met an expert. Do an interview with another master. The master combined the emotional clues in the story and knew that the story was fabricated and poorly compiled. Dare to use such a bad story to apply for a job shows that this person not only has a bad attitude, but also is not rigorous in thinking.

A more reliable way than a master is to test. Taking collective empathy as an example, speaking by looking at pictures is more reliable than being a master. Among the six people in the photo, one * * * has three kinds of emotions, two of which are the same as the other three, and there is a centrist whose emotions are compatible with those of the other five people. What is this?

I used a photo like this in a recent group empathy test. In that test, it took the examinee an average of 65 seconds to understand the emotions of the characters, find suitable scenes for various emotions, and then begin to describe them.

If the examinee is thinking hard, 65 seconds will pass quickly. If the candidate is silent for nearly 20 seconds without thinking, he will feel even more unbearable. Driven by unbearable feelings, the candidates soon began to fabricate stories.

If the candidate can't see three emotions, it means that his ability to identify emotions is weak. If you see three emotions and start to describe them within 20 seconds, but you can't find a suitable scene, which means that the candidate doesn't think deeply, then assume that he doesn't have the habit of thinking deeply. If from the 65th second, the examinee can describe while thinking and find the right situation, which shows that he can identify emotions and think deeply.

Testing collective empathy like this, the process and the result are objective. You don't even need an interviewer to do this test. Candidates can face the camera and conduct remote interviews.

Let's talk about McLelland. After the investigation by the Foreign Affairs Bureau, he wrote an article and made two suggestions. He suggested changing the name of "intelligence test" to "academic achievement test", and suggested that psychologists should make a list of "non-academic abilities", such as self-confidence, empathy, emotional management and so on. With this list, families and schools can cultivate children's non-academic ability according to the list, just like cultivating vocabulary and arithmetic ability.

McLelland's first suggestion was adopted. The previous "intelligence test" has been renamed "academic achievement test". His second suggestion has not been adopted by the public education department so far, because "non-academic ability" is difficult for the public to understand, and it is impossible for the public education department to make decisions beyond the public's understanding ability.

Some private educational institutions have put McLelland's suggestions into practice. We take "collective empathy" as an example. More and more business schools and medical schools will do the collective empathy test in the admissions interview. One reason is that this ability is very important, and the other reason is that this test cannot be faked.

Collective empathy is formed in childhood, and studying in adulthood requires long-term deliberate practice. When testing, people who don't have this ability can't see the interaction between emotions, and naturally they can't tell the emotional relationship between characters.

In McLelland's era, to determine a person's collective empathy, we should turn to the world's top psychologists. Today, anyone with a sound mind can master the test method after five minutes of explanation and ten minutes of demonstration. Therefore, the iceberg model is a model of 40 years ago. According to the contemporary psychometric technology, the deep features listed by McLelland are clearly defined and matched with highly reliable testing methods.

The current iceberg model is such a picture. The sea water around the iceberg has receded, leaving only the crystal clear iceberg.