Do the questions asked in the interview really determine a person's ability to work?

The questions asked in the interview have nothing to do with a person's work ability. We can't deny that there are some people in this world who speak slowly and act quickly. They are not good at expressing themselves, but good at doing things successfully. In addition, the questions asked in the interview are largely not decided by the interviewer, but by the interviewer. It's strange that we can't use things beyond the interviewer's control to determine his own ability.

So how to judge a person's ability to work? Actually, it's not difficult. The so-called working ability actually refers to the degree of matching between people and posts. If a person matches the position very well, we can judge that his ability is no problem for this position, then the scope of judgment will be much smaller and it will not be embarrassing.

If we only judge a person's comprehensive ability on a large scale, instead of aiming at the position, our judgment will be difficult to be accurate. Just because a person is good at one thing doesn't mean that he is good at another. A person who is good at expression does not mean that he is good at action. Similarly, a person who is not suitable for this position may become the optimal solution for another position.

When the interviewer asks questions, if it is only to test whether this person is suitable for this position, then you can know something by asking questions. For example, if we want to recruit a sales position, how can this former interviewer be suitable for sales if he is not even dressed properly? If you want to recruit quality inspectors, of course, you can't recruit people who are too tolerant. You should recruit a perfectionist who is good at finding faults.

Therefore, any ability or inability should be aimed at the post, not a broad concept.