Introduction
All those who aim to join a professional working environment are subject to the procedure of job interview. To many, this subject matter may seem well-understood and easy to accomplish. However, the very procedure assumes lots of tricky spots and gaps to be filled by a candidate to get a job. This Report highlights the pitfalls and challenges presupposed by a job interview procedure, which is never the same under particular interviewing circumstances.
The Psychology of a Job Interview
From psychological perspective, a job interview procedure is never the same. Both sides, a company represented by an interviewer, and a candidate for a vacancy are yet to withstand a fierce emotional battle. All the involved formalities in due process, including applicant’s resume, cover letter, professional portfolio, etc are beyond the psychological aspect of an actual interview.
A Company’s Perspective
On the one hand, a company’s HR manager (interviewer) will do his/her best to hook a candidate with readymade (or prepared in advance) tricky questions (Omoth, 2018). These often go above what is written in a candidate’s CV or cover letter. These hooky questions may concern a personal life of a candidate to give a corporate representative of who a candidate is and what exact lifestyle he/she pursues. This information will eventually help a company to disclose a candidate’s genuine motifs while requesting work-life balance preferences. Further, an interviewer may ask about a candidate’s plans for the future to critically assess the estimated period of time he/she will stay with the company. This is rather important as no company is in favor of hiring a serial job hopper (Claman, 2016).
Strategically, the HR policy of competitive organizations emphasizes employee’s loyalty and devotion to corporate values. Rather than hiring and investing in disloyal staff, every company strives for training highly dedicated and effective contributors to overall company’s success. Out of all possible scenarios during an interviewing process, an interviewer will surely touch professional ambitions of a candidate (Berk, 2016). It is rather important for a company to know right from scratch whether a candidate will remain a follower for years, or strive for higher career and leadership ambitions. This is because every company wants to cultivate talented and loyal leadership from within.
A Candidate’s Perspective
On the other hand, there is a candidate striving for showing his/her best qualities and selling himself/herself for the best possible price. For this purpose, the majority of successful interviewees get prepared for a job interview in advance. In this regard, it is highly advisable to read real-life job interview cases in addition to learning profound articles written by the expert in the field. Unprepared candidates are bound to fail a job interviewing procedure because they will simply fail to withstand the psychological pressure of the interviewer. Further, they will be unable to properly argument their stance on various issues beyond their professional skills and interests. For instance, an interviewer may refer to a universal value of wealth in our life. Once a candidate responds about money, it is very likely he/she will be rejected as a potential candidate for a job. This is because a company cares about disclosing a candidate’s inner potential rather than coping with an average dweller solely concerned about short-lived profits.
Making a good first impression serves as a vital prerequisite of further candidate’s success during a job interview. Figure 1 embraces the core elements of making an effective firt impression.
Winning a Comparative Advantage
There is a delicate moment in every job interview process when either side has a chance to overcome their counterpart. While the very procedure is a thin psychological battle, primarily an interviewer has an ace in the hole. In most cases, a company acts as a host rather than a guest in relation to a candidate. In his/her turn, as a job seeker a candidate is prone to asking a company for formal and informal preferences. Nonetheless, a well-prepared candidate may always win a comparative advantage and overtop an interviewer. For example, the interviewer may ask a candidate a coup of professional questions. Impressive answers thereto will certainly raise the candidate’s chances for getting a job. Further, the candidate may offer a creative idea or feasible way to analyze the problem from a different angle. This will also come as a great plus.
Reasons for Saying No
Every job interview is, therefore, a tiny psychological game presupposing a winner and a loser. Unfortunately, in most cases, even highly talented candidates lose their chance of getting a well-paid and perspective job. An ultimate advantage of a recruiter over a candidate consists in assessing a candidate from a wider perspective far beyond their credentials or year of professional working experience (Doyle, 2018). Strategically, every company strives to develop its internal corporate structure as a learning organization. Thus, rather than paying tribute to who a candidate is, a company is interested in a candidate’s inner potential to be a lifelong learner who is open to changes and ready to face all possible challenges with a company. In most cases, revealing this potential is far more important than formal recognition of a candidate’s professional level or their academic achievements.
Conclusion
The Report highlighted the nature of a job interview process. The assessment of the procedure from both company’s and a candidate’s perspective indicates a deep psychological background underneath of every single job interview. In this rivalry, either side is free to win strategic advantages. At that, while in primarily disadvantaged position compared to a company, a candidate should invest time and effort into proper preparation and understand true reasons behind a company’s motivation for recruitment. Knowing this, a candidate will develop several most feasible strategies to withstand the psychological pressure of a job interview and be able to counterattack an interviewer.
