Language Traps For Job Interviews

The interview is very much like a blind date.

Candidates want to find a boss who can understand their strengths. Employers hope to find excellent partners.

When strangers meet each other, they want to show their advantages, speak smart words or react immediately in a short speech to make a good impression on the other side.

The interview is actually a game of intelligence.

In order not to "choose the wrong person", the interviewer may set up various language traps in the interview to detect your intelligence, personality, resilience and psychological endurance.

Only if the interviewer can see through such a language trap can he circumvent it carefully and cleverly, so that he can not go into it.

The trap of language with "aggressive method".

This is the way the interviewer used to eliminate most of the applicants.

The interviewer who uses this technique often looks at each other with suspicious, sharp and aggressive eyes before asking questions, and the shilling's psychological line of defense flee and then irritate the other side with an apparently unfriendly question.

For example, "you are too simple, and we need people with rich experience". "You are too introverted, which is not suitable for our profession". "We need graduates from famous brand colleges. You are not graduated from famous universities."

Faced with this aggressive question, the first thing to do as an applicant is not to be "provoked" anyway. If you are "irritated", then you have already lost.

So how can we catch up with such questions?

If the other person says, "you are too simple, and we need people with rich social experience."

You can reply with a smile: "I am sure that if I have the opportunity to join your company, I will soon become a social experienced person, and I hope I have such an experience."

If the other person says, "you are too introverted, I am afraid this is not suitable for our profession."

You can reply with a smile: "it is said that introverted people tend to be attentive and persevering, and I am good at listening because I feel that I should leave many opportunities for speeches."

If the other side says, "we need graduates from famous brand colleges, you are not graduated from famous brand colleges."

You can say humorously, "I heard Bill.

Gates didn't graduate from Harvard University either.

If the other person says, "how does your major relate to the position you are applying for?"

You can skillfully reply: "it is said that the most sought after talents in twenty-first Century are compound talents, and the inspiration of laymen may be more professional than that because they have no fixed mindset and no rules."

If the other person says, "your original unit is so good, you have to go, is it not possible to get rid of the original unit and have to move to a nest?"

If the applicant stammered, speechless or angry, he argued and blushed, and fell into the trap set by the other party.

Applicants should be calm when they encounter such situations, and understand that the other side is "acting" without having to compete with him.

Challenging language traps.

The characteristics of such questions are starting from the weakest part of job seekers.

For graduating students, the interviewer will ask: "what's your opinion about your work experience?"

For female college students, interviewers may ask: "women often lack confidence in their abilities. What do you think?"

If you answer: "not necessarily", "I don't think so" or "not at all", then maybe you have fallen into a trap, because the other person wants to hear your views on this issue, rather than a simple, harshly rebuttal.

For such a question, you can use "this statement may not be all right", "such a view is worth exploring". "This argument has some truth, but I am afraid I can not fully accept" as the opening remarks, and then express their disagreement.

The interviewer sometimes asks which kettle to put aside and raises the question of embarrassing the job seeker.

For example, "what is wrong with your academic record?"

"From the resume, you have no experience as a student cadre during the university period, will this affect your ability to work" and so on.

Faced with such problems, some job seekers often make defensive gestures and even fight back at each other.

In doing so, it will only go into the trap of overconfidence and invite "arrogant" evaluation.

The best way to answer this question is not to conceal the avoidance, nor to be too straightforward, to skilfully bypass the shortcomings of the merits.

For example, when the other side suggests that your academic performance is not very good, you can admit it frankly, and then bring out your other advantages by analyzing the reasons.

For example, the academic record was not excellent at school because I was the head of the association and invested too much in community activities.

Although my efforts in the community have brought me a lot of gains, my academic record is not the best, which has always been my concern.

After realizing this, I have been trying to correct my deviations.

Michael, who has won many times in the interview, has had such an interview experience.

Michael's academic performance is not the top. When consulting a consulting company, it becomes the key for the examiner to launch an attack: "your grades don't seem to be outstanding. How can you prove your learning ability?"

Michael is in a hurry: "besides studying, I have other activities.

It is not only achievements that reflect people's learning ability.

In fact, my professional courses are quite good. If you have questions, you can test my expertise on the spot.

Michael cleverly bypassed the embarrassing questions and guided the examiners' attention to his best professional knowledge.

Induced language traps.

The characteristic of this kind of problem is that the interviewer often sets a specific background condition to induce the other person to make a wrong answer, because perhaps any answer can not satisfy the other party.

At this point, your answer needs to be expressed in vague language.

Such as: "according to your current level, I am afraid we can find a better company than our company."

If your answer is "YES", it means that you may have two feet on the boat.

If you answer "NO", it will show that you lack confidence in yourself or your ability.

This kind of problem can start with "not generalize", and then answer: "maybe I can find a better company than your company, but other enterprises may not attach more importance to talent training than your company, and chances are not as good as yours. Maybe I can find a better company. I think the most important thing is to cherish what is already there."

In fact, you answer a vague answer to the interviewer.

Another kind of inductive language trap is that the other's question seems to be a single choice question. If you choose, you will fall into the trap.

For example, the other person asks, "what do you think is important for money, fame and career?"

For the newly graduated college students, these three are of course important.

But the other party's question is misleading you, so that you think "the three are contradictory, and can only choose one".

At this time, we must not fall into the trap of the other party. We must sober up the analysis. We can first clearly point out that this precondition does not exist, and then explain the importance and unity of the three to us.

You can organize language like this. "I think there is no contradiction between the three.

As a highly educated college student, pursuing career success is of course the theme of his life.

And the way in which society affirms our cause is sometimes expressed as money, sometimes as reputation, sometimes two.

Therefore, I think we should get money and reputation in the pursuit of career. The three are important to us. "

Similarly, there is a misleading trap.

The interviewer has an answer, but deliberately says the opposite.

If you just please and follow the wrong answer of the interviewer, the conclusion of the interview must be: this person has no idea and lacks creativity.

Nature is listed as a list of elimination.

There is also a test language trap.

The characteristic of such problems is to create a situation and let the job seeker answer.

For example, "there are nearly 10 candidates in the interview today. How can you prove that you are the best?"

This kind of problem is often the ability to investigate job seekers' adaptability.

No matter how many advantages you give yourself, others always have the advantages that you may not have. Therefore, it is meaningless to answer this question positively.

You can turn around from the front and answer the question from the side.

You can reply: "for this reason, it may be due to specific circumstances, for example, what your company needs now is administrative talents. Although I am a qualified person in this field, I am convinced that my experience as a student cadre and a presiding work in the university has laid a solid foundation for me. This is also my own view."

Such an answer can be said to be more smooth, and it is difficult for the other party to seize the handle and fight back again.

Sometimes, the interviewer raises the question: "do you like or hate the trivial work? Why?"

This is a dilemma. If you like it, it seems to be contrary to the actual psychology of the educated youth. If you say it is annoying, it seems that every job has trivial details.

Therefore, according to general psychology, people do not want to do trivial work (unless special jobs, such as family time workers), that is, the examiners ask questions, we can speculate that their intention is not alcohol, but in "work attitude".

We can express ourselves in this way. "Trivial matters are unavoidable in most jobs. If I have trivial things to do in my work, I will do it conscientiously, patiently and meticulously."

This sentence expresses the common psychology of most people, not like trivial work, but also stresses their devotion to trivial matters - serious, patient and meticulous.

It is true and credible, and is consistent with the employer's psychology.

Among all kinds of language traps, the most difficult to guard against and the most dangerous ones may be "trap the king into the Urn" language trap.

For example, the position you applied for is the financial manager of a company. The interviewer may suddenly ask you: "if you are a financial manager, if I ask you to evade taxes for 1 million yuan in 1 years, what will you do?"

If you think about tax evasion tactics on the spot, or Wen Si Quan immediately lists a lot of tax evasion programs, then you get into a trap and fall into a trap.

Because the interviewer who throws this question tests your business judgement and business ethics.

Remember that discipline is the basic requirement of employee behavior.

For example, you are moving from one company to another.

The interviewer asks you, "is your boss very difficult to get along with, or why do you job hopping?"

Maybe his guess is the reason why you want to quit. Even so, you must remember not to be confused by this sympathetic tone, not to climb up the pole.

If you attack your boss angrily or accuse your company with indignation, you must be finished, because it not only exposes your intolerance, but also exposes your narrowness.

In the interview, the interviewer may design all kinds of different language traps, but as long as they are right, the soldiers will stop and let the water slip away.