Fashionable know-how, which is increasingly practiced in companies when recruiting staff, is a stress-interview. Frankly speaking, the test is not for the faint-hearted. Recruiting, as a means of employment, is currently very popular.
Rabbit, run!
My friend, a girl with two higher educations, an experienced economist, left her job in the bank a year ago: at first the salaries were reduced to a minimum, and then the staff. After a bit of rest, she sent out a resume and went for an interview. In the evening, sobbing, she called: "I was arranged this, to which no pervert will think of!" First, she was detained for some reason at the reception, and she was late for an interview for half an hour. Then the man did not pay attention to him for about ten minutes - chatting with someone on the phone. Another man joined him five minutes later, and, without greeting, silently stared at her.
After some introduction, Masha unexpectedly said, they say, and you know that you look like a prostitute! She choked on her resentment. A few professional questions and - again a slap in the face: "You are a loser - not married, worked as a simple economist, nothing in life has been achieved. Why do you need us? "-" How could I not? "- flashed my friend and began to list: she knows languages, graduated from two institutions, is interested in all innovations in her field ... And to her in reply:" You grew up in an incomplete family, and it affected your psyche, look for another job. "
Masha was not explained, and she herself did not suspect that an interview in the style of "stress" was used to interview her at recruiting, as a means of employment. We have not previously practiced similar experiments: the mentality is different (few people are motivated by insults, humiliation or abuse), and the labor market is not so extensive. Nowadays, employers feel themselves like cats in oil: a wide choice of specialists makes it possible to approach the selection of future employees more subtly. But how do such interviews include interviewees, recruiting specialists, HR consulting and HR, and what do psychologists think about this?
Having become interested in the topic , I began to collect fresh stories like Masha's. It turned out that one completely masculine young man who wanted to become a sales manager for household appliances was "beaten out" by the question of sexual orientation. What he said is easy to guess. A girl pretending to be a marketer made a scene: a group of personnel officers sat on one side, the interviewer on the other, and waited silently for whom she would sit with her back, then after several professional questions one of the groups said quietly, but everyone could hear: "Well, fool. " The girl burst into tears, and, offended, fled. Although there were other reactions: a young man who was invited for an interview, went into the office, and there everything goes on as usual and no one pays attention to him. He coughed-no reaction. He laughed. He smiled back. Bombing with questions at a very fast pace, he withstood, too. The interview took place.
But bitterness and resentment after stress-interviews remain - depending on individual abilities to forget troubles. It is peculiar for a person to remember any stressful situation, and it subsequently is a brake on his development: there is a fear of going further, losing faith in himself and his abilities. Everything happens at the level of thinking: here the person has prepared for the interview, he repeats his speech, he has a plan of action. However, he gets into a situation that completely ruins his plans. In certain parts of the brain, sudden brake reactions occur. There is a stupor. He can not adequately answer, because the prepared answers are not suitable. Then comes a sharp surge of emotions: I was depreciated as a person. And the corresponding reaction: tears, slam the door. Those people who are able to rebuff (and everyone has their own reaction to stress - slow, fast or standard), swear. Those who have an accelerated reaction, of course, can win a "fight" with recruits or with employers. But the worst consequence of a stress interview is the damage done to self-esteem, a painful blow to self-esteem, and, as a consequence, further insecurity, not only in one's own professionalism, but also in one's personal qualities.
Rudeness and a dangerous experiment
Why is this necessary? So the employer can check applicants for tolerance, resistance to stress, ability to react or not to react in a certain situation, to defend their opinion. Such an interview should show how an applicant for a position reacts to disrespect for himself, to personal questions. In the arsenal of specialists in recruiting, as a means of finding a job, there are many very sophisticated ways to check the competitor. From the most delicate - the test of time, when the applicant is forced to be late for the meeting, where he is waiting for an "angry" personnel officer, watching how a person gets out of the situation - to the most violent person who violates the personal space. As Igor Raisky, an HR specialist, said, such interviews show how quickly a person is looking for the right answer, arranges information, is aware of what is happening to him, how he evaluates himself, whether he is able to fight, or immediately surrenders.
According to one of the recruitment agencies, today about 15 percent of employers consider the stress interview very effective, 10 are loyal and exclude from the interview, as they say, "mocking questions", that is, those relating to private life, 40-consider this approach unacceptable. However, the main problem is that we have few specialists who are ready to professionally conduct such interviews, and often in companies confuse rudeness with psychological experiments. In the inexperienced hands, a stress interview is very dangerous. In addition, according to psychologists, according to the rules (and so it is done in the world), the applicant must warn about the future of the stress-interview before the test. Even after we do not explain anything.
Today, the ability to check future employees for tolerance is taught in many companies. Of course, having warned a person about the experiment, it is more difficult to get a real picture - he manages to gather and prepare. And when the applicant wants to get a job, he can play the right reaction. Although psychologists who are invited for this purpose by company executives (they do not participate in the interview, only observe the reaction of the candidate for the post), always determine the degree of sincerity. But everyone should know what is done to him. And, speaking of human rights, the warning is still the more correct way. The applicant still does not know what will be evaluated, reacts in a way that is characteristic of himself, and the exercises can be constructed so that his reactions will be immediate.
Spartans of those who pale in a stressful situation, threw from the cliff, and those who blushed, took in the warriors: it was important that people are not afraid, and start. Obviously, for certain professions the stress test is good, useful and important. Many such jobs, where you, in fact, do not belong to yourself. This is a voluntary choice, and many people agree with this. They are both psychologically and ethically ready to be a "mechanism". However, HR specialists and psychologists believe that it is incorrect to carry out such "lice checks" for applicants of each profession. For specialties related to work in the service sector, a person's test for tolerance is completely correct, since one must be able to respond adequately and respond to provocations, outbursts of rage, tediousness and other negative phenomena. If the applicant will work in the service, then at the interview they can create a situation when he is scolded, accused, criticized, makes claims. And if he has a reaction - the fool himself, went out of here, then, obviously, he does not fit. In the service sector, it is very important to determine how an expert is able to deal with claims, to extinguish anger from clients.
Professionalism or self-sacrifice?
But the interview is the first step in the company, and it is important for the person to read the signals: how will they behave with me, will they respect my personal borders, or do I need only to perform certain functions? So he comments on the possible reactions to the stress interview: "If you really want to work in this company, and in the interview you were" surprised "in this way, then the reaction" cry-slam the door-go away "is certainly wrong. Because you immediately demonstrate: you will not obey. You can not react otherwise - it means that this is not your place. If you expect to work in the service sector, you should be prepared that your borders will be violated often. Because it is important for employers of this industry whether you are able to restrain personal emotions. I have a student who serves as a housekeeper for rich people, and studies at a university, although they are not told about this - they will be expelled. They took it for many years - they do not take anyone in such houses, so a girl five days a week is ready to give herself, part of her life, to reduce her personal boundaries for big money. "
I was curious to think of the idea of Inna when she suggested that those who are accustomed to stability agree with this: there are people who think about themselves, but there are those who wait for them to be taken care of by their superiors or the state. In a sense, this is a bias of responsibility, but they are ready to sell and accept any conditions.
There are also those who sought work for the soul and found it, despite all the trials. As a consequence - and the expected success, and financial satisfaction, and the opportunity for career growth, and self-realization. It is doubtful that a person who has acutely experienced the stress of the interview, but "fought off" and got a job, can relax. Forces are mobilized, resources are directed to work productively even in a tense state, but everything will lead to the fact that a person starts to get sick. This is observed in many companies: for no particular reason, with a temperature of 40, one employee, then another, and, without influenza, without ARI. The organism always defends itself by illness - either physical, or psychic. As a rule, managers are sick, and they are usually satisfied with stress control more often.
There is one more question about the stress-interview: is it profitable to have people who can not be knocked down by anything, even stress, in the team? Having the courage to protect yourself is good. But it's good for the person, not for the employer. Those who survived stress control, for the owner of the company or top managers are rivals. Although management is unlikely to realize that it has found a competitor. I can hardly imagine how they obey - they are eternal enemies, they will always object, since they have accelerated mental activity peculiar to the hypertimensional type of personality. They are driven by the thirst for activity, the pursuit of emotions, they are optimistic and focused on luck. Such people find it difficult to work within the given framework, they constantly try to violate them, while convincing the necessity of this ".
HR experts call stress-interviews unsafe, nevertheless, they say that since last year they are used more and more in our country, and it's not sweet for applicants today. This means that those who are looking for a job need to be prepared for the fact that they will be tested for strength. How to arm and how to behave in a situation of stress control? Firstly, as psychologists advise, it is clear to oneself that stress-resistant people know how to analyze the situation and draw conclusions: no, you just say it, but in fact, of course, you do not think about me that way, and your stupid questions do not interest me. Adequate self-esteem does not put such people in the position of choice - am I good or bad? I came, they did not take me - it means I do not fit, and this does not indicate my insufficient knowledge or skills. Stress-resistance arises from the passage of one and the same situation, that is, one must use the accumulated experience. When a person is experienced and knows the consequences, he is able to adapt.