Here’s a controversial take for you (and possibly some tilting at windmills on my part). It’s about “behavioral” questions in interviews, seen from a complexity / human systems dynamics point of view. You know the format for answering a behavioral question: situation, task, action, result (STAR) or problem, solution, result (PSR) or situation, obstacle, action, result (SOAR) or whatever other abbreviation covers the same pattern. There are a number of assumptions in there. One: the problem the questioner is putting forth is sufficiently similar to something you’ve experienced. Two: the context they have in mind has been sufficiently described and matches well enough to the context of the situation you may have experienced. Three: the solution you had or the action you took would have a similar result and solve the problem. So we’re assuming the same “Container”, the same “Difference” and the same “Exchange”. That seems to me to be fraught with problems. On one hand, companies like to say “We’re unique. Standard approaches won’t work here.” And on the other hand they like to say “Tell us how you’ve solved this exact problem in the past, so we can feel good about hiring you.” I’m not sure you can have it both ways. I wonder what’s beyond the #BehavioralInterview. #Complexity #HSD

Originally posted on 2020-08-07 at 03:11 via

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>