Learn some wonderful questioning techniques, mind reading techniques, and psychological control tech

Chapter 35 Part [-]
Previous: Questioning skills: how to speak so that others will listen, how to listen so that others will speak
Chapter 7 Questioning scene 7: During the interview, reading mind

Section [-] Seesaw: The trade-off in the dilemma
Mini Scene House: Judging its Moral Quality with Dilemmas.

Question story session:
At the last level of the interview, the applicant's business quality was very good, but the interviewer was still a little worried: excellent business performance did not mean that he was excellent in other aspects, so he decided to investigate again.

Interviewer: "I have a question now: Suppose one day you and your boss visit a client, and after the meeting, the client gives you two opera tickets, each worth 800 yuan. You were very pleasantly surprised at first, but then you realized that the company stipulates that it is not allowed to charge clients I want to send back a gift worth more than 700 yuan, but your leader likes opera very much. Faced with this situation, should you return the performance ticket to the customer according to the company's regulations, or follow the leader's wishes to go to the show? ?”

Candidate: "This question is really difficult to answer. Is the leader willing to read it?"

Interviewer: "Yes, the leader is willing to watch."

Applicant: "Then I choose to watch it with the leader."

Interviewer: "What about the company's regulations?"

Candidate: "I think you have to be flexible, and the rules are determined by people. Besides, since the leader is willing to watch, why should I fight against him? Am I not making fun of myself? Moreover, that is also the customer's wish, so it will be rewarding. It is also convenient for future cooperation."

Interviewer: "You think so? Let me ask you another question: What would you do if those two performance tickets were exchanged for two wads of cash? The leader also likes money, will you do what he wants?"

Candidate: "Of course not, it's illegal to take money, and I won't do that."

Interviewer: "If the leader tells you that as long as we don't tell it, no one will know, and he asks you to accept the money in an orderly tone, will you do it?"

Candidate: "This... I really don't know how to answer it for a while, and I may not be able to respond until the actual situation."

Interviewer: "Okay, your interview is over here, you can go back and wait for the notification."

As soon as the candidate walks out the door, the interviewer puts a cross on his resume and he's eliminated.

Wonderful question:

Why were the applicants above eliminated?Not good at business?Not capable?neither.He can't abide by the company's regulations and is not principled.No company is willing to accept a person who makes mistakes on principled issues.

There are two possibilities in the interviewer's initial question: it is reasonable to accept the ticket, because the leader loves to watch it; it is also reasonable not to accept the ticket, because the company does not allow it.How an applicant chooses reflects his values ​​and principles of life. Whether it is good or bad can be seen at a glance.

Faced with the questions raised by the interviewer, the first thing the applicants say is not their own answers, but to determine whether the leader really likes to watch.His answer reflects that his thinking is leaning towards the leader, or he is on the side of the leader from the beginning.The deep-seated projection behind this kind of thinking is: the applicant does not take the company's regulations to heart.His subsequent responses further confirmed this point of view.He chose to watch it with the leader because the leader liked it.When asked where to put the company's rules and regulations, he replied with a bit of disdain, saying that the rules are made by people, so don't be too rigid.

Such an answer is disappointing. No matter how excellent his personal business quality is, his attitude and personal philosophy have left a very bad impression on the interviewer.In order to confirm his own judgment, the interviewer exchanged the performance tickets for money and asked the other party to choose, but the other party did not know how to answer. If he did not know how to answer, he would acquiesce or agree.

When a person has no choice in the face of company interests and personal temptations, his personal qualities are unqualified, and it is reasonable to be eliminated in interviews.

Therefore, in the specific process of the interview, you can timely ask some dilemma questions for the other party to answer, and use his answers to judge whether his moral quality is strong, whether he is greedy for profit, and is dedicated to himself rather than the company and others.

(End of this chapter)