Paper Presentation -- International Conference at Los Angeles,USA on 13th May 2014.
International Conference
conducted by Globel Academic Network
held at South California University, LOS ANGELES,USA.
FACING JOB INTERVIEWS: STRATEGY-SUCCESS NEXUS
-Dr.SelvaRani Selvam
Principal, Sri Sarada Niketan College for Women Amaravathipudur, Karaikudi, Tamil Nadu, India- 630311;www.srisaradaniketancollege.com
conducted by Globel Academic Network
held at South California University, LOS ANGELES,USA.
FACING JOB INTERVIEWS: STRATEGY-SUCCESS NEXUS
-Dr.SelvaRani Selvam
Principal, Sri Sarada Niketan College for Women Amaravathipudur, Karaikudi, Tamil Nadu, India- 630311;www.srisaradaniketancollege.com
ABSTRACT
Research based outcomes on the strategies for grooming one to face job interviews revealing one’s treasure of caliber, character, courage, conviction and credence (C-qualities) are dealt. Research Setting and Research Findings on (i) Broad Contours and Strategies Adopted for Preparation for Interview and (ii) Interview Performance as Depicted by the Candidates are thrusts aspects of the study.
Research Setting: The research setting for the study is the Performance of Candidates in the Personality Test of Civil Services Examinations meant for selecting IAS/IFS/IPS and Group A/B positions in the Central Government Services in India by the Union Public Services Commission (UPSC), New Delhi. This is two-phase examination withinterview-rate just 1% and final success rate just about 0.5% of candidates taking the preliminary examination. A structured questionnaire was adopted. A sample of 35 candidates consisting of 21 successful candidates and 14 unsuccessful candidates at the interview level was selected adopting Random sampling.
Research Findings on Broad Contours: In the sample of 35 candidates, 22 observed that they were very confident of being called for interview (based on their own assessment of written examination performance). Of this, 16 had passed the personality test giving a success proportion of 0.73. Out of 19 candidates who adjudged themselves as 'talkative', 13 passed out. So, being talkative is a ‘plus’. The mean time spent in preparing for the personality test for the passed-out candidates was 4.66 hours/day, while the same for the failed candidates, 3.43 hours/day. The 73 minute excess time spent daily by the passed-out group mattered the most. Out of the 31 candidates who took training for interview only 18 passed in the interview. Taking training with training institutes didn’t help much.
Findings on Strategies of Interview Preparation: Adoption & Perceived Effectiveness Rates
The 13 strategies of preparation for facing the interview were picked up from own experience and from reviewed literature and these were evaluated. Also, the perceived effectiveness of these strategies was also studied, using a 5 point-scale. The mean scores for the interview-passed out and interview-failed groups of candidates on the different strategies as to level of adoption (X1s & X2s) and on the extent of perceived effectiveness (Y1s & Y2s) were obtained and given as below.
Scores for the Mutually Inclusive Strategies of Preparing for Interview
S.
No.
|
Different Mutually Inclusive Strategies for Preparing for Interview
|
Interview- passed out candidates (Mean score)
|
Interview- failed candidates (Mean score)
| ||
X1s
|
Y1s
|
X2s
|
Y2s
| ||
1.
|
Keeping abreast of general current development
|
4.05
|
3.70
|
4.42
|
3.86
|
2.
|
Refreshing knowledge on home State
|
4.10
|
3.62
|
3.43
|
3.14
|
3.
|
Deep study of recent national/ regional/international problems issues,etc.
|
3.90
|
3.95
|
3.57
|
3.14
|
4.
|
Participating in mock interviews at homes or place of work/study
|
3.10
|
2.86
|
2.57
|
2.77
|
5.
|
Getting training under behavioral scientists
|
1.48
|
1.52
|
0.86
|
0.43
|
6.
|
Getting training under private training institutes
|
2.62
|
2.23
|
2.14
|
1.86
|
7.
|
Going through write-ups of toppers about their interview proceedings
|
2.19
|
2.00
|
1.86
|
2.14
|
8.
|
Holding discussions with friends/teachers on preparation for personality test
|
3.24
|
2.48
|
2.71
|
2.14
|
9.
|
Acquiring knowledge on own hobbies & extra- curricular activities
|
3.62
|
3.67
|
3.86
|
3.71
|
10.
|
Making 'cuttings' or 'clippings' of events subject-wise for ready reference
|
3.29
|
3.29
|
2.86
|
2.29
|
11.
|
Viewing TV program on Business, Polity, Current & World Affairs, etc.
|
2.10
|
2.62
|
1.71
|
1.29
|
12.
|
Keeping abreast of recent utterances by national/international personalities
|
3.14
|
2.62
|
2.86
|
2.43
|
13.
|
Started preparing immediately after main written examinations
|
2.33
|
2.62
|
2.14
|
2.00
|
Source: Primary Data
Mann-Whitney U test could not establish significant difference between Interview-passed out and Interview-failed candidates. Finer method of testing or alternative approach to establish the performance differences of the groups is needed, at this juncture. Test of significance of Difference between the two Independent Correlation Coefficients to find out the possible performance difference, established that the interview-passed-out candidates rightly matched the emphasis needed on a strategy of preparation for interview with the perceived effectiveness of the strategy. That clicked well in deciding the performance-success.
Research Findings on Depiction of one's Performance in the Personality Test
It should be possible for any candidate to state how well he or she perceivably performed in the personality test. The Mann-Whitney test rejected the null-hypothesis of equality of perceived performance depiction scores, with Z=3.25 at 5% significance level. The significantly higher mean score of the interview-passed out candidates than that of the interview failed candidates in respect of each performance depiction, signified the fact that the former group did better than the latter group in their own relative assessments. Mann-Whitney test confirmed the significant difference between the groups.
Mean Scores of Interview Passed and Failed Candidates for the
Different Performance Depictions
No.
|
Performance indicators.
|
Passed (mean)
|
Failed (mean)
|
1.
|
Proceeded on expected lines
|
2.62
|
2.14
|
2.
|
Felt confident through out
|
2.71
|
2.28
|
3.
|
Situation totally in your control
|
2.38
|
2.00
|
4.
|
Felt out of focus
|
2.95
|
2.28
|
5.
|
Over - awed by initial disappointments if any
|
2.81
|
2.57
|
6.
|
Board members kept you at ease
|
2.57
|
2.28
|
7.
|
Not hesitated to say 'I don't know'
|
2.95
|
2.28
|
8.
|
Caught 'trapped' by own 'traps'
|
2.86
|
2.70
|
9.
|
Presence of mind helped much
|
2.48
|
2.14
|
10.
|
Preparations helped much
|
2.33
|
2.21
|
Source: Primary Data
Sum-up
In the interview performance excellence depends on one’s methodical preparedness adopting right strategies to the right extent. A person can self-judge his/her performance in the interview mostly. High achievers by their hard work and presence of mind kept the interview process under their grip.
No comments:
Post a Comment