Why are companies so picky?

Question

Went to an interview at State Farm (claim's rep.) and during the interview they asked me questions about how many fiction books I have read, how many friends I have, do I plan to stay at the job forever, what movies do you watch, do you have any pets......WHAT IN THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ME GETTING OUT OF BED, GETTING TO WORK ON TIME, DOING THE JOB AND LEAVING ON TIME. I know State Farm is a very conservative company that cancels policies on people who own guns in their homes but this is just sad. What is the point of all these questions? What type of person are they looking for?

Plus they asked him if I owned any videogame consoles. Forgot that one

Answer 1

I suspect that they want to know what you will be filling your out of work time doing.

Answer 2

Since I have State Farm insurance...this question does not surprise me.

Every single person I ever dealt with at that company is a great person overall. They probably are picky to ensure their people treat their customers like gold. The people (my agent, secretaries) that work their are awesome. They probably want to learn you as a person so see if they fit their mold.

I'm a firm believer if you want a job in America, you shouldn't be a slouch. And if you don't like their policies (which you seem not too), then look for a diffrent job.

Answer 3

These types of questions may be part of an effort to determine how long you would stay in the job. This can be important to a company, especially if they will be investing in training and employee. If a person owns a home, has a family, etc. he has responsibilities and is in a stable situation and is more likely to stay in the job for a long time. If someone rents, is single, just got to town, etc. that person has less ties to the job.

Answer 4

Your answers to those questions are meaningless. What they're looking for is your personality and whether or not you can have a normal conversation with the type of people they already employ. They want to know whether you will fit in, for one, but they are probably also looking to see how well you answer unusual questions in a stressful situation. I hope you didn't get irritated during the interview.

Answer 5

Company's today are looking for well-rounded employees with diverse interests and backgrounds. They don't want the automaton who just thinks work is something you do to collect a paycheck.

When I interview a person, I am interested in how they will fit in with my current staff and with the company. So I ask questions about the individual's personal likes and dislikes in an effort to learn more about them then just education & work history.

Answer 6

In some twisted form I believe these are character questions. All companies have their own ways of characterizing people for job positions. Some are more blunt than others and some are just wierd. Do they really cancel policies if you own a gun?

Jonesy

Answer 7

I guess that leaves me out since I have a cat(I'm a cat lover!!!), drive a '98 Ford truck w/ 156,000+ miles on it(since new!), volunteer at my local historical museum, and collect old cookbooks...and have a few friends(exactly how many is NOTB!)...

But it seems that State Farm is looking for someone who prefers Rush Limbaugh over Larry King, listens to opera instead of Linkin Park(I'm almost 37;too old to listen to Linkin Park?), drives a Lincoln Continental(1999 vintage)...and is a die-hard Republican loyalist who "walks in lock-step" w/ the feds over EVERYTHING!...

Thank goodness I have a different company as my policyholder!

Answer 8

Those sound like odd questions, but as a claims rep. you would be working with the customer a lot. Those questions sound like they are trying to understand your personality.

For example, if you said you have no friends, you hate pets, and you love movies like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, you might not be the type of person they want 'chatting' with their customers.

On the other hand, if you said you had tons of friends, you like all sorts of movies but especially comedies, and you have a dog that you treat like your child you would make an impression of being more outwardly friendly and sociable.

If you didn't understand their intention, that in itself might be a problem.

Answer 9

finding a new employee is a difficult process - each person has their own way if you had been setting across from me i would have tossed you a pen and had you sell it too me ( to see if you can think on your feet without being flustered )

if you couldn't get through the interview without becoming stressed then perhaps they have the right technique to weed out the just show up and get it over with types and find the i want a career and advancement types

Answer 10

These behavioral interviewing questions are aimed to expose every facet of who you are. If you don't read, have no friends, and will quit next week, you're probably not a good candidate. Social questions are more important for any sales job than other jobs - they want to make sure you are going to make a good impression on customers and are able to relate to them...not scare them away.

Answer 11

I don't blame you for being indignant. However, as a sociologist, I can shed a little light on the subject.

We live in a society in which people have been indoctrinated into accepting an incresing degree of surveillance and intervention into their lives. the usual justification for this is the avoidance of ris--and cost. On the most obvious level, we've seen the american people accept an unprecedented degree of intrusion in the name of "protection" from supposed terrorist threats. The thing about such "risks" is that there is just enough reality behind them to make the intervention plausible. whether the particular strategy actually does reduce risk is not the point (many of the suppposed "security procedures are,in fact, demonstrably pointless). The point is that people believe they are--and feel safer.

BTW--be patient-I'm going somewhere with this!

Cost--a key element in this "culture of risk" (not my phrase; you can use it to find soome very good studies on this topic) is cost. By reducing risk we reduce cost. Again--look at the degree towhich one personal hibit--smoking--is increasingly restricted. there are two justifications given for this: 1) "secondhand smoke" as apublic danger (there is, incidentally, no actual scientific backing for this) and 2) health care costs for everyone would be lower if it weren't for smokers. the cost issue ignores one obviousl point--there is nothing stopping insurance companies from charging differential premiums--or otherwise shifting the bulk of such costs onto smokers where it belongs. My point is not to justify smoking--just to point out that a high degree of social control is being exercised and that the rationale is empirically questionable.

That brings ut to your interview. Simply put, in a society that has accepted the idea that authority/power figures are justified in extensive and increasing intrusion into personal behavior, that attitude is bound to spread to many corporations. I have no doubt whatsoever that, if confronted, the interviewers would quite sinceerely answer that by learning more about potential employees, they are able to better judge who will be a good employee--thus reducing risk and hence costs.

The fact that there is in fact, no correlation between their questions and any discernable data they might obtain that would actually serve the stated purpose of reducing risk to the company is irrelevant--the point is that they believe that they are reducin g the uncertainties that go with hiring a new employee.

That belief--that increasing social surveillance, intervention, and control reduces costs and risk--is pervasive in our society. Much--most--of it has little or no empirical supportt. That makes nodifference--Big Brother is watching you--in the person of his proxies at the airport, in the shoppin gmallls, at work, etc. And you can expect the process to continue--because the next generation is being even more thoroughly conditioned. They are growing up in an educational environment in which they are subject to video surveillance, warrentless searches, and even monitoring of their computer use on a 24/7 basis by school officials-, and even required in some schools to carry devices that allow their movements to be tracked. No one, to my knowledge, has yet to produce any empirical evidence that these measures serve to actually reduce risk--but they "sell" because they make parents feel better.

You can exppect in the near future that some companies will begin to require information (and restrictions) on personal diet, and activities such as sports--on the grounds that an employee who does not eat a healthy diet or plays some sports increases possible increased health costs and increased absenteeism due to illness or injury. In other words, expect intrusions on yyour personal life--both from government and the private sector--to continue to increase.

And speaking as a citizen and not a sociologist--this will be stopped when--and if--the Amrican people demand that it stop. And if we don't, we will richly deserve the totalitarian state we will find ourselves living in.