SWA Hiring

[BMW]

This assumes that the interviewer can actually discern who has done prep and who hasn't. They often have it backwards. I agree with the concept that they'd prefer folks don't do the prep (or that everyone did), because it would provide them with a common ground.

Interview prep doesn't make you into something that you aren’t; it allows you to learn how to present your genuine personality without making the rookie mistakes (i.e. being too stiff and monotone while answering basic questions, twiddling your thumbs or saying ummm all the time), as well as many other things. You might be the life of the party, a great guy to talk to in the cockpit...but this might not come through when there are two captains sitting across from you asking about your whole life for a mere 30 minutes.

Some probably don't need the prep, some it helps greatly and some get their refund in the form of their original check, which was never cashed. Poor guys never had a chance and just didn't know it.

Don't make the mistake of not doing the training because you think that's what the airline wants. Choose on whether you think it will benefit you in presenting the best side of the real you.

Well said!!

 

[Resume Writer]

As said by New FDX Guy, there are people that get hired with prep and people that do not. There is no magic bullet with prep. Most people are never taught how to interview, what the interviewer looks for in a candidate, and how your answers might come across in the interview.

What I teach people to do is use their stories in a format that will not get them into trouble. I call it "framing your story." Much like a person that "frames" a house, a logical method is used to build that house. Would a framer put up a wall on one side of the house and then go to the opposite side and put up another wall? Or, would the framer put up one wall and then connect the next wall to the first one?

Similarly, there is a process and methodology to interviewing. If a person has never conducted interviews as a hiring authority, does not have a great deal of experience interviewing, or has not interviewed in years, it is very difficult to ascertain what the interviewer is looking for in a candidate. A good interview prep service, of which there are many out there, teach a candidate how to answers questions in a logical format, critique the answers they provide, and help them to frame the stories in a more logical format. They do not teach people to give "canned answers."

 

[:-)]

What I teach people to do is use their stories in a format that will not get them into trouble. I call it "framing your story." Much like a person that "frames" a house, a logical method is used to build that house. Would a framer put up a wall on one side of the house and then go to the opposite side and put up another wall? Or, would the framer put up one wall and then connect the next wall to the first one?

Do you know of any concrete evidence proving that someone who can tell a story that is "well framed" actually makes a better pilot/employee than someone who isn't a professional story teller?

 

[Resume Writer]

Do you know of any concrete evidence proving that someone who can tell a story that is "well framed" actually makes a better pilot/employee than someone who isn't a professional story teller?

It's not about being a professional story teller. It is about being able to tell your story in a manner that is understandable, logical, succinct and gets the point across regarding your past performance, which hiring people believe dictates your future performance. That is why they use behavioral-style interview questions.

I do not know of any "concrete evidence" that correlates story telling with being a better employee. But what if you are a great person who cannot tell a story well? I believe it limits your chances to ultimately show what a great employee you can be to an employer.

Just my thoughts.

 

[apdsm]

Do you know of any concrete evidence proving that someone who can tell a story that is "well framed" actually makes a better pilot/employee than someone who isn't a professional story teller?

No, however, there is concrete evidence that when candidates get comfortable they forget they are in an interview and truths come out that would be better left unsaid (from the candidates point of view)!

Also, I have spoken to several of the interviewers and every one of them says they can tell when someone is not being honest and/or not being themselves.

 

[:-)]

It's not about being a professional story teller. It is about being able to tell your story in a manner that is understandable, logical, succinct and gets the point across regarding your past performance, which hiring people believe dictates your future performance. That is why they use behavioral-style interview questions.

I do not know of any "concrete evidence" that correlates story telling with being a better employee. But what if you are a great person who cannot tell a story well? I believe it limits your chances to ultimately show what a great employee you can be to an employer.

Just my thoughts.

OK, I'll play. Does anyone have any concrete evidence that being able to "tell your story in a manner that is understandable, logical, succinct, and gets the point across regarding your past performance" makes one a better pilot or employee?

Kathy, I'm not arguing with you. Your just the messenger. I just get frustrated at a system that can't justify itself. I'm a pilot, I understand that i need to be able to fly an ILS in the worst possible conditions, when everything is turning to worms all around, so I can accept that as being a criteria for my hiring decision. Therefore, I understand that a carrier may put me in a sim and see if I do in fact have stick skills. I don't see where being able to tell a nice story about it makes a darn bit of difference. But I'm just tilting at windmills. The college grads in HR who've never once held the fragile life of one, no less two hundred people, in their hand, and who have no freekin idea of the weight that responsibility, think that they know best. It's their ball, they get to make the rules.

BTW, I'm just a bithcer, I HAVE a good job. If I were counting on SWA or any other psychoanalytic HR department to hire me, I would be taking a prep course every week. In the mean time, I'll just continue to rail against the illogic in the process.

 

[:-)]

No, however, there is concrete evidence that when candidates get comfortable they forget they are in an interview and truths come out that would be better left unsaid (from the candidates point of view)!

Also, I have spoken to several of the interviewers and every one of them says they can tell when someone is not being honest and/or not being themselves.

I'm not sure that I have derived an accurate sense of your position on the matter. Are you saying that a candidate needs prep in order to prevent getting comfortabe?

Also, do you believe the interviewers to be infalible? Do they truly believe that they can see through their interviewees? If this be the case, then there is no reason for prep. I submit to the jury that the continued success of the various prep services is evidence that the process CAN be gamed. I fnd it hard to believe that anyone would go into a Behavioral interview without intensive prep. The other team is prepped, if you want to win, you'd better out prep the opposition. (please spare me the testimonials from people who claim to have foregone prep, they got it somewhere, ,most likely from learning politics in the military.)

just debating, nothing personal intended apdsm, in fact most of my points were intended to the readers, not yourself.

Sincerely,

 

[firstthird]

,
I have no inside knowledge of the interview system, besides having been through it once. That being said, SWA assumes if you can get a 737 type, your pilot skills will be sufficient to fly for SWA; thus no sim ride at our interview. So it is great you can fly an ILS in bad weather, etc., but SWA assumes that anyone who gets the interview and has a type (or will get one prior to being hired) can do that.
What the interviewers are looking for is someone that they wouldn't mind spending a 4 day trip locked in the cockpit with, someone that will treat the other employees and customers like they'd want to be treated, and someone with a good attitude. They aren't just hiring pilots but customer service representatives, imho. You don't like it, fine; for people that are looking to come to SWA, would be good if they understood it.
And, the interviewers know they are not infallible. No system is, SWA thinks what we have works, although we are not adverse to change. They've added the CRM cockpit thing since I interviewed 4 years ago. Obviously some great people slip through the cracks since we only hire 1 in 3 (1 in 2, or 1 in 4, depending on where you get your numbers) and that sucks for the guys who get passed over. But it is the way it is. For better or worse, we are not a company that only brings 20 people for 20 jobs. During the peak of the 90's it seemed that some airlines were hiring 90 or 95% of the interviewees. Great for them, apparently they had more confidence in their selection criteria. SWA apparently feels that a one on one interview, in person, repeated 3 times with different interviewers works. Each company has their own thing, ours is not to reason why, ours is but to go and try (to paraphrase tennyson)

 

[apdsm]

Are you saying that a candidate needs prep in order to prevent getting comfortabe?

No, not at all. I am saying that there is merit in this interview style. If you are selected for an interview, SWA considers you a qualified pilot. If you have 1000 PIC Turbine, have not been violated, have not killed/injured yourself or others, and have good references; then it is obvious you know how to fly airplanes! Now, SWA wants to find the right kind of person for the company. You can be a great stick, awesome pilot (whatever that is), Top Gun, NBAA pilot of the year, blah, blah, blah, but SWA wants to know if you play well with others inside and outside of the airplane. That is the intent of this interview style.

Rather than a sim ride, SWA does a CRM ride in a mockup to see how candidates deal with situations. Personally, I think that is more important than demonstrating how well one can fly an ILS.

Also, do you believe the interviewers to be infalible? Do they truly believe that they can see through their interviewees?

I do not and I'm sure the interviewers do not consider themselves infallible. That is why they get together afterwards, compare notes, and discuss the candidates. I do not know what you mean by "seeing through their interviewees". If you mean attempting to know the real person, well, isn't that the point of all interviews? If you think the "old school" style of pilot interviewing is 100% objective (fly a perfect ILS and get a job) you are fooling yourself! An interview and subsequent job offer is ALWAYS subject to the perceptions of the interviewer regardless of what type of interview is conducted.

If this be the case, then there is no reason for prep. I submit to the jury that the continued success of the various prep services is evidence that the process CAN be gamed. I fnd it hard to believe that anyone would go into a Behavioral interview without intensive prep. The other team is prepped, if you want to win, you'd better out prep the opposition.

I think you are putting way to much merit in the behavioral aspects of the interview. These are pilots not psychologists. They are not out to trick you, fool you, outmaneuver you, or beat you. As Firstthird said, they merely want to know if you would be an ok person to spend four days with locked in a cockpit and if you are a team player.

(please spare me the testimonials from people who claim to have foregone prep, they got it somewhere, ,most likely from learning politics in the military.)

Learning politics in the military is good prep for a SWA interview? I disagree. Regardless of my opinion on that, following that logic, all life experiences would be good prep for the interview, would they not?


To sum it up: Prep can be good or bad depending on how one uses it. Going into an interview knowing what to expect and having put some thought into question/responses has its advantages over going in cold; however, getting prepped and "acting" or trying to be someone else, or giving "canned" answers generally does not work. I'm sure some can "game" it and slip through the cracks, but for most it does not work.

 

[:-)]

,

And, the interviewers know they are not infallible.

I don't doubt that the interviewers know that they aren't infallible, however I was reacting to this statement when I asked my question

I have spoken to several of the interviewers and every one of them says they can tell when someone is not being honest and/or not being themselves.

They either are, or they are not. Which is it? Can they tell when someone is being themselves or not? If so, there is no reason for prep because the infallible SWA interviewers will see through their facade.

No system is, SWA thinks what we have works, although we are not adverse to change. They've added the CRM cockpit thing since I interviewed 4 years ago

If the behavioral interview process works, then why add the CRM thing?

The problem I find when debating with most SWA pilots is that they insist upon defending their company against an attack that wasn't there. I'm not attacking SWA, just pointing out inconsistencies in the behavioral interview and in the way that SWA applies that process.

 

[:-)]

I think you are putting way to much merit in the behavioral aspects of the interview. These are pilots not psychologists. They are not out to trick you, fool you, outmaneuver you, or beat you. As Firstthird said, they merely want to know if you would be an ok person to spend four days with locked in a cockpit and if you are a team player.

I don't think that I'm putting way too much merit into the behavioral aspect. IT'S ALL BEHAVIORAL. If the interviewers are only trying to determine if they could spend four days with you, then it proves what I'm about to write.

I personally doubt that most of the interviewers truly understand the behavioral interview that the PD developed for them. A trained interviewer could ask you about college football/ice dancing/impressionistic art/etc and determine your personality. The SWA interviewers ask questions about aviation, some interviewers judge the answer on its aviation merits, some actually judge the personality behind the responder. Prep probably won't fool the interviewer who knows what he's doing, it might well fool the interviewer who thinks he's asking pilot questions.

I still want to know if any respected researcher has done a study that proves that job candidates who can relate a good story actually make better long term employees than candidates didn't take public speaking in college. Maybe I should ask pilotyip how USAjet interviews.

Don't get me wrong SWA people, I love ya and you're welcome on my jumpseat anytime.

 

[ivauir]

I don't think that I'm putting way too much merit into the behavioral aspect. IT'S ALL BEHAVIORAL. If the interviewers are only trying to determine if they could spend four days with you, then it proves what I'm about to write.

I personally doubt that most of the interviewers truly understand the behavioral interview that the PD developed for them. A trained interviewer could ask you about college football/ice dancing/impressionistic art/etc and determine your personality. The SWA interviewers ask questions about aviation, some interviewers judge the answer on its aviation merits, some actually judge the personality behind the responder. Prep probably won't fool the interviewer who knows what he's doing, it might well fool the interviewer who thinks he's asking pilot questions.

I still want to know if any respected researcher has done a study that proves that job candidates who can relate a good story actually make better long term employees than candidates didn't take public speaking in college. Maybe I should ask pilotyip how USAjet interviews.

Don't get me wrong SWA people, I love ya and you're welcome on my jumpseat anytime.

I'm sorry to keep this thread going, but I'm confused. Are you railing against:
- the interview process?
- interview preparations services?
- having pilots conduct interviews?
- having HR departments determine hiring criteria?
- having pilots determine hiring criteria?

How do you propose a company hire pilots? Only a sim check? Hire eveyone?

I'm sorry I don't know the answers to your questions, but it seems pretty obvious to me that some form of a "getting to know you" interview ought to be part of a hiring process. Shoot, when I was a waiter in highschool they interviewed me.

BTW I am not much of a public speaker and I took engineering in college.

 

[apdsm]

Prep probably won't fool the interviewer who knows what he's doing, it might well fool the interviewer who thinks he's asking pilot questions.

They either are, or they are not. Which is it? Can they tell when someone is being themselves or not? If so, there is no reason for prep because the infallible SWA interviewers will see through their facade.

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of interview prep. You seem to think prep is done to fool the interviewer. I disagree, although in some cases that may be the true, usually it is not. Read any book on interviewing and you will learn it is a skill that is to be learned and practiced. It is your chance to sell youself to the interviewers in a short amount of time. Polishing interview skills in addition to preparing for a specific interview does not necessarily mean one is trying to fool the interviewer. Now if someone does an interview prep and comes up with "canned" answers or is not being themselves then hopefully the interviewer will know.

I did not say ALL interviewers could tell when someone was being dishonest. I was referring only the people I have spoken with. These are also very humble guys and gals and I am sure they are aware of their own fallibility. Please do not misconstrue that as all SWA interviewers think they are behavioral know-it-alls.

I still want to know if any respected researcher has done a study that proves that job candidates who can relate a good story actually make better long term employees than candidates didn't take public speaking in college.

Am I wrong in that you think a completely technical interview is the way to go? How would that pick a better long-term employee over this type of interview?

I personally doubt that most of the interviewers truly understand the behavioral interview that the PD developed for them. A trained interviewer could ask you about college football/ice dancing/impressionistic art/etc and determine your personality.

Actually, I think they do understand it. I think it is not nearly as deep as you think it is. You almost sound paranoid!! The interviewers are not taught or expected to psycholgically over-analyze every behavioural aspect of the interview.

The SWA interviewers ask questions about aviation, some interviewers judge the answer on its aviation merits, some actually judge the personality behind the responder.

How do you know that?


To sum it up: There is no need to be paranoid at a SWA interview. This is not psychoanalysis! It is straight forward, nobody is trying to trick you, trap you, or over-analyze you psychologically.

Now, may I have a ride to work please?

 

[indiglo]

what's a behavioral interview?

indiglo

 

[Resume Writer]

what's a behavioral interview?

indiglo

A behavioral interview presumes that past performance indicates future performance. They are the "tell me about a time when" questions. A candidate relates a situation that has happened in the past as an answer to a specific question. It not about your "philosophy" on what you would do, but what you have already done.