In asking the question, the interviewer may want to know what motivates you. You can see that the interviewer may have an overbalance of power, achievement, or affiliation as a personal drive. Therefore, the interviewer's views of you will reflect the drive you convey in your response. He or she may also have some specific views on what the criteria for the job entail in terms of power, achievement, and affiliation.
YOUR BEST BET
To be on the safe side, you will first need to know which drive will be the safest one to communicate, and you will then have to develop a reply that best displays it. Don't wait until the middle of a crucial interview to begin to consider either your response or your strategy.
Take the time to review all the data you develop. Then prepare separate statements that will demonstrate something that you like to do in terms of power, achievement, and affiliation. That will help you to be prepared and at your best even when you must be alert and attentive to all the other aspects of the interview.
Are Your Expectations Realistic?
Another categorical question that the interviewer may have in mind is whether your expectations are realistic. In this case, however, the question may never be voiced. Instead, the interviewer may seek the information through inferences based on your responses to other questions.
Joseph P. Yeager developed what is called the Yeager Performance Model, and he has given permission to adapt this information to help you succeed in the employment interview.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU
The people who interview you will assess your past and present performance in light of the requirements of the position you are seeking. Look over my adaptation of the Yeager Performance Model again and ask yourself how it might apply whenever you have the need to discuss a less than desirable aspect of your career either present or past. For example, if you had difficulty in carrying out some task, was it because the task was something you didn't want to do (and may not have to do in a future job); because you didn't know how to do it (and may not have had the proper training for it); or because you lacked the chance to do it (for any number of reasons already covered)? If you lacked the motivation, means, or opportunity to be successful, you may have to explain that in terms the interviewer can understand and accept. You will be on the most solid ground if you would not be expected to perform that particular task on the new job or if it would not constitute a major portion of your duties.
APPLYING THE MODEL
Thurmond was fired from his last position. He had been highly motivated, and he knew how to perform the procedures, processes, and techniques for getting the job done. However, he was in the middle of a political hotbed not of his own making, and he was an achievement-oriented person and a self-starter with less emphasis on power and affiliation modes. He knew how to establish schedules and deadlines, and he attempted to delegate appropriately. He was flexible enough to adapt to the projects he was given and to the people assigned to him for those projects.
However, some of the people he needed to rely on did not report directly to him. One or two who knew that used their other supervisor's work as an excuse for putting off Thurmond's assignments. His own boss, to whom both he and the other supervisor reported, did not take charge of the situation, and that made Thurmond appear to be the bad guy. His boss gave him little direction when it came to establishing deadlines or priorities for projects. Sometimes, his boss would abandon him when others-particularly higher-ups-criticized a lack of productivity from his group.
Lacking essential support, Thurmond was ultimately fired. Regardless of the reason, fact is fact, and during his interviews, it was up to Thurmond to be prepared to present his case in a way that would evoke understanding (but not sympathy) from interviewers. He could neither bad-mouth others nor seek pity for himself. He had to be straight forward, matter-of-fact, and as unemotional as possible. Anger toward the former organization or his boss would not get him anywhere, and neither would complain. Yet prior to my work with him, Thurmond had both expressed anger and complained during interviews before he realized that it was up to him to assess each of the negative situations in his career and explain it briefly in terms that the Yeager model provides.
