A critical look at commitment, control, and interview design from an organisational psychology lens
Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (IGMH) was the first place I ever sat for a formal interview. I had just completed A-Levels and applied for a Doctor Assistant position. I still remember one question very clearly: “If it is raining heavily, will you come to work?”
Without hesitation, I said yes. From a young age, my mother instilled in me that time and commitment are non-negotiable. Unless one is seriously ill and bedridden, there is no excuse not to show up.
Then the question came again, reframed: “If you cannot get a taxi, how will you come?”
At that moment, I paused internally. Were they emphasising attendance? Testing resilience? Or looking for some extraordinary answer beyond a simple “yes”? I did not get the job. But years later, with training in organisational psychology, I find that moment more fascinating than disappointing.
Attendance as a Proxy for Commitment
From an organisational psychology perspective, such questions attempt to assess reliability and conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is one of the strongest predictors of job performance across roles. High-conscientious individuals are punctual, disciplined, and dependable.
However, the way commitment is measured matters.
Asking whether someone will show up in the rain reduces a complex behavioural construct to a hypothetical scenario. It assumes attendance equals commitment. But commitment is not merely physical presence; it is psychological engagement, emotional investment, and sustained performance over time.
The interview question simplifies a multidimensional trait into a binary moral test: Will you come or not?
Locus of Control and Attribution
The taxi question is even more interesting. It subtly examines locus of control — whether an individual believes outcomes are within personal control or determined by external circumstances.
From a theoretical standpoint, assessing locus of control is valid. Employees with a stronger internal orientation often demonstrate persistence and problem-solving ability.
Yet, here lies the critical issue: does the scenario measure realistic adaptability, or does it test compliance with hardship?
The Risk of Idealised Dedication
There is a subtle danger in questions like this. They may unintentionally reward what organisational psychologists call presenteeism culture—the expectation that employees show up regardless of circumstance.
Commitment is healthy. Blind sacrifice is not.
If an organisation normalises extreme availability—rain, transport failure, personal hardship—it may unintentionally cultivate burnout. Research consistently shows that sustainable performance requires boundaries, not heroic endurance.
Structured vs. Unstructured Interview Techniques
From a methodological standpoint, the question appears to be part of an unstructured interview. Unstructured interviews allow spontaneity but often lack reliability and predictive validity compared to structured behavioural interviews.
A more scientifically grounded approach would be behavioural questioning, such as:
“Tell me about a time when unexpected obstacles prevented you from fulfilling a responsibility. What did you do?”
This approach assesses real past behaviour, which is statistically a stronger predictor of future performance than hypothetical answers.
Hypothetical rain tests imagination. Behavioural questions test evidence.
Psychological Safety and Contextual Fairness
Another critical dimension is contextual fairness. Not all candidates have equal access to transportation, financial resources, or support systems. A rigid expectation of “always find a way” may unintentionally disadvantage those with fewer structural resources.
Organisational psychology reminds us that performance is shaped by both individual factors and environmental constraints. Over emphasizing personal responsibility ignores systemic realities.
What That Interview Really Revealed
Looking back, the interview did not just test attendance. It revealed something deeper about organisational values.
When organisations ask, “Will you come in the rain?” they are communicating expectations about culture:
How they define commitment
How they view obstacles
How much flexibility exists
Interviews are not only selection tools; they are culture signals.
Perhaps the hospital was looking for resilience. Perhaps they were testing initiative. Or perhaps they were unconsciously reinforcing a culture of absolute attendance.
A Critical Reflection
Was it important to ask such questions?
Yes — if the intention was to assess reliability and internal locus of control.
No — if the question lacked structure, fairness, and behavioural grounding.
As someone who now studies leadership and organisational behaviour, I see that my “yes” reflected values shaped by upbringing: discipline, respect for time, responsibility. But good interview design requires more than moral alignment. It requires psychological precision.
Comments
Post a Comment