Adamantium wrote:
Is there a shred of evidence to show that the Myers Briggs or enneagram or any similar scheme has any basis in reality? I think not.
I can't read the first link posted - Forbes doesn't load for me. MBTI has nothing to do with behavioral interviews. Whether it's "valid" depends on what you use it for and I agree that using it for hiring decisions is a terrible idea. It may have some value as a way of classifying the huge range of human personalities into a manageable number of categories and some generalisations made about those categories may be valid. For example, it may be valid to say that IT workers tend to be "I"s (introverted). However, it is not valid to say that someone introverted would do well in IT or that someone extroverted would not - which, unfortunately, is exactly the way the MBTI is sometimes used.
The second link doesn't talk about "gaming" the interview - that's not how I read it. It's a good guide to answering the questions well. "Gaming" implies presenting facts in a misleading way, which I don't see this article advocating. Now, of course, it is possible to make yourself look better than you really are in a behavioral interview, but the same could be said for any other type of interview. I think few interviewers are naive enough to think "well, he gave a great story in response to that question - that's enough for me, hired!" It's only one of the things they'd take into account.
I do think that companies rely too much on interviews in general and should pay more attention to samples of work (where possible), references and verifiable achievements. Still, there are people that you just know you could never work with after 5 minutes of talking to them - that alone means interviews remain essential.