I had an interview using the methods outlined in the book "Who". At first glance, the methodology introduced in the book sounds fairly solid, and I initially wanted to introduce it at my current organization. However, upon going through the interview myself, I've come to the conclusion that subjective bias plays a strong role in the process. ghSmart, or a client of ghSmart will define a "Scorecard". This "Scorecard" is essentially everything that a job candidate will be graded against. The problem I have is with the scorecard definition. Since this scorecard is essentially defined by the hiring manager, it ends up really just being a process for management to hire people who are exactly like them. The conclusion would be that a manager would get surrounded by people who act in the same way as they do. This allows them to hire others that validate themselves, which would eventually equate to success in their organization. The result is they would hire subjective "A players" in this type of environment, but the hires might not be "A players" in a more meritocratic environment. Treat this interview process as "Anything you say can and will be used against you". ghSmart asks questions going back to childhood. They will ask about your parents, about their personalities, and about the traits you acquired from both sets of parents. They will then ask about your mistakes and achievements as a child. So on, and so forth for High School and College. Unless you've had 'involved' parents, I think most of us are essentially different people than we were in our youth and I believe this method of interviewing is biased against folks that have different, disadvantageous backgrounds. Particularly, if you had a bad childhood or went to mediocre schools. If your background is "different" from the general background of your potential teammates, you will have a hard time passing as an "A player" in their eyes. I have come to believe that questions about childhood, or questions about school to a mid-career candidate are NOT a good predictor of a candidate's potential performance. I also believe after reading the book "Who" that a dishonest interlocutor can game the system. Especially, if they know the attributes that the hiring manager is looking for. (Hint: Look at the core values of the organization, and pay close attention to the job description. Try to craft your own "Scorecard" in the shoes if the hiring manager). Go through each step of your life and think about weaknesses that are real, but just don't be too honest - Omit the ones that are too damning. An overly honest candidate who exposes too many mistakes or red flags, even if they happened early on in your career or in youth, will be yellow or red flags to the interviewer. I myself will refuse to take another ghSmart interview. I came from a disadvantageous childhood (Read: Mediocre education, mediocre schools, no extra-curriculars, divorced parents with addiction issues). Due to this, I would trigger "cultural" red flags to a ghSmart interviewer (a "cultural" red flag here is synonymous with: "You are not like me and didn't come from a similar background, so I won't consider hiring you"). If these early red flags are raised, the interviewer has a higher chance of being biased against you earlier on in the process, and you would be dismissed as an "A Player" even before the later sections of the interviewer. I'm also extremely candid about my experiences (positive and negative), and this can come off badly. This honesty results in me being overly detailed with my mistakes, and not giving myself credit in situations where I should more directly take credit. In summary: You MUST sell your achievements strongly in a ghSmart interview, and be specific about what impact they had for the organization. If you have a technical background and are applying for a technical position (i.e.: software engineer), you will be at a disadvantage because it is highly unlikely that your (nontechnical) interviewer will fully grasp the scale and scope of your technical achievements. If you are coming from a "big standard tech company" in Silicon Valley where meritocracy wins the day over a traditional bureaucracy, in a situation where you may be prone to think differently and offer alternative solutions to problems, where you don't always follow the status quo and offer an independent mindset that may differ from your superiors, I don't think the ghSmart method is right for you.