It often happens that a number of applicants  with almost identical   qualifications and experience all apply for the same position. In their educational background, special skills and work experience, there is little, if anything, to choose between half a dozen candidates . How then does the employer make a choice? Usually on the basis of an interview. There are many arguments about the interview as a selection  procedure. The main argument against it is that it results in a wholly subjective  decision. As often as not, employers do not choose the best candidate, but the one who makes a good first impression on them. Some employers, of course, reply to this argument by saying that they have become so experienced in interviewing staff that they are able to make a sound assessment  of each candidate's likely performance.  Those in favor of the interview insist that the well-structured procedure is valid  in assessing a candidate's ability, an essential guarantee  for the future job. They also argue that an employer is concerned not only with a candidate's ability, but with the suitability of his or her personality for the particular work situation. Many employers, for example, will overlook occasional inefficiencies  from their secretary so long as she has a pleasant personality. Perhaps the real purpose of an interview is not to assess the assessable aspects of each candidate but to make a guess at the more intangible (, ) things, such as personality, character and social ability.  Today, interview is still the key section of the entire selection procedure, though different employers have different standards for competence . Generally speaking, candidates who interview well tend to be confident, but never boastful ; direct and straight-forward in their questions andanswers; cheerful and friendly, but never over-familiar; and sincerely enthusiastic and optimistic. Candidates who interview badly tend to be at either end of the spectrum (, ) of human behavior. They are either very shy or over-confident. They show either a lack of enthusiasm or an excess  of it. They either talk too little or never stop talking. They are either over-polite or rudely abrupt  . We can infer from the passage that an employer might tolerate his secretary's occasional mistakes if the latter is   _  .
boastful shy competent cheerful