I think the growth of HR departments is partly to blame. Did we have them 40 years ago? Have they helped?
I think HR are very big on scenario type questions; tell us about a time when... This means people who can speak off the cuff well get a leg up.
I heard a HR person on radio a couple of years ago. He thought they had got it wrong. He gave the example of interviewing a young person 18-20 for an apprentice position as a mechanic. He strongly felt that the person who interviewed the best is not necessarily the best candidate. He felt that giving the candidate a mechanical task to complete was a much better indicator of their aptitude.
I think HR people want to employ the best person who hits the HR marks but a pilot would employ someone that they think can do the job and get along with people in the cockpit.
I can certainly think of people who interview well but are not the most desireable employee.
Perhaps the focus on HF and conflict resolution is because the technical knowledge can be trained in. Personality and values cannot be trained out, well not to any great extent.
Put it this way do you want to spend a day in the cockpit with an ace pilot who knows the books like the back of his hand but who is an annoying personality type (insert favourite bugbear here) OR would you rather spend the day in the cockpit with an average, middle of the bell curve pilot who is interesting and interested in learning and has some social skills?
For me the answer is always the second one. I hear you say but what about a dark stormy night when everything is going wrong, who would you want next to you then? Well really the middle of the bell curve person can still do the job so they are still ahead in my book.
Interesting the variation in technical questions between companies, some do not even bother with sim. Cathay have their tea party which I think is a great idea.