While a generalization, it does lead the next questions. In some cases, to a clearer understanding of why the individual answered as they did. In others, an understanding that I really didn't want this person.
I was interviewing a PM for a role that we had defined as requiring a strong leadership skill set. We knew that this person would be called on to make difficult decisions on the fly.
The candidate never answered a question with out leaving herself a back door- which suggested to me that she was really indecisive. The last question I asked her was the cat question. I never got a straight answer.
As the interview team discussed the outcome later, one of the things I heard from the team was that they didn't have the impression that the candidate would be the decisive leader we were looking for. And one pointed out that she couldn't answer a banal question clearly.
From the standpoint of cultural sensitivity, I do have that awareness. I had a student when I was teaching who had a difficult time in a play that the school was doing because some of the action required her to manage a pet cat on stage. I had volunteered my cat because I knew that she at least had some exposure to him. She was still uncomfortable enough that we changed that bit of business and used a stuffed cat. This student simply had never had exposure to pets prior to that. It is interesting to note that today- many years later- she has three cats. But I do understand that there is more than one driver. Still, I do get a level of consistency in responses.
And believe it or not, I have hired in roles where I needed someone that would not like cats. The work was going to be repetitive and potentially dull with little variation. Someone eager for a broader palette would not have been happy in the task. Fortunately, there are those out there that excel in repetitive task.
