In the interest of increasing my efficiency at
work, I recently decided to experiment with group interviews for a specific
subset of volunteer applicants. I’ve been resistant to the idea in the past,
but I’m going to do a trial run and see how it goes. Seeking some tips, I entered
“group interviews” into a Google search, which led me to a nightmarish slog
through numerous articles extolling their so-called “virtues.” I discovered to
my horror that in most group interviews, candidates are pitted against each
other gladiator-style, as the smug gatekeepers of employment delight in
watching domineering, psychopathically competitive blowhards bulldoze over their
more timid challengers, who may have superior ideas but aren’t equipped for
verbal battle in an artificial test arena. This draconian style of interviewing is thought
to reveal the “natural leaders” and “courageous communicators” (read:
loudmouths) and weed out the weak, undesirable hanger-backers.
Fortunately, I’ve never had to endure a group
interview, but as a notorious hanger-backer myself, I take umbrage with these
methods. The notion that extroversion is always a virtue still maintains
overarching dominance in the American work place, despite introversion having a
brief fifteen minutes of fame a few years ago with the release of Susan Cain's book
"Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can’t Stop Talking."
Corporate America still insists on clinging to the quasi-religious belief that
extraverts are natural leaders and risk-takers simply because they’re charismatic
and put on a good show. One employer, quoted in an article in Fortune, says of group
interviews: “Right away you see who’s taking a leadership position, who’s
taking over, who’s not contributing, who’s coming with solutions. It’s great
stuff to watch and really tells us a lot.”
No, it doesn’t “tell you a lot.” The problem
with this approach is many-fold. First of all, no group is going work effectively
if every member is constantly vying for dominance. You need a mix of different
strengths on a team, and despite popular opinion, strength is not always equivalent
to volume. Secondly, “natural” leaders are not necessarily the best leaders.
The may be the most confident and the most effective at asserting themselves,
but some of the best leaders are those for whom it does not come naturally; those who have never seen themselves as leaders
but nonetheless find themselves in leadership positions through the vagaries of
corporate fickleness. The “non-natural” leader’s reluctance often means they are
willing to put their egos aside, shut up, and listen deeply. Their humility
allows them to step out of the spotlight so their team members can truly shine.
And because they are not attached to being right, they are not afraid to make
mistakes and admit it when they do. So, corporate America, overlook those “weak”
hanger-backers at your own peril. You’re missing out on some real gems if all
you’re hearing is the loudest voice in the room.
Now that I have completed my yearly lecture on
the over-valuation of extraversion in American society, I have a pre-announcement
announcement! Starting in early 2018, I’ll be working towards the
self-publication of my novel, “Day Job Blues.” My goal is to have the book available
in e-format by mid-summer. Watch this space for more information—and for the
inevitable entertaining emotional breakdowns to come as I weed-whack my way through
the process.
Oh, and before I sign off, it occurs to me I
should note that my group interviews
will not involve competitive shenanigans such as designing a vessel that will
protect an egg from breaking when dropped at twenty feet. I’m a nice lady. They
will be mutually supportive and hand-holdy, and shy people will not get points
off.
Finally, here are some links to my general
grousing about the trials of living as an introvert:
--Kristen McHenry
No comments:
Post a Comment