Imagine you are on a hiring committee considering two of your employees for a position that will require great judgment and responsibility. In his interview, Employee One begins by listing all the ways the company is failing. He raises the specter of the company going bankrupt. He links all these problems to Employee Two, his rival, blaming her for all of the company’s recent woes.
He speaks in bullet points. He questions her morality, her appearance, her family and even her bathroom habits. He is proud to refer to her with a demeaning sobriquet of his own invention. He seems very satisfied with himself and his cleverness. He tells you he is very smart.
Quietly, you, as a member of the hiring committee, begin to wonder about the stability of Employee One. You notice that under the make-up his face is glowing crimson, his speech rapid, his voice approaching a yell.
You try to ask him a question. He tells you to wait, he is not yet finished warning you about Employee Two.
Finally you break through and ask him how he would rectify the company’s problems. He assures you he will quickly solve all the problems but you will have to wait to see what he has in mind.
Afterwards, Employee Two presents herself; she is measured, pleasant, bright, having thought of ways the company can approach its potential. She seems professional and capable.
You do not get a headache as you listen to her. You do not question her sanity. It is now time for the hiring committee to make its decision.
Michael Sherry
Easthampton