It is bizarre to document what was nervously anticipated in the lead up, unsettlingly surreal in the moment, and comedically enlightening in the aftermath.
On no other than Guy Fawkes day, while the UK was still asleep, half a world away where post-colonialism lingers like rotten sewage appeased with gallons of cheap air freshener, an interview took place in a small room in a building next to a cemetery. The applicant covered her bases during her talk, so to keep the Q&A from devolving into the redundant, questions were posed that exposed the motivations and fears of right-handed domination. Perhaps they didn’t mean to show their hands so blatantly. The game wouldn’t be as fun if they did.
“What will you do if someone deliberately disregards you?” Leadership in their minds necessarily involves coercion. How could it not? Those who grew up with exaggerated cold war fears have yet to wake up from their nightmares of nuclear holocaust. Without coercion the end will come quicker and be more brutal, they believe in their hazes of delusion. There are many ways to teach but apparently only one way to lead. Such bizarre sentiments from such experienced professionals.
“Will you implement a policy you disagree with?” The question reveals more about the fears of those in power than any answer could reveal about the applicant. Why ask a question just to get an answer on record? When an applicant is supremely (over)qualified, are rhetorical questions the only avenue of relief? Does it still count as a test if the person tested disregards its true intention and mocks the examiners?
“If you were offered the job right now, would you accept?” The applicant’s hesitation confuses them. Once more the applicant knows the words she must say and refuses to say them. She refuses because she does not believe the words and has sworn off lying since the desert pilgrimage. This has happened before. She remembers Nebraska. She smiles remembering that one professor’s eye-rolling.
Elsewhere the UK wakes up. Perhaps a shudder runs through the spines of all those in charge on this day. They all lock their doors a bit more securely before leaving for work. The applicant smiles thinking it must be the same with the questioners. They must remember what day it is. They must have told themselves to ask for appeasement and a peace of mind. The theatrical performance can help appease any objectors. But even without a verdict the case seems won for what the applicant learns. If offered, the applicant would have to think about a job that requires the adoption of personality traits long been buried or never existing in the first place. But then again, a call cannot be forthcoming in light of what they have learned (or, possibly what they knew all along).
After all, instead of hiring Guy Fawkes to run security, they sentenced him to execution.