This past week, we had interviews for people applying our new board. The interview for one person in particular was very interesting. Before each interview, we had read over the application and had a short discussion about what we wanted to ask this person, what specific questions we wanted answered. In this conversation for this one person, the questions we were brainstorming were very leading--instead of asking a general question, they were phrased in a way that begged a specific answer. One thing to note is that this person was on board before and was applying again. We all had our preconceptions about what the interview would be like because we had interacted with this person all year. From the leading questions in the brainstorming session, I got the impression that the other people conducting the interview with me had already made up their mind that they wanted this person on board. I really wanted this person to prove themselves with their answers to prove they wanted and deserved to be on board.
I pointed out that I thought the questions were leading during the brainstorming session, but that didn't prevent the questions from being asked in a leading way. In the interview, we asked questions and got exactly the answers we wanted to hear. We will never know if we had asked those questions differently if we would have gotten different answers.
Following the interview, we had a very long conversation about this person. I held a very strong belief and was not convinced otherwise during the interview that this person did not deserve to be on board. From the way they presented them self at previous event, represented this organization personally and on social media and conducted themselves at events and meeting, I was convinced that this person was not representing this organization in the best light, would not serve as a good role model for other leaders and the actions of this person were harming the organization, not helping it. The others in the interview had different beliefs--they felt that this person had done bad things but had done more good and that the good qualities outweighed the bad ones.
When it comes down to public perception of and organization, one bad thing can forever destroy the reputation, out-shadowing any and all good behaviors that person once had.
We decided on conditionally accepting this person on to the board, saying that one bad representation whether at a meeting an event or on facebook would mean that this person is no longer on board. I feel that these conversations have been had before and that this conditional acceptance is delaying the inevitable and only going to do more harm to the name of this organization. I hope I am proved wrong.
I pointed out that I thought the questions were leading during the brainstorming session, but that didn't prevent the questions from being asked in a leading way. In the interview, we asked questions and got exactly the answers we wanted to hear. We will never know if we had asked those questions differently if we would have gotten different answers.
Following the interview, we had a very long conversation about this person. I held a very strong belief and was not convinced otherwise during the interview that this person did not deserve to be on board. From the way they presented them self at previous event, represented this organization personally and on social media and conducted themselves at events and meeting, I was convinced that this person was not representing this organization in the best light, would not serve as a good role model for other leaders and the actions of this person were harming the organization, not helping it. The others in the interview had different beliefs--they felt that this person had done bad things but had done more good and that the good qualities outweighed the bad ones.
When it comes down to public perception of and organization, one bad thing can forever destroy the reputation, out-shadowing any and all good behaviors that person once had.
We decided on conditionally accepting this person on to the board, saying that one bad representation whether at a meeting an event or on facebook would mean that this person is no longer on board. I feel that these conversations have been had before and that this conditional acceptance is delaying the inevitable and only going to do more harm to the name of this organization. I hope I am proved wrong.
RSS Feed