Did You Think Biden Sucked at the Debate? Demand This Antidote!
Give us some REAL information
I was a nurse manager for many years. I hired many people and I fired a few. For anyone who lamented the June debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, I have two pieces of wisdom for you, and a requisite demand.
Pay attention. Your rights and our future depend on it.
First Wisdom: Bragging is Inversely Related to Performance
People who brag about themselves and/or lie are NEVER the best performers. You can take that to the bank. (Or HR, as you would soon discover.) I interviewed tens of candidates for nursing positions. Clinical work, psychiatric work, and management work. The ones who regaled us with superlatives about their expertise were often desperate for the job. (Want a real eye-opener? Ask, ‘What’s the biggest work mistake you ever made, and how did you handle it?’ then sit back and listen. Follow it up with ‘What would you do now in the same situation?’) If a candidate was too eager to tell us about how many lives they had saved or what amazing clinical skills they had, it had “Red Flag” written all over it. But, on an interview form, how do you justify turning away such an “outstanding” nurse?
Litmus Test: Check Their References.
When you talk to the people who have worked with a candidate, you learn to hear between the lines. If a former supervisor is vague or uses cliché phrases to describe their work, dig deeper. Tell them what the job is and ask whether this person would be a good fit. Ask for specific examples of the candidate’s work that was impressive. Next, insist on getting at least two “peer references.” People who work with someone know whether they have the stuff or not. Ask whether they would look forward to working with that person again. Listen for the tone as well as the words. If they don’t call you back, that speaks for them.
Second Wisdom: What Does the Job Require?
Look for the skills required by the job, not the skills required for the interview. We did not need a PhD nurse to start IVs at the bedside. (You want to know what technique we NEVER used to interview nurses? We never used “Formal Debate” as a technique for finding the best nurse. “Why not?” you ask? Because YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE A GOOD DEBATER TO BE A GOOD NURSE!) There is approximately ZERO overlap between debate skills and good nursing judgment. I did not give a shit whether the nurse in front of me could win a point over another nurse in a formal debate. I DID care whether they could manage a sick patient competently, whether they knew when to call in additional help, and whether they knew the signs of danger to the patient’s well-being. If they prided themselves on deriding and antagonizing their colleagues, they were exactly the sort of nurse we did NOT want on the team.
Litmus Test: Watch them work
The gold standard for choosing a competent person is to walk beside them as they do their job. Are they asking the right questions? Are they skilled at the clinical tasks? Can they answer your (or the patient’s) questions easily and knowledgeably? Watching someone at work is the best litmus test for whether they know what they are doing and are doing it skillfully. (If you can’t observe the nurse at work, have a checklist of skills when you do the reference check. Ask the previous supervisor whether they have observed the candidate doing each of the essential skills.)
Interviewing Presidential Candidates
As anyone in management knows, hiring is relatively easy, but firing can be next to impossible. Best to save yourself the HR headaches and hoop-jumping necessary to get rid of a bad performer by doing some careful scrutinizing up front. I’m going to fall back on my decades of experience interviewing nurses. There are two candidates in front of me. I want to compare them so that I make the right decision.
One of them lies and brags and tells such outrageous stories about what a hero he is that audible alarms are going off as I look at his resume. Let me see, he’s been in the field for about eight years. He has no formal training in governance or policy. I see many failed businesses, multiple lawsuits, multiple convictions (not going to pass the background check, are you Candidate One?) A history of sexual assault. Mishandling a global pandemic with many deaths on his watch. Suspicious ties to oligarchs and autocrats. (I’m not leaning toward this guy.) Let me check his references. Oh. Only four of his forty-four previous colleagues would agree to work with him again — not even his vice-president. Several professional organizations have issued formal warnings that he is a danger to our country. (Makes note on interview form.) Fortunately, I have had the opportunity to observe him at his work. He is unkempt, comes in late, uses up his vacation time with golf trips, doesn’t seem to understand the daily reports, and in his last job took home a lot of private records, which was against the law, refusing to give them back. (I fired a nurse for that once.)
And what does my nursing eye see when I look at this candidate? He sits before me alone. His family has not accompanied him to the interview. He is an aging, obese white male who tends to perseverate when he is in conversation. His diet is non-nutritive and he exercises little if at all. He is a heart attack waiting to happen. I will send him for further evaluation, right from the interview. I doubt he could run if an emergency occurred that required his attention — for example, malcontents storming government buildings trying to hang office holders. Could he run for his life? Doubtful.
The second candidate has been in the field for over fifty years. He has held jobs in entry-level work as well as high-level management. He is reliable and conscientious, according to the records available to me. Does not overuse his sick and vacation time, shows up early and works late, making high-level decisions. Works effectively with others and can field any question I toss at him about his past experience. I have observed his work and he has accomplished more in four years than 90% of his predecessors. He studies the daily reports and understands the implications of the information. He calls in advisors and experts and does not try to second-guess them, although he does make final decisions and takes responsibility for them. He has the well-being of team members and constituents in mind when making far-reaching decisions. He is respected and admired by everyone working with him and they would continue to work with him in a heartbeat. He can pass a background check!
My nursing observation is that he is an aging white male who is in good health. His vital signs are within normal limits for his age, and he eats a nutritious diet and exercises regularly. I note some motor delays. His walking and speech show some deterioration from his previous performance, but he answers questions directly and on topic. He has a marked stutter, which does not hamper his ability to express his thoughts, although it seems to worsen when he is under direct attack.
What will I not use in my decision-making for this high-level position? Formal Debate. I have seen these candidates debate, and it did not help me in my decision. Of course, we all love it when our favorite lands the bon mot at just the right moment. When they turn to the other and blast them with a winning point, especially when we agree with the point. Yes. A flood of dopamine!!! There was no dopamine at the June debate. Only pain. Anger. A fair amount of wincing, and a lot of lying.
Requisite Antidote: A Final Interview
This is a crucial position central to the well-being of our country and our planet. While I might wish I had other candidates to choose from, these are the two before me. Therefore, before making this far-reaching decision I want one more interview. In fact, I demand it, and so should you. We are the hiring committee for this pivotal role.
I want separate televised interviews with both candidates to last two hours each. The interview should be done by someone fearless and well-informed. (Perhaps Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama would be available.) It should be wide-ranging and on point, and candidates should be required to answer the questions as asked. Possible areas of inquiry would be past record, policy details for the next four years, and underlying principles for decision-making. No questions are off the table. No soft-ball dropping-a-topic-when-it-gets-too-hot. Direct questions on behalf of the millions of voters who are part of this hiring process.
Each candidate would be interviewed alone, in a quiet studio and may bring whatever notes they like. (Open book tests are my preference, in school and in life.) Ask both the same questions, and give them the questions in advance. Let the American people see who each of these candidates is when they are forced to focus on substance, not performance. Who they are alone in a room with the big questions.
One candidate would probably balk at this and refuse. The other would probably see his opportunity and make some great television.
There is approximately ZERO overlap between the skills to debate and the skills of governance. I want real answers, not performative bullshit.
Give us an in-depth interview on real-life governance. Then we will feel like we gave each candidate a fair chance to show us what they offer.
That way we can hire the one we think is up to the job.
