There is a problem when things cause the siege mentality to emerge in people. Take for example a moving standard by which you are gauged. That standard moves by the quality of your peers. Ordinarily, that would not be an issue. It is fair, since you are evaluated in relation to your peers.
Now put this in the context of a job interview. 5 candidates, 1 opening. Clearly, something has to give. For the purposes of this discussion, the assumption would be that the 5 candidates all want the opening and are unwilling to cede it to anyone else. Naturally, the response would be to engage the siege mentality. That is, assume that everyone will do their best to get that job opening.
The act of fighting for the opening causes quality inflation. All 5 candidates will try to put their best foot forward to best one another. Now, assuming that there will be 1 candidate selected regardless their quality, the best thing for everyone to do would be to put in as little effort as it takes to get in. After all, if everyone is of uniformly poor quality, they would be equally matched as they would if they were all of uniformly excellent quality.
This does not happen, of course. Everyone strives for excellence, creating an artificial constant of stress. Yes, this would improve quality. However, quality at what cost? What will society become, given that it is driven by such ceaselessly shifting measures?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment