Extreme Hiring
I’ve hired a lot of people in my career. I’ve made some
whopper mistakes along the way. I’ve also given people the ability to grow and
thrive in new situations. Accurately representing skills, experience and
interests is really important when seeking new opportunities. It’s startling
how lazy people are when seeking a new position. Whether it’s grammatical
errors or addressing the cover note to the wrong company or citing a different
position than was advertised – there’s a lot of room for improvement. Many of
today’s applicants are not short of confidence, however. Resumes have become
thesaurus-like with the wide range of kudos that people give themselves. The
slapping of oneself on the back is very much in line with the Presidential
election 2016.
Donald J. Trump is the obvious example of hubris. Whether
it’s congratulating himself on his ratings, his crowds, his triumphs or his
plans – they are framed around his own exceptionalism. So much so that it’s
easy to dismiss everything he says.
Hilary Clinton is less obvious because the Trump shadow is
so significant. Her campaign surrogates have taken the boasting to a new and
different level. President Obama during the Democratic National Convention
echoed what many others have said throughout the campaign and has been a social media
meme: “There has never been any man or woman more qualified for this office
than Hillary Clinton.”
Really? How do you determine who is the most qualified? Is
it based on actual experience? Then maybe somebody like Richard Nixon who
served for eight years as VP would top the list? Perhaps the determination can
be made by number of years in public service. James Buchanan would win that
with 30 ¼ years in public office before he became President. By that same
measure Theodore Roosevelt would have to be low on the list with only 4 ½ years
of service before taking the Presidency.
An independent analysis by Electoral-Vote has been done comparing the efficacy of Presidents based on their experience
prior to winning the Oval Office. There is no correlation between the greatness
or effectiveness of a President and the years of experience before taking
office.
Vox a progressive policy
and politics site investigated the claim. It comes to the same conclusion as the independent analysis: “Qualifications are a fine thing to have. But history
suggests they’re far from the most important thing when it comes to effective
presidential leadership.”
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Both Donald J. Trump and Hilary Clinton meet the minimum
standards of eligibility to hold the Office of the President. Then again, so do
I and probably lots of you readers.
Secretary Clinton is absolutely qualified to be President.
She has an impressive resume from her service as First Lady of Arkansas to her
role in Healthcare in the 1990’s to representing New York as a Senator and then
serving one term as Secretary of State. Compared to The Donald her experience
in public office overshadows his tremendously. Gary Johnson, Libertarian
candidate for President, has eight years as New Mexico’s Governor – more
governing experience than either Clinton or Trump.
Having a diverse resume doesn’t make her “the most qualified
person” to ever seek the
office. It’s just not true. It’s not
true on so many levels – not the least of which is that “qualified” hasn’t been
defined. More importantly – it doesn’t need to be true. It’s like those hyped
up resumes that fly across my desk – she doesn’t have to be “the most qualified
person to ever seek the office” in order to hawk her credentials and compare
them against Trump.
It’s this type of exaggeration – the one that’s silly and
not needed – that makes some people suspect of her honesty. Just like when I
review a resume. If somebody is going to take liberties on that – what else are
they hiding that’s more serious? For somebody like Secretary Clinton who has a trust deficiency in the public mind – you’d
think the campaign would be very diligent in not overstating anything.
It used to be that some humility went a long way towards the
public choosing a President. The 2016 campaign of Extreme Hiring has changed
that, and we’re all the worse for it.
Comments
Post a Comment