The American view: Are we asking the right questions in job interviews?

This came to mind after watching news reports on the Alex Prertti murder and the new Epstein files release. The top stories dominating the discourse over here are furiously divisive; to many, the opinions a person holds on these issues are a reliable GO/NOGO test for familial, social, and workplace compatibility. If your uncle thinks murdering nonviolent protesters in cold blood is just dandy, that’s an uncle who’s never getting an invitation to a family event again. 

 

Likewise, even though these news stories aren’t tied to any specific company or industry niche [3] the way a candidate addresses direct questions about these events should prove to be a make-or-break qualification factor. Therefore, if you’re screening candidates and want to identify the best and worst culture fits, these direct questions must be asked … right?

 

Classic business pundits confidently insist that you mustn’t ask any such thing. I’ve heard hundreds of HR experts opine that topics like political, philosophical, and ethical positions should still be verboten. As a 2015 LinkedIn post by Mark Geller recommended:

 

“… politics is a minefield. Hiring managers want to gauge your skills, not your ballot. Bringing up hot-button issues or divisive topics (like who you voted for) can alienate someone whose views differ, even if they’re professional about it.”

 

I don’t know Mark. I agree with your stated position in this essay but only in the abstract. Yes, a candidate’s political, philosophical, and ethical positions usually aren’t relevant to the Knowledge, Skills, or Abilities required to perform a job. If the job is transcribing dictation, your typing speed and accuracy stats matter; your position on abortion doesn’t. Except … that position is only true so long as all an organisation’s meat-based labour units function exclusively like mindless automatons.

 

That is, so long as they never interact or socialise, never discuss any topics other than work-related ones, and turn their brains off until quitting time. Those conditions are impossible to achieve in the real world. 

More importantly, I submit, modern “political” positions and beliefs aren’t intellectual interpretations of theory. No one fears for their safety when Tim from Procurement goes on a rant about the global sell-off in precious metals futures. That’s an abstract issue that – while it might impact everyday adults economically – doesn’t involve violence, dehumanization, or stripping others of their civil and human rights. Silver futures can be a reasonable lunch break discussion take in most businesses; taking away women’s right to vote is not.

 

Consider the stories about the recent extrajudicial murder of activists in Minneapolis. These aren’t dry academic topics; they’re blatant manifestations of a cynical and deliberate corruption of government authority intended to subvert our laws to terrorize dissenters into silence. It’s authoritarianism 101. To be blunt, there are legitimate issues in-play here that every American must take a side on. Corpo leadership, HR, Legal, and internal security need to know which employees and contractors believe that violence against people who don’t agree with you is justified. This is a textbook example of a dangerous insider threat.  

 

Therefore, the same question should be asked of all applicants as well. It’s a simple and effective GO/NOGO test: if an applicant answers “yes,” that’s incontrovertible proof that they’re incompatible with every business. [4] It’s no different from asking “If you proposition your coworker and they turn you down, is it okay to force them to have sex with you?” Anyone who answers “yes” to that question cannot be tolerated in a workplace, full stop. I’d argue they should be permanently banned from the building as well for the employees’ and customers’ safety.

 

I know that HR experts will cry foul at these examples. After all, they’re questions that (a) aren’t exclusively about work, (b) can be upsetting, and (c) can easily be defeated by lying. I agree! On the other hand, these questions are (a) 100% relevant to the safety of the people in your work environment, (b) refer to a known risk, and (c) refer to actions that can devastate workers’ lives when they manifest. As such, these questions offer the company an opportunity to detect and interdict a potential bad actor before they’re offered opportunities to commit destructive acts inside the organisation.

 

As for the “applicants will lie” argument, my experience with HR “experts” it’s a dodge … an attempt to deflect blame for inadequate screening. “If we ask applicants about their destructive tendencies, they’ll just lie to us so there’s no point in asking.” That’s not wisdom; that’s accepting risk with no attempt at mitigation. When the accepted risk includes “dead employees,” I find such indifference to be criminal.

I submit that such laissez faire indifference ignores the current state of the world. Ten years of Cheeto Hitler have decisively demonstrated that America’s government is wholly, deliberately, and inexcusably fascist. See Jonathan Rauch’s meticulously cited exposé of the regime in The Atlantic last week for a point-by-point indictment.

 

The mask is off, both at the capitol and in the president’s most zealous followers. We’ve known for years that Trump’s number one is an open and avowed Neo-Nazi. Theirs is a brutal, violent ideology; their cause demands that their followers and agents transgress norms, ignore laws, and violate standards to achieve “victory” over their ideological enemies.

 

They’re compelled to threaten others with violence. It’s their whole schtick. So, yeah. If you’re brave enough to blatantly ask them if they’re faschy during an interview, a terrifying number of them will be cocky enough to answer you truthfully. 

 

And to those HR “experts” who still insist that personal political preferences aren’t relevant to a candidate’s potential work performance, I counter that you’re full of $&#£. The most extreme of these people are zealots; fanatics that believe in a violent doctrine where everyone who isn’t 100% on their team is subhuman filth that deserves to be attacked, terrorized, and silenced. If you feel that this attitude is acceptable in your workplace, then YOU share an office with them. [5]

 

Speaking for the safety of my coworkers, I’d rather identify these high-threat individuals early in the process and keep them far away from my people. Is that technically discrimination? Yes, but it’s (currently) legal and pragmatic discrimination. After all, HR already asks applicants to disclose if they have a criminal record. How is unacceptable to ask if you applicants don’t have one yet but are working on it?

 

I contend that every member of management has a positive duty to maintain a safe work environment. Any candidate that confesses in their interview to hold a pro-murder agenda isn’t just an irresponsible hire; they’re self-identifying their intent to harm others in the name of their pro-violence ideology. If you ask the brazen direct question and a candidate is confident enough to say “yes!” believe them. [6]

 

 

[1] Quoted from business Twitter celebrity Simon Ingari. While I disagree with him on some aspects of corpo interviewing, I respect how he presents his opinions. His is a great account to follow if you live in cubicle world, IMO. Also, it’s “Twitter,” not X.

[2] … and if you haven’t, why not?

[3] U.S. government service excepted.

[4] Not to mention incompatible with civilised society.

[5] Might want to max out your employer-provided life insurance options first, though.

[6] I cannot for the life of me understand a hiring agent who values inoffensiveness over the lives of their colleagues. What’s broken inside of you?