Photo by Rachel on Unsplash
A few days back, I had the privilege to be enlisted for a job interview for one of the fastest-growing e-commerce companies in South East Asia. It was a group interview which comprised several components including a case study, followed by a group presentation and then by a Q&A session where the interviewer expressed her disagreements on the points we presented.
During the final component, the initially mellow-looking interviewer did not hold back. She was harsh, curt, direct, and almost hurtful in her criticisms. She spoke louder and more quickly to emphasize the team’s lack of competence to carefully consider the multidimensional nature of the case study, further explaining the dim consequences that may arise due to our carelessness. Staring into my laptop screen, I felt the heaviness and emptiness that overcame my heart, which was simultaneously pierced by words of reprimands. My lips quivered when providing a response; my left hand gripped onto the hoodie on my thighs to regain composure, although I was not any more successful than feigning a look of concentration to convey my pretended collectedness. I was scared.
Where I could, I defended my points, carefully selecting my words to prevent further rebukes that only hurt me. But there came points when my knowledge failed me, in response to which I respectfully apologized for my shortcomings. While I was not reluctant to admit to my own deficiencies, the need to do so in such a setting unsettled me, for I thought it undesirable to let slip one’s weaknesses, especially in a job interview.
At the end of the interview, when permitted to ask questions, I inquired if an emotional stability test was part of the interview, although not explicitly stated. The interview resumed to her own easygoing self, nodding her head and chuckling as if already expecting us to have discovered this. (I thought, who would ever willingly sign up for a role which entailed emotionally tormenting strangers, especially optimistic fresh graduates who were just entering the workforce? But, oh well.) The interviewer added that a test of humility was also involved: were we sufficiently sensible to acknowledge our own shortcomings when they were apparent to us, or would we stand our ground, even when it was thin ice and without substance?
I let out a sigh of relief that was not obvious. But I am pretty glad I admitted to my shortcomings, when I needed to. Maybe that was the right thing to do. We’ll find out when I receive an update.
***
This experience friends me of the virtue of voluntarily choosing to be the transcendent fool who is always learning, asking questions and therefore advancing; not the arrogant master who remains stagnant, showered by unrealistic praises and surrounded by servants who lack dignity and do nothing but contemplate about how they can steal from their master, whom they have anything but respect for.
Be a Fool, Not a Master.