Personal Isolation and reduced social contact caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath have deepened the social and political polarization of Americans.
At first unnoticed except by social scientists, when we lost the regular physical and social contact that we had prior to the pandemic, we lost the exposure, introduction, scrutiny, and digestion of a wide range of social and political views and opinions. We were exposed to a variety of opinions, whether we agreed with them or not, and whether our contact was live, digital, in person, or remote.
Until recently, we shared news sources with some additions and exceptions. Our source of information was similar, and it was the basis for disagreement.
During the COVID19 pandemic, we became isolated from family, friends, and associates, where conversations of agreement, differences, and alternatives occur. These opportunities were missing, and we experienced a flood of new and different sources of information and the birth of “alternative facts,” also known as lies, in news reporting.
We currently have headlines and click bait, but not true dialogue. Zoom meetings are not team meetings. We have become physically compartmentalized, with limited interaction. Even when we do engage in dialogue, we are missing the discussion and arguments needed to clarify, collaborate, and negotiate.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, we stayed close to home with family and friends and carefully chose a few social pods to interact with, limiting our range of interactions for reasons of personal safety. However, this also has limited our perspective and depth on many subjects. We have become disconnected with what is going on outside our comfortable nests.
A big influence on our isolation is our exposure to news events, specifically the disbursement of news itself. Not long ago, we tuned in to regular, summarized news cycles which were broadcast over a handful of media outlets, each committed to the journalistic process, designed to ensure accuracy, objectivity, and reliability.
The journalistic process has changed dramatically, leaving us to make choices based on presentation, sensationalism, and political preference, rather than the objectivity and accuracy of its content. This has led to the polarization of the news media and has become a tourniquet to the free flow of unbiased news reporting.
Historically, the news departments of radio and television companies were cost centers, insulated from lobbying, advertising profits, and possible conflicts of interest. Objective reporting of the news was considered a matter of public trust and responsibility. Moving news programming from its own department into the entertainment arm of a broadcast or cable network is how news programming morphed into just another corporate profit center.
As consumers, we now turn to the news reporting we believe supports our views and opinions. It’s more easily digested, and it’s non-confrontational. But slanted news reporting of any kind is polarizing and divisive. Objective news reporting is rare today because sensational and subjective content draws more attention. That attention then leads to higher ratings, which are then used to charge more for advertising time, and higher ad rates bring in higher corporate profits.
Prior to personal isolation, we had access to individuals who might agree or disagree with our thoughts on the issues of the day: friends, neighbors, associates, even strangers. Whether it was our legal system, global warming, infrastructure upgrades, equality issues, immigration, or international trade, we informally heard different sides of a story, then developed an opinion based on our sources, our personal interactions, our ethics, and our experience.
The personal isolation we experienced because of the pandemic has narrowed our already capsulated world view. So how does this affect your job hunt?
A Changed Job Interview
During our gradual return to face-to-face contact, we are once again hearing varying opinions on a wide range of issues. The problem is that viewpoints have become more rigid, with little flexibility for competing opinions. This harder line on political and social views is part of the new reality when you interact with strangers during your job-hunting process.
This rigidity may occur in a conversation with a hiring manager, recruiter, or human resources representative. There are new people to meet, with many differing opinions. My advice here is to use caution about jumping into a personal, social, or political conversation because of the potential hidden traps and agendas already involved in a job interview.
For example, asking about your hobbies sounds innocent enough. But what can your answer reveal to a hiring manager if you tell them how you spend your free time? How you answer can reveal, among other things, your marital and family status, your religious affiliation, sexual orientation, social life, thrill-seeking behaviors, or political standpoint. These are factors which have nothing to do with your ability to do a job, but everything to do with how you fit into a potential employer’s company culture.
Particularly in a time of polarization of ideas and ideologies, you, as a candidate, want to project openness to change, collaboration and consensus building. You want the hiring decision to be based on your qualifications, not on your personal activities and preferences.
It’s not possible to anticipate the motive or agenda behind a question. However, judiciously applying a filter to the answers you provide to non-job-related job questions is advisable.
I review typical interview questions in my upcoming book, Job Hunting – Launching to Landing. Many questions are designed to be elimination questions but are not relevant to any job requirements. I red-flag many of the traps behind interview questions including those designed to reveal personal information, preferences, or opinion. By reviewing my sample questions, job candidates have found them to be essential to their interview preparation and success.
See additional blogs for further discussion of networking and interview questions.
Ben