Latham (again)
At work I do a lot of job interviews. An interview question I often ask is, “Tell about a recent mistake you have made in the workplace. What you did to fix it and what did you learn from the experience?” There is no right answer to this question. I am interested to see how self-aware applicants are, how honest they will be with me, and the extent to which they take responsibility for their mistakes.
Towards the end of an interview I often ask, “We all have strengths and weaknesses. You have talked about your strengths but not your weaknesses. Where do you think you would benefit from further development? What have you done recently to address that development need?” Again, there is no right answer. It is a test of self awareness, and taking responsibility for personal development.
While there are no right answers to these questions, there are some wrong answers. One is the person, who says he or she has never made a mistake in the workplace. I don’t believe my children when they say they haven’t told a lie. And I don’t believe the applicant who has never made a mistake. The only person who has not made a mistake is the person who has done nothing. The absence of a development need raises similar questions in my mind. If a person has no weakness and has never made a mistake, I wonder how they might perform working in teams where everyone else has imperfections (myself included).
I have been mulling for sometime on how Latham would answer these questions. I might be wrong, but I have not seen him take any responsibility for the October 2004 defeat. It was everyone else’s fault. The only weakness he has admitted was the incredulous, “I am an outsider.”
Another interview question I sometimes ask is, “What do you do when you can’t convince your boss or your co-workers that your way is the right way? How do you go about changing their opinion?” It brings me to another trait I have observed in Latham. He had a tendency to say (in effect), “if we are not going to play marbles by my rules, I am packing my marbles and going home.” The irony is that politics is the art of the possible. Of necessity it involves negotiation and compromise. It necessitates give and take until a large enough coalition of support is built.
In 2004, Latham appeared to be of the view that “good” ideas of themselves were sufficient to win an election. In 1998, he took himself to the backbench in high dudgeon over Beazley’s refusal to accept his education policies without amendment. Just as “my way or the highway” is not a recipe for a good team member, it is not a recipe for a successful politician either.
The 2004 election was a job interview for Latham. Sadly, for him, he did not get the job.
In the workplace I am interested to see how people cope with disappointment when they don’t win a job. It is a test of maturity. Do they seek to learn from the experience so that they are more competitive next time? Do they take remedial action in respect of their deficiencies? Do they knuckle down to demonstrate their strengths or do they give up in a huff? Do they blame everyone but themselves for their failure to win the job?
With his Diaries, not only has Latham lost the job, he has failed the post recruitment maturity test.
Update: Tim Blair has trawled the media for today’s Latham report.