Of Politics and Perfection
11 January 2012

 Of Politics and Perfection

 

Ascertain the perfect profile; find that perfect candidate.

This is the crux of recruitment, the rule book, the fundamental doctrine. Here we have the two and only steps to which we must adhere if we are to succeed at our task. The method or process we choose to implement to this end does not matter provided that we, at some point, address these two critical criteria. This simple rule is universally applicable from the most stringent to the loosest definition of recruitment. It is non negotiable.

Having stressed that point rather adamantly, I’d do well to explain here, as with all things that do not adhere to the strict rules of the mathematical world, there is an exception: Politics.

In the world of politics we are unable to agree on the perfect profile and consequently we are unable to find the perfect match. Our system fails. As a result most countries have settled on the fairest method we yet know in order to decide upon who our leaders will be: democracy. In its simplest form, democracy allows for each and every person to have equal and unbiased say in which candidate they feel fits their conception of the perfect profile most precisely.

This is the best way we have to cling to our ‘doctrinal steps of recruitment’ while continuing to maintain freedom from discrimination and bias. However, to quote Churchill, “it is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”.

Churchill goes on to explain, that “the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter”. While this comment can be interpreted as mere hyperbole, given recent events in the US one is not so sure. I am, of course, talking of the Republican Primaries. I’m sure you’ve all read the various views and policies of Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and so on. From a purely rational point of view, a thinking person of the world is unable to agree that any of these should be trusted to hold the most powerful seat in the world. Yet it is unavoidable that this same thinking person must also agree it is equally important that we uphold the opinions of those who DO feel they would like to live in a world ruled by one of the above.

Here we have demonstrated our aforementioned difficulty; in trying to fairly ascertain the perfect profile we meet an irreconcilability of opinion and thus must seek to compromise. This is where things get complicated and I do not intend to continue. So while it is clear that a perfect profile probably does exist at a given time, we will never be able to agree on it. Thus we will always have politically influenced times of difficulty as well as politically influenced prosperity when we get the leader closer to ‘perfect’. This is a fluctuation cycle we must accept in order to remain democratic.

Is there another way we can run the world? Is there a way for us to define perfection in a political sense more succinctly? Who knows – it’s an interesting thought.

For now, for us in the corporate world (a world much smaller and more rational with regard to perfection) we are able to decide precisely on our profile, we are able to search extensively for this person. We seek perfection. Those who want to play politics need not apply.