Approach your HR department (or manager) to arrange a short informational interview with a mid-level or senior professional in your workplace (half an hour or less). If you cannot make this happen in the timeframe required, you may instead interview a business professional whom you know outside of your current workplace.
Questions for the Interview: Select three (3) of the below questions:
- What 2 or 3 key competencies do you seek in job candidates? Why are these competencies at the top of your list?
- When would you hire externally and when would you promote internally to fill gaps in your team?
- How useful are references to you in assessing job candidates?
- How do you on board new members of your team or department?
- What performance review process does your organization use? How effective is it?
Sample Solution
Homosexuality has gotten one of the most discussed subjects in history close to the 21st century. It continued an enormous time of contempt and separation in the prior years, and furthermore has remainders in antiquated civic establishments. The subject of homosexuality in the public eye today has gotten progressively standardized because of late changes in the public arena and law, and has started to take on an alternate significance: one that inclines more towards one’s sexual direction as their character. The idea of homosexuality in the old greek world didn’t take this comparable importance in any case. Through an investigation of academic diaries of Greek works and discourses on different surely understood basic sources, the differentiation between the erroneously expected nature of homosexuality in old Greece and its genuine nonattendance of ‘sexuality’ is made. With different mediums, for example, workmanship, writing, and legitimate writings, we can presume that sexual encounters between guys occurred. This can be found in Plato’s Symposium, the narrative of Ganymede, Homer’s Iliad, and even in Against Timarchus, a lawful case. These writings have been the wellsprings of broad analysis on the idea of sexuality, especially homosexuality, in the Greek world. In light of the inconspicuous and questionable shows in these writings and in Greek craftsmanship, homosexuality has become an exceptionally discussed point for history specialists and basic perusers. As found in “The Brother of Ganymede,” Thomas Lewis clarifies that the subject of homosexuality has become darkened in numerous basic discourses. He asserts that “history specialists will in general reflect a lot of that is their very own piece age when expounding on another,” and shows instances of this through the analysis of other surely understood pundits (Lewis 147). In this work, Lewis reveals the way that the nearness and the idea of homosexuality in antiquated Greece has been erroneously translated and one-sided in numerous basic works. These works will in general lean extraordinarily towards the way that homosexuality was noticeable in Greek society, or that homosexuality was seen as a plague. Different elucidations and interpretations of Greek works have dismissed sexuality between guys inside and out. The account of Ganymede where Ganymede (a lovely kid Trojan sovereign) escapes by Zeus as a falcon gives a case of how homosexuality has been depicted as off-base or has been ignored through and through by interpreters. Dr Lemprière’s Bibliotheca Classica of 1788 paints homosexuality in an unnatural light by saying that he was “diverted by a hawk to fulfill the disgraceful and unnatural wants of Zeus” (Lewis 149). Thomas Bullfinch’s Age of Fable recounts to the story from an alternate perspective from this, by expressing that he “stole the adolescent away from the middle of his playfellows” (Lewis 149). In different works homosexuality has been erroneously depicted as unmistakable in Greek society. In Wainwright Churchill’s Homosexual Behavior Among Males: A Cross-Cultural and Cross-Species Investigation, he depicts the Iliad as one of the main conspicuous writings with proof of homosexuality, where his elucidation is particularly for it. The bogus elucidation of homosexuality in Greek works doesn’t stop there, be that as it may, as Alfred Kinsey’s report on “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” clarifies: The general event of the gay in old Greece and its wide event today in certain societies in which [it] isn’t⦠unthinkable⦠recommends that the limit of a person to react sensually to any type of upgrade, regardless of whether it is given by someone else of the equivalent or inverse sex, is essential to species (Lewis 152). As indicated by Lewis, Kinsey “acknowledged a custom of resilience endorsement of homosexuality in antiquated Greece as opposed to realities about its event and acknowledgment” (Lewis 152). Regardless of these translations, it’s apparent that sexual relations existed in antiquated Greece. Through works like Dover’s Greek Homosexuality, we can make right inferences about the presence of homosexuality in the old Greek world like the way that it was not viewed as degenerate nor unmistakable. Indeed, the term homosexuality didn’t exist in antiquated Greek society not did the idea of sexuality when all is said in done. In an exposition entitled “The period of affection: sex and suggestive correspondence in antiquated Greece” by Sandra Boehringer and Stefano Caciagli, they contend that human advancements that existed in ‘Ancient history’ (before the European Middle Ages) didn’t characterize themselves as far as sexuality. These social orders that existed “before sexuality” took a gander at demonstrations of sex and love in an unexpected way. In social orders like old Greece, sexual want was not sorted by the individual’s fascination in a particular sex. As per Sandra “the sex of the individual wanted was not a model used to characterize and order a craving subject” (Sandra 25). Since sexual orientation didn’t generally make a difference to the greeks, there was no subculture of gay individuals that existed. Rather proof accumulated by students of history have recommended that sexual relations in nature were characterized to a great extent by status. As indicated by Sandra, “An investigation of the records plainly show that the essential differentiation saw in Antiquity was not between the genders, yet between the individuals who were free and those we were not, the individuals who could discard their own bodies and those whose bodies had a place with an ace⦠” (Sandra 26). This is basically found in the Greek use of the words ‘ándres’ and ‘gynaîkes’ which alluded to free individuals and principally individuals from the populace who were real residents. One’s status decided one’s personality. Extra research done by Michel Foucault and later David Halperin uncovers that longing towards a particular sex in most unmistakable Greek works will in general draw on expository contrasts that bar ladies’ viewpoints and the plausibility of gay want. These works likewise reject sexual inclination as a characterizing factor in one’s mental personality or their life when all is said in done. In reality, the components that decide an individual’s character in a sexual relationship concentrates less (if not under any condition) on their appreciation for a sex than it does to the individual’s age. The age contrast of sweethearts in old Greece was a main consideration in figuring out others’ opinion of the relationship. Much of the time, the age contrast between more seasoned guys and more youthful accomplices, regardless of whether male or female, was really observed as progressively moral and was generally celebrated. Sandra clarifies that “Again and again, legends retell accounts of affection and suggestive snatchings between an amazing god and a youthful (male) mortal” (Sandra 29). The line between age contrast among females and guys as the more youthful accomplice can get befuddling anyway when the asymmetry between them is inspected and identified with sexual accomplices. This is because of the way that females and guys have diverse characterizing focuses in their life at which they arrive at development. Guys go from youth, immaturity, youthful adulthood, development and mature age. Females, then again just experience adolescence, lady hood where she experiences a youthful spouse and a grown-up lady, and mature age when they can never again have youngsters. Despite the fact that these is no genuine legitimate least age that was applied, we can watch the inclinations and traditions and existed in that age. Regardless of the way that females would in general be offered away to their accomplices in a particular organize, these standards in the public eye didn’t actually identify with guys. Youthful guys were really observed as favored sexual accomplices and would get recognition and exhibits once he affirmed the snatching by his more seasoned darling. The relationship was much progressively supported upon if the sweetheart was dynamic in the instruction of his more youthful. On account of sexual connections in old Greece less consideration was placed into who more seasoned men were enamored with, and more consideration was put on the job that was expected in the relationship. The job of the darlings included was significant when figuring out what status the couple would take and the status of the people in question. In this sense, the terms Eros, Erastes, and Eromenos were utilized in antiquated Greece to recognize the jobs. The term eros, which is normally utilized in English to portray energetic love, was seen as an ‘ungovernable motivation’ that assumed control over the erastes, who was the individual struck by it. The individual who was esteemed the reason for such a loving drive was said to be the Eromenos. Despite the fact that the setting depicts homoerotic love, these three terms didn’t exclusively apply to guys. They applied to females also on the grounds that consensual love had no sexual orientation. These were by all account not the only terms used to depict darlings in any case. In legitimate terms of status, the antiquated Greeks gave more consideration to dynamic or detached jobs seeing someone. There was no heavenly book that confined love between any two individuals, nor was there any law that told individuals who they could and couldn’t cherish. There was, in any case, a law that won as far as whether you could hold a place of intensity or initiative as a resident of Greece. This law can be clarified as far as the word ‘hubris’ which is characterized by Britannica as “the deliberate utilization of savagery to mortify or debase” (Britannica). In an academic diary by Clifford Hindley entitled “Law, Society and Homosexuality in Classical Athens,” the law of hubris with respect to homosexuality in Athens is investigated through the examination of antiquated Greek works, for example, Against Timarchus, a discourse between two residents of Athens where one is raising charges of hubris against the other. In Hindley’s investigation of this discourse, we can derive that while homosexuality was not inside and out a demonstration of hubris, the demonstration of back infiltration obscured the line between being disgraceful and adoring however they see fit. The demonstration of entrance in a homoerotic setting was viewed as a wellspring of nervousness for old Greek guys. In James Davidson’s insightful diary entitled “Dover, Foucault and Greek Homosexuality: Penetrati>
Homosexuality has gotten one of the most discussed subjects in history close to the 21st century. It continued an enormous time of contempt and separation in the prior years, and furthermore has remainders in antiquated civic establishments. The subject of homosexuality in the public eye today has gotten progressively standardized because of late changes in the public arena and law, and has started to take on an alternate significance: one that inclines more towards one’s sexual direction as their character. The idea of homosexuality in the old greek world didn’t take this comparable importance in any case. Through an investigation of academic diaries of Greek works and discourses on different surely understood basic sources, the differentiation between the erroneously expected nature of homosexuality in old Greece and its genuine nonattendance of ‘sexuality’ is made. With different mediums, for example, workmanship, writing, and legitimate writings, we can presume that sexual encounters between guys occurred. This can be found in Plato’s Symposium, the narrative of Ganymede, Homer’s Iliad, and even in Against Timarchus, a lawful case. These writings have been the wellsprings of broad analysis on the idea of sexuality, especially homosexuality, in the Greek world. In light of the inconspicuous and questionable shows in these writings and in Greek craftsmanship, homosexuality has become an exceptionally discussed point for history specialists and basic perusers. As found in “The Brother of Ganymede,” Thomas Lewis clarifies that the subject of homosexuality has become darkened in numerous basic discourses. He asserts that “history specialists will in general reflect a lot of that is their very own piece age when expounding on another,” and shows instances of this through the analysis of other surely understood pundits (Lewis 147). In this work, Lewis reveals the way that the nearness and the idea of homosexuality in antiquated Greece has been erroneously translated and one-sided in numerous basic works. These works will in general lean extraordinarily towards the way that homosexuality was noticeable in Greek society, or that homosexuality was seen as a plague. Different elucidations and interpretations of Greek works have dismissed sexuality between guys inside and out. The account of Ganymede where Ganymede (a lovely kid Trojan sovereign) escapes by Zeus as a falcon gives a case of how homosexuality has been depicted as off-base or has been ignored through and through by interpreters. Dr Lemprière’s Bibliotheca Classica of 1788 paints homosexuality in an unnatural light by saying that he was “diverted by a hawk to fulfill the disgraceful and unnatural wants of Zeus” (Lewis 149). Thomas Bullfinch’s Age of Fable recounts to the story from an alternate perspective from this, by expressing that he “stole the adolescent away from the middle of his playfellows” (Lewis 149). In different works homosexuality has been erroneously depicted as unmistakable in Greek society. In Wainwright Churchill’s Homosexual Behavior Among Males: A Cross-Cultural and Cross-Species Investigation, he depicts the Iliad as one of the main conspicuous writings with proof of homosexuality, where his elucidation is particularly for it. The bogus elucidation of homosexuality in Greek works doesn’t stop there, be that as it may, as Alfred Kinsey’s report on “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” clarifies: The general event of the gay in old Greece and its wide event today in certain societies in which [it] isn’t⦠unthinkable⦠recommends that the limit of a person to react sensually to any type of upgrade, regardless of whether it is given by someone else of the equivalent or inverse sex, is essential to species (Lewis 152). As indicated by Lewis, Kinsey “acknowledged a custom of resilience endorsement of homosexuality in antiquated Greece as opposed to realities about its event and acknowledgment” (Lewis 152). Regardless of these translations, it’s apparent that sexual relations existed in antiquated Greece. Through works like Dover’s Greek Homosexuality, we can make right inferences about the presence of homosexuality in the old Greek world like the way that it was not viewed as degenerate nor unmistakable. Indeed, the term homosexuality didn’t exist in antiquated Greek society not did the idea of sexuality when all is said in done. In an exposition entitled “The period of affection: sex and suggestive correspondence in antiquated Greece” by Sandra Boehringer and Stefano Caciagli, they contend that human advancements that existed in ‘Ancient history’ (before the European Middle Ages) didn’t characterize themselves as far as sexuality. These social orders that existed “before sexuality” took a gander at demonstrations of sex and love in an unexpected way. In social orders like old Greece, sexual want was not sorted by the individual’s fascination in a particular sex. As per Sandra “the sex of the individual wanted was not a model used to characterize and order a craving subject” (Sandra 25). Since sexual orientation didn’t generally make a difference to the greeks, there was no subculture of gay individuals that existed. Rather proof accumulated by students of history have recommended that sexual relations in nature were characterized to a great extent by status. As indicated by Sandra, “An investigation of the records plainly show that the essential differentiation saw in Antiquity was not between the genders, yet between the individuals who were free and those we were not, the individuals who could discard their own bodies and those whose bodies had a place with an ace⦠” (Sandra 26). This is basically found in the Greek use of the words ‘ándres’ and ‘gynaîkes’ which alluded to free individuals and principally individuals from the populace who were real residents. One’s status decided one’s personality. Extra research done by Michel Foucault and later David Halperin uncovers that longing towards a particular sex in most unmistakable Greek works will in general draw on expository contrasts that bar ladies’ viewpoints and the plausibility of gay want. These works likewise reject sexual inclination as a characterizing factor in one’s mental personality or their life when all is said in done. In reality, the components that decide an individual’s character in a sexual relationship concentrates less (if not under any condition) on their appreciation for a sex than it does to the individual’s age. The age contrast of sweethearts in old Greece was a main consideration in figuring out others’ opinion of the relationship. Much of the time, the age contrast between more seasoned guys and more youthful accomplices, regardless of whether male or female, was really observed as progressively moral and was generally celebrated. Sandra clarifies that “Again and again, legends retell accounts of affection and suggestive snatchings between an amazing god and a youthful (male) mortal” (Sandra 29). The line between age contrast among females and guys as the more youthful accomplice can get befuddling anyway when the asymmetry between them is inspected and identified with sexual accomplices. This is because of the way that females and guys have diverse characterizing focuses in their life at which they arrive at development. Guys go from youth, immaturity, youthful adulthood, development and mature age. Females, then again just experience adolescence, lady hood where she experiences a youthful spouse and a grown-up lady, and mature age when they can never again have youngsters. Despite the fact that these is no genuine legitimate least age that was applied, we can watch the inclinations and traditions and existed in that age. Regardless of the way that females would in general be offered away to their accomplices in a particular organize, these standards in the public eye didn’t actually identify with guys. Youthful guys were really observed as favored sexual accomplices and would get recognition and exhibits once he affirmed the snatching by his more seasoned darling. The relationship was much progressively supported upon if the sweetheart was dynamic in the instruction of his more youthful. On account of sexual connections in old Greece less consideration was placed into who more seasoned men were enamored with, and more consideration was put on the job that was expected in the relationship. The job of the darlings included was significant when figuring out what status the couple would take and the status of the people in question. In this sense, the terms Eros, Erastes, and Eromenos were utilized in antiquated Greece to recognize the jobs. The term eros, which is normally utilized in English to portray energetic love, was seen as an ‘ungovernable motivation’ that assumed control over the erastes, who was the individual struck by it. The individual who was esteemed the reason for such a loving drive was said to be the Eromenos. Despite the fact that the setting depicts homoerotic love, these three terms didn’t exclusively apply to guys. They applied to females also on the grounds that consensual love had no sexual orientation. These were by all account not the only terms used to depict darlings in any case. In legitimate terms of status, the antiquated Greeks gave more consideration to dynamic or detached jobs seeing someone. There was no heavenly book that confined love between any two individuals, nor was there any law that told individuals who they could and couldn’t cherish. There was, in any case, a law that won as far as whether you could hold a place of intensity or initiative as a resident of Greece. This law can be clarified as far as the word ‘hubris’ which is characterized by Britannica as “the deliberate utilization of savagery to mortify or debase” (Britannica). In an academic diary by Clifford Hindley entitled “Law, Society and Homosexuality in Classical Athens,” the law of hubris with respect to homosexuality in Athens is investigated through the examination of antiquated Greek works, for example, Against Timarchus, a discourse between two residents of Athens where one is raising charges of hubris against the other. In Hindley’s investigation of this discourse, we can derive that while homosexuality was not inside and out a demonstration of hubris, the demonstration of back infiltration obscured the line between being disgraceful and adoring however they see fit. The demonstration of entrance in a homoerotic setting was viewed as a wellspring of nervousness for old Greek guys. In James Davidson’s insightful diary entitled “Dover, Foucault and Greek Homosexuality: Penetrati>
