The concept of oppression has a range of meanings for different individuals and groups. It can refer to the subjugation of one group by another through power, control, and discrimination (Gillborn & Mirza 2000). In an interview setting, this concept is especially relevant as interviewer and interviewee are often in positions of unequal power. As such, it is possible that the interviewer could be perceived as oppressive by the interviewee. There are two distinct ways in which the interviewer might be seen as oppressive: firstly, if they discriminate based on protected characteristics; secondly if they exercise their authority to create an uncomfortable experience for the person being interviewed.
Discrimination based on protected characteristics is one way that an interviewer could be perceived as oppressive. This involves treating people differently who share certain traits such as age, gender or ethnicity (Lippman 2004). For example, if an employer was interviewing someone for a job opportunity but making judgements about them due to their race or religion then this would be seen as discriminatory behaviour and likely induce feelings of oppression from the interviewee. A further example may include asking questions about personal marital status or sexual orientation during a job interview which are not relevant to assessing ability for performing tasks associated with the role being offered (UCLA 2016). Such actions imply that an individual’s identity plays into decisions concerning employment opportunities which should solely be based upon qualifications and skillset required for carrying out job duties effectively. In addition to creating feelings of discrimination amongst those being interviewed; these types of behaviours also draw attention away from those best suited for positions available in terms of serious consideration towards capability or talent displayed throughout interviews (Houston 2020).
An explanation of how you might be perceived as the oppressor to an interviewee. Explain two different ways in which this perception could occur.
The other way in which an interviewer might be seen as oppressive is when they abuse their position with regards to dictating how conversations unfold during interviews itself – regardless if this happens explicitly or implicitly (Watts 1978). An approach such as exercising autocratic tendencies during interviewing process – whereby only allowing certain topics or providing limited opportunities to ask specific questions – can cause discomfort by overriding freedom normally afforded when engaging in discussion with others (Ramsden 2003). Alternatively taking any form consisting microaggressions; small acts related to devaluing another’s worth combined with ‘power-over’ approaches will portray negative messages contributing further potential harm towards feeling empowered among those being interviewed – possibly resulting in sense of oppression experienced by such individuals too (Sue 2010).
In conclusion, there are multiple ways in which oppressor dynamics could arise within interviewing contexts including discrimination directed at protected characteristics; plus using authority figures inappropriately leading towards creating situations inducing feelings similar to oppression amongst those participating too. Therefore it is important that everyone involved understands implications related with notions regarding oppressors present prior entering into dialogues associated with key decision making processes such engagements often provide basis towards determining outcomes concerning various aspects concerning career pathways chosen and lived out accordingly thereafter either positively or negatively impacting lives forevermore afterwards too.