The Interview

Twenty-four hours have passed since my interview.  (Actually, it's taken more than a day to complete this entry, so technically 48 hours have now passed.)  It took me about that long to decompress, including the wee hours of the night when I was supposed to be sleeping (instead of up half-awake wondering how I could have answered this-or-that question differently).  All in all, I did a pretty good job.  I regret dropping the ball on a few of the questions, but I understand this is the nature of interview situations--it's impossible to answer questions "in the moment" in the same way that you would answer them "in retrospect."

My reflections on the experience:  

1. I was interviewed by a panel of twelve.  As I made eye contact with them, it was difficult at times to not be distracted by the inevitable three or four people who looked otherwise disengaged and uninterested in what I had to say.  
2. My strategy of approaching the interview with personal anecdotes proved to be "right on"--almost all of the questions asked for specific examples of what I had done.  Unfortunately, I hadn't mentally prepared anecdotes in some areas that were the focus of some of the questions.  And so I had to improvise at times.  
3. I believe I had a slightly greater margin for error compared to other candidates because most of the members on the committee have seen me in other contexts.  Whereas first-time acquaintances could have somehow misinterpreted any of my given "answers-on-the-spot", those who have had prior experiences with me are more likely to view my responses within a larger frame of reference.  

What all of the above amounts to, in my estimation, is that whatever the outcome of the process, it will have been fair and accurate.  For the most part, I was able to portray myself to the committee in the way I had hoped.  If I end up not being selected, it will not be as a result of some uncharacteristically poor interview performance.  And therefore, there will be no "could have's" or "should have's."