In an interesting comment on my last blog post, ' A Business School is not an Employment Exchange', Rhea said that the job of a business School should be "helping students improve themselves to such a level that, 'not hiring them fast enough' becomes a threat to the companies. I guess she hit the nail right on the head, pretty much summing up what Business Schools ought to be doing. The moment you hear that kind of a thing, what comes straight to one's mind is the saying that you can take a horse to the water but can't make it drink and rings true. There is only that much that even the best schools can do. The onus of learning, training and finding a job lies with the student. You will probably ask what purpose do the B.Schools serve then? B. Schools can at best provide a platform for that learning. You would have noticed the emphasis all along is on learning not on teaching.
The teachers in B Schools need to grasp the value of this slant towards 'helping' students 'learn' rather than 'teach' otherwise they will continue to be an obstacle in the way of their learning despite best of intentions. Yet I hear a lot of well intentioned, yet unpalatable boast in conversations when members of the venerable fraternity get together in their cabins or at boringly routine get-togethers over tepid tea and the ubiquitous samosas and biscuits, extolling the quality of the lecture they 'delivered' and how well they 'taught'. How such and such a a student would have been struck in finance if 'I' had not forced him take up marketing"; or how "I literally caught him by the ear and made him finish her assignment or else she would have flunked that year..." and it goes on and on interminably. The self adulatory tone sometimes becomes overbearing, to say the least, yet that is the prevailing strain in such mild encounters. The teachers have to learn make themselves less obtrusive and get out of the way of student's learning. This is not to suggest that B. Schools do not need teachers.They do. Only there style of functioning needs to change. There probably is a need to set up training institute to train B.school teachers so that they can appreciate the difference between teaching in kindergartens and teaching in B. Schools.
The reason I am writing this piece is not as much to change the teaching style and stance of the faculty as it is to encourage students acquire the right attitude to learning. They have to some day take ownership of their lives and sooner they take a decision to do so the better. Students have been a victim of a vicious circle. They joined a particular B.school, based on its ranking. They expect to earn large sums of money when placed as an all pervasive impression that higher the ranking of B.schools means higher pay packets for its students has been created by B. schools in cahoots with the media. There is nothing wrong with being able to earn large sums of money but the focus in this has to be on the skills, ability and behaviour of the graduates; not on money. Another thing that's even more damaging and works at a deeper psychological level is the fact that it makes students, who are going to be the decision makers in the business world tomorrow, dependent on the Placement cells to find them a job which they believe the B. Schools have tacitly promised them. This makes very deep inroads into the psyche of the students and leads to their becoming dependent on the placement cells to find them a job and the faculty to 'teach' them. They come in dependent and they go out dependent - exactly the opposite of what any professional school ought to be doing for them. When I ask them why do they think they deserve a seven to ten lakh package, the answer nine time out of ten times is that the ranking of the school warrants that. On probing a little further one learns that the students with higher CGPAs expect higher salaries because they did everything their teachers and their parents 'told' them to do. That is how they slowly become the problem rather than the solution to the problem. They have learnt too well what they have been 'told' to do. They have never been encouraged to think for themselves and take their own decisions.
The students should learn to take their own decisions starting from small things like whether they should attend a particular class or bunk it to what discipline they ought to major in and so on. They should during their stay in the B. school acquire enough self esteem to find jobs for themselves based on their own learning, skills, ethics and confidence. What graduating students can do has been nicely suggested by Charlie Hoehn in his beautiful little e- book, Recession Proof Graduate It is also is a great way to pick a Company YOU want to work for rather than be picked by any company the Placement Cell chooses to bring to the Campus. More on that in another post. Meanwhile read the book.
Showing posts with label teacher. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teacher. Show all posts
Monday, September 7, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The Deadly Bouncer
If there is a complicated or a trap question then this is the one. We know the basis of your selection for a job is your strengths not your weaknesses then why should the interviewer even bother to ask a question like, “What are your greatest weaknesses?” The fact is this too is a question which is asked quite frequently. There is a 50:50 chance you will be asked this question and more often than not it will be lobbed at you in an ever so lighthearted, easygoing manner. If you are not prepared for it you will be hit by this bouncer. Like they say you will not be knocked out by a a hard knock but by the one you did not see coming. Chances are this is the one which will catch you unawares.
This is normally an eliminator question and the purpose it serves is to shorten the list of candidates for the final round of selection. The psychology behind the elimination seems to be why should you even talk about your weaknesses? Why be negative? Some people (usually psychologists) even suggest if you are aware of your weaknesses why have you not worked on them already and got rid of them. So the best strategy to deal with such a question is not to talk about your weaknesses. If you do the interviewer will probably give you credit for honesty but assess you negatively for your being aware of your weakness for sometime and not taking effective steps to improve. Don't even ask me why they do that. I am not a psychologist. All I can tell you is that they do.
One very old, tested and quite acceptable strategy to deal with the question is to disguise one of your strengths as a weakness. Though it has been extensively used by trainers to train candidates for interviews it works most of the time simply because it insures you do not talk about any weaknesses. Of course it occasionally produces hilarious results especially in campus recruitment as sometimes the entire batch of say twenty or even thirty candidates are asked the question and each one invariably talks of the same strength 'disguised as a weakness'. For example they would say something like, "I am so focused and determined to get the job done on time that I drive my people too hard. I am this A type personality and I work with such a sense of urgency that I sometimes forget that not everyone is at the same wavelength."
Interviewers also have fun with this and the moment they realize the batch is prepared with it they twist the question and sometimes ask," OK is your weakness also the fact that you drive them too hard?" The experienced interviewer will obviously know that you will not talk about your weakness and that is how it should be.
The best way to deal with this question in an interview again focuses you on finding out what exactly are your interviewer's needs because you can state them in answer to this question and assure him that you can think of nothing that would stand in the way of your performing the functions that need to be performed in the job you are being interviewed for. Remind them of what they are looking for and show them you have those skills and traits. For example you could say, " Well, I am sure there will be shortcomings in me but based on what I know what qualities are required for this job, I believe, I will be the best choice. I know when you hire people for a job at this level; you are looking for the right qualification and the right kind of motivation to do well. You can see from my records I have both the qualification and a willingness to pursue excellence in whatever I do. So I feel I there should be nothing that could come in the way of my performing well if given the opportunity."
And of course don't end up repeating this passage verbatim. Try and understand what you are doing and convey it in your own language. This will require practice and practice sometimes is boring. Remember, spectacular success is always preceded by a lot of not-so-spectacular practice. If you still do not feel up to it for any reason or you are still not very sure about the qualities the interviewer is specifically looking for, you could confess to a small weakness which is not really a weakness. If you can match it with the requirements of the job so much the better. For example if the position you are being interviewed for is in the PR department, you could say I like people and one of my weaknesses is that I like to party. If it is a teacher's job you are applying for, you could say that one of your weaknesses is that you do not seem to be able to finish off your work in the class room. Students tend to trust you so much that they continue their contact with you even after the class and keep coming to me for advise and guidance. That takes a lot of my time and my family sometimes has a problem with it. Sometimes you could just say with a touch of humor that your biggest weakness is coffee or perhaps chocolates.
The idea is not to focus on weaknesses and be prepared to talk about he interviewer's need and your strengths and how they make a perfect match.
This is normally an eliminator question and the purpose it serves is to shorten the list of candidates for the final round of selection. The psychology behind the elimination seems to be why should you even talk about your weaknesses? Why be negative? Some people (usually psychologists) even suggest if you are aware of your weaknesses why have you not worked on them already and got rid of them. So the best strategy to deal with such a question is not to talk about your weaknesses. If you do the interviewer will probably give you credit for honesty but assess you negatively for your being aware of your weakness for sometime and not taking effective steps to improve. Don't even ask me why they do that. I am not a psychologist. All I can tell you is that they do.
One very old, tested and quite acceptable strategy to deal with the question is to disguise one of your strengths as a weakness. Though it has been extensively used by trainers to train candidates for interviews it works most of the time simply because it insures you do not talk about any weaknesses. Of course it occasionally produces hilarious results especially in campus recruitment as sometimes the entire batch of say twenty or even thirty candidates are asked the question and each one invariably talks of the same strength 'disguised as a weakness'. For example they would say something like, "I am so focused and determined to get the job done on time that I drive my people too hard. I am this A type personality and I work with such a sense of urgency that I sometimes forget that not everyone is at the same wavelength."
Interviewers also have fun with this and the moment they realize the batch is prepared with it they twist the question and sometimes ask," OK is your weakness also the fact that you drive them too hard?" The experienced interviewer will obviously know that you will not talk about your weakness and that is how it should be.
The best way to deal with this question in an interview again focuses you on finding out what exactly are your interviewer's needs because you can state them in answer to this question and assure him that you can think of nothing that would stand in the way of your performing the functions that need to be performed in the job you are being interviewed for. Remind them of what they are looking for and show them you have those skills and traits. For example you could say, " Well, I am sure there will be shortcomings in me but based on what I know what qualities are required for this job, I believe, I will be the best choice. I know when you hire people for a job at this level; you are looking for the right qualification and the right kind of motivation to do well. You can see from my records I have both the qualification and a willingness to pursue excellence in whatever I do. So I feel I there should be nothing that could come in the way of my performing well if given the opportunity."
And of course don't end up repeating this passage verbatim. Try and understand what you are doing and convey it in your own language. This will require practice and practice sometimes is boring. Remember, spectacular success is always preceded by a lot of not-so-spectacular practice. If you still do not feel up to it for any reason or you are still not very sure about the qualities the interviewer is specifically looking for, you could confess to a small weakness which is not really a weakness. If you can match it with the requirements of the job so much the better. For example if the position you are being interviewed for is in the PR department, you could say I like people and one of my weaknesses is that I like to party. If it is a teacher's job you are applying for, you could say that one of your weaknesses is that you do not seem to be able to finish off your work in the class room. Students tend to trust you so much that they continue their contact with you even after the class and keep coming to me for advise and guidance. That takes a lot of my time and my family sometimes has a problem with it. Sometimes you could just say with a touch of humor that your biggest weakness is coffee or perhaps chocolates.
The idea is not to focus on weaknesses and be prepared to talk about he interviewer's need and your strengths and how they make a perfect match.
Monday, May 25, 2009
You will be punished by your anger
I really don't understand why people, especially parents and teachers get so angry even when there is no provocation. Things sometimes take a fatal turn like in a case reported recently when a teacher flung a duster at a twelve year old killing her. I have no pretensions of being a psychologist and to completely understand the origins of anger or strategies to keep it at bay. I have no intentions of delving into them but in a general way we all know what anger is and we have all felt it at some time or the other whether as a fleeting annoyance or as a full blown rage. Yet to show unnecessary and uncalled for annoyance just because you are in a position of power is not only abominable but also irresponsible. What right does a parent or a teacher or a boss have to fly into a rage. Will Roger's comment that people who fly into a rage make a bad landing is not only very witty it is very incisive.
Teachers losing their cool at the slightest pretext is unacceptable. A teacher or anyone who aspires to be a leader and hopes to influence future leaders in a positive manner has to learn to conduct himself in an exemplary manner at all times. A lot of thought has to go into every thing he does. He cannot let his guard down. He cannot afford to lose his temper because he does not know who is watching him and learning from him. He does not know who he is mentoring informally. In any case the unintentional negative influence he can have on students is sometimes unalterable especially when the teacher is held in high esteem for his knowledge by the students.
I am not even suggesting that a teacher never ever can lose his cool. He, like everyone else, can do so easily. Aristotle has said, “Anyone can become angry. That is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree,at the right time, for the the right purpose and in the right way...that is not easy.” We all need to mull over what Aristotle says and if we cannot get all those dimensions right it is wiser to decide never to become angry. Even Aristotle perhaps is not suggesting that you should never get angry but what he is saying is that you learn how and when to become angry and to what degree.If that sounds like being contradiction in terms; it is. Any one who needs to keep a clear mind can't afford to get angry because, like it is often said,no man can think clearly when his fists are clenched.
The other day I felt very sorry for a colleague's sudden burst of anger when a few students did not respond quickly enough to fill some seats lying vacant in the front rows, when he asked them to do so at the beginning of a comined session. I am not even sure if it was anger or demonstration of power or even just an exhibition of superiority. A teacher should never have to demonstrate superiority or power. What gives them the right to lose it before we can even say anger? Students keep quiet and do not react not because they love an angry pedagogue but because they are either too decent to react, or more damagingly, because they feel this is kind of outbursts are expected from a person of great learning. They subconsciously take a note of it and will act in exactly the same manner with their juniors or when they themselves are in so called position of power. The damage has been done and a vicious behavioral cycle set in motion. Apart from the damage we can inflict on our students in this manner, anger also punishes you in a very subtle but damaging way. It is not my intention to explain how but we can take Gautama Buddha's word for it who said, “You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger.
Teachers losing their cool at the slightest pretext is unacceptable. A teacher or anyone who aspires to be a leader and hopes to influence future leaders in a positive manner has to learn to conduct himself in an exemplary manner at all times. A lot of thought has to go into every thing he does. He cannot let his guard down. He cannot afford to lose his temper because he does not know who is watching him and learning from him. He does not know who he is mentoring informally. In any case the unintentional negative influence he can have on students is sometimes unalterable especially when the teacher is held in high esteem for his knowledge by the students.
I am not even suggesting that a teacher never ever can lose his cool. He, like everyone else, can do so easily. Aristotle has said, “Anyone can become angry. That is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree,at the right time, for the the right purpose and in the right way...that is not easy.” We all need to mull over what Aristotle says and if we cannot get all those dimensions right it is wiser to decide never to become angry. Even Aristotle perhaps is not suggesting that you should never get angry but what he is saying is that you learn how and when to become angry and to what degree.If that sounds like being contradiction in terms; it is. Any one who needs to keep a clear mind can't afford to get angry because, like it is often said,no man can think clearly when his fists are clenched.
The other day I felt very sorry for a colleague's sudden burst of anger when a few students did not respond quickly enough to fill some seats lying vacant in the front rows, when he asked them to do so at the beginning of a comined session. I am not even sure if it was anger or demonstration of power or even just an exhibition of superiority. A teacher should never have to demonstrate superiority or power. What gives them the right to lose it before we can even say anger? Students keep quiet and do not react not because they love an angry pedagogue but because they are either too decent to react, or more damagingly, because they feel this is kind of outbursts are expected from a person of great learning. They subconsciously take a note of it and will act in exactly the same manner with their juniors or when they themselves are in so called position of power. The damage has been done and a vicious behavioral cycle set in motion. Apart from the damage we can inflict on our students in this manner, anger also punishes you in a very subtle but damaging way. It is not my intention to explain how but we can take Gautama Buddha's word for it who said, “You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
