We were in the last few topics of implementing and executing strategies. The tail end of our discussion was about the significance of a reward system in strategy implementation.
Almost everyone was out of the classroom when she approached, together with her peers in a Gossip Girl kindaway, and asked the question.
"Sir, whose fault is it when one motivates one person but the one being motivated is not responding?"
Curiosity was my first reaction. Why didn't she asked this during the class. I mean, so that the whole class would benefit. Was she being selfish? Shy? Maybe she has a reputation to protect. I don't know. But, seriously, I'm glad an insightful question was asked.
I replied, "Well, it is the fault of the one motivating!"
"What Sir?", was her clarifying retort.
"It is so easy to say that it is the fault of the employee. That he is lazy or something. But that thinking limits the possible solution and work around one can put in the table. If one assumes that it is his fault, then a new level of possible solution opens up. Like, the recruitment philosophy and practices of the company. Ideally, if a company is serious about their recruitment, they will always have the highest probability that they will always hire the right person for the right job. If they are not fanatical and passionate about their recruitment, they will lose millions of money in trying to motivate the wrong person. We have to understand that no amount of motivation, rewards and benefits will transform a 'wrong person for the job' to become the 'right person for the job'. Maybe it can happen but it is always short term. Unsustainable. Financially nonviable."
She was confused when she left. And that looked of confusion is the reason why I am punching my laptop's keypads = )
(Lord, this is a new prayer - Please give my students the added confidence to ask questions until all is clarified.)
I got a theory why she gave that quizzical look.
If she applies the answer I gave to a classroom scenario, where a professor is trying to motivate the class or a student to perform better, but the student is going nowhere, then, I "accidentally" placed all the blame for all student's bad performance since Adam on the professor's shoulder.
Actually, I just blamed myself = )
If my theory is right, then that quizzical look is spot on!
If that is the case, then I need to contextualized my answer.
Our discussion of rewards was within the context of an employee-employer relationship. Not in the context of professor-student relationship.
Though some truths applies, not all could be. The dynamics of the two relationship is different. A professor's role, if one would care to research, is that of a second parent. Not an employer.
By this I meant and to put my point across - can you imagine your parents firing you as their daughter? or as their son? That can not be = )
Because that is the case, then simply applying an answer with a different context to an entirely different situation is prohibited. Or disaster is bound to happen.
On a different note, if a professor is true to his calling of facilitating learning, then, knowing that we have to acknowledge first that we are part of the problem before becoming part of the solution opens up a new level of possible solutions in improving not only class performance, but STUDENT performance = )
I am truly excited, like a boy, when I think about these possibilities. The school as we know it will really be transformed.
And I am not thinking about a Utopian transformation. It is a transformation where school owners win because of profits. The student wins because he becomes a well adjusted adult. And faculty wins because his positive influence will know no bounds in the life of a student.
Lord, Your will be done...
No comments:
Post a Comment