As a teacher one can be terribly naive with devastating results for organizational pace and resources. One can believe what one is teaching is being absorbed, will be used, is appreciated, the need is felt and that students will be, if not grateful certainly more effective in their work as they go along. Painful experience proves otherwise and can do so repeatedly; forcing one to ponder, what, if anything will bring on the realisation in a learner that there is a need to learn? After all, more often than not, the young worker, fresh out of graduate school does not have the experience to gauge their own quality or gaps in competencies and therefore the need for further training is not felt.
When inputs are provided, the premise is that there is an interest in increasing competency, a passion for the subject or a commitment to the field of work/study. What if none of these motivators were true? What if the only motivator were to earn money? What then? What does one do in an environment in which the new graduate can be highly paid because they have graduated from a particular school - not even one which can prove its credentials through its work with the student - but just one which is a brand; and the graduate can perform to satisfaction for organisations who don't demand more than what the graduate has to offer. How do you staff in such an environment?
Even with the commitment to compensate for the lack of competencies by setting up an internal training program, tapping into motivation to learn is difficult because the environment allows for low quality and buys it at a high fee. It makes you wonder who comes to work for you? The naive teacher would think that those interested in learning, committed to professional quality etc make up the staff, but when challenged to learn, one receives a rude shock by the response that only a certain amount of work is possible for the fee that is paid.
I don't like admitting it, but it remains true that the development sector won't make you rich if you don't work for the largest agencies and if you happen to be honest. Is the advice for youngsters to be that they do not join up or only do so if they have financial support of some kind?
More and more, I am becoming of the belief that young professionals in the field should undergo HR counseling, in which they set goals for themselves. Prioritising is essential. I do not believe it is possible to make a lot of money and be young and have high quality. It would be possible if the schools they went to had done their jobs but unfortunately they did not. English, writing skills, the ability to work collaboratively, knowing the difference between mentoring and supervision, programming, M&E, curriculum design, pedagogic auditing, community mobilisation - are some of the areas that are severely lacking in the competencies that graduates come to apply for jobs with. The expectation is that experience will teach them - they learn at the cost of the more experienced and the organisation's resources - but demand to be paid highly and remain committed to the idea that their college education has rendered them ready and they do not need to learn.
Thus, my question: how do you motivate the need to learn?
When inputs are provided, the premise is that there is an interest in increasing competency, a passion for the subject or a commitment to the field of work/study. What if none of these motivators were true? What if the only motivator were to earn money? What then? What does one do in an environment in which the new graduate can be highly paid because they have graduated from a particular school - not even one which can prove its credentials through its work with the student - but just one which is a brand; and the graduate can perform to satisfaction for organisations who don't demand more than what the graduate has to offer. How do you staff in such an environment?
Even with the commitment to compensate for the lack of competencies by setting up an internal training program, tapping into motivation to learn is difficult because the environment allows for low quality and buys it at a high fee. It makes you wonder who comes to work for you? The naive teacher would think that those interested in learning, committed to professional quality etc make up the staff, but when challenged to learn, one receives a rude shock by the response that only a certain amount of work is possible for the fee that is paid.
I don't like admitting it, but it remains true that the development sector won't make you rich if you don't work for the largest agencies and if you happen to be honest. Is the advice for youngsters to be that they do not join up or only do so if they have financial support of some kind?
More and more, I am becoming of the belief that young professionals in the field should undergo HR counseling, in which they set goals for themselves. Prioritising is essential. I do not believe it is possible to make a lot of money and be young and have high quality. It would be possible if the schools they went to had done their jobs but unfortunately they did not. English, writing skills, the ability to work collaboratively, knowing the difference between mentoring and supervision, programming, M&E, curriculum design, pedagogic auditing, community mobilisation - are some of the areas that are severely lacking in the competencies that graduates come to apply for jobs with. The expectation is that experience will teach them - they learn at the cost of the more experienced and the organisation's resources - but demand to be paid highly and remain committed to the idea that their college education has rendered them ready and they do not need to learn.
Thus, my question: how do you motivate the need to learn?
Comments