[srinih75]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

A 2-5 year experience guy can still be taught, but with a 10+ years experienced guy dumbed down by 10 years in a big company, its like playing Zubin Mehta to a herd of buffalos. He will still give milk, when you want iced cappuchino

This is true for a service company, but experience is definitely useful in a domain context. Yes, a 2-5 year old can be re-skilled on a new platform but he will never be able to replace a 15 year old domain guy who has worked on an application and knows in and out of it.

Again having 15 years of experience doesn't mean he started career in 1997 and hopped jobs 20 times. It means he has worked on real projects over the last 15 years.

Yes, times are changing and so should the people. If the 15 year old cannot adapt he is choosing slow death. I remember now the book - who moved the cheese!

[ampere]

The aspect of experience versus being technical visionary is a very tricky and delicate balance. And I think there is also a cultural aspect associated with it.
(My views may be too harsh on the same)

Most companies provide both managerial and technical career options. But in India these boundaries very easily get blurred. An engineer doing very
well technically within 4-5 years is thrusted with the job of managing a team.

If the person is inclined technically, no matter, how long he has been in a company, he will have a constant appetite to learn. He will have ability
to start from scratch if situation demands. But in most aspects, in India, managerial role is not seen as a technical leadership role, but a role more as
handling people and getting the work done. Now even that is a difficult task. (But thats in a different direction)
But people tend to confuse the two very easily.

Beings a technical person, does not mean, that one should be getting hands dirty all the time. Providing a visionary challenge is also an equally
involving task. But in this age of cutting-edge technology, one also needs to be hands-on to a certain extent, at least to be aware of the elements of
functioning (Not for the nuts and bolts). Its here that people especially in India falter. They think they can be a visionary without being rooted to ground.
And hence are born the technical leaders who after some point in time are totally away from ground reality.

They may keep themselves abreast by getting/absorbing the latest research work, but not once they by themselves would ever try to verify the same by
simulating/experimenting on the problem. They will always need some one to run tools for them (a project intern, a junior engineer etc)! But in the west,
I see folks are not like this. They pretty much are able do the same by themselves.

And thats the cultural difference that I refer to.

Comments welcome.

[champ27]

Originally Posted by ampere

But in the west, I see folks are not like this. They pretty much are able do the same by themselves.

And thats the cultural difference that I refer to.

Comments welcome.

Totally agree amp. In my experience of working with the top guys from west in my organisation, I have found them always happy to roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty. By doing so they tend to stay connected and are more aware of the realities on the ground. This stand them in good stead while taking much bigger strategic decisions.Personally, I enjoy working with such guys and have so much more respect for them. They absolutely don't require to do such work but do so because they want have a holistic picture and be better informed. On a lighter note, at times it becomes a pain to work with them because they know too much for my comfort

Whereas, the same top guy in India almost always prefer to stay at 60000ft and take decisions. If someone tries to break this tradition, he is branded as a "hands on" guy who gets too involved "operationally" and hence not suitable for higher ranks. It definitely is a cultural thing as I would like to believe there is no competency issue here, both of them are equally competent. It's the mindset that spells the difference.

So it seems, one of the mantras for growth is to slowly detach oneself with the ground. Sad but true in many cases!

[ampere]

Originally Posted by champ27

So it seems, one of the mantras for growth is to slowly detach oneself with the ground. Sad but true in many cases!

Another point about being a hands-on manager is that he should be not too much away from the people at the risk of being
alienated and at the same time, he should also not be micro-managing his people's affairs (since he "knows") at the risk of being
branded as "nosy". A good manager should also make his people grow (technically or otherwise) and provide them such a space.
Many a times I see this aspect of leadership (ie making more leaders) lacking just because, the boss feels that this aspect of
leadership belongs only to his realm and not others.

[champ27]

Originally Posted by ampere

Another point about being a hands-on manager is that he should be not too much away from the people at the risk of being alienated and at the same time, he should also not be micro-managing his people's affairs (since he "knows") at the risk of being
branded as "nosy".

There's a very fine line between staying connected with the team and at the same time not micro - managing them. It's a delicate balance that's difficult to achieve and maintain because one tends to get easily swayed to either of the aspects thereby earning an array of adjectives for oneself.

I am still in the process of practising this art and till now have managed not to earn any adjectives from the team

Coming back to the earlier point, why is it that we tend to lose sight of the ground as we grow up the ladder? Can it be just the cultural aspect or our lack of willingness to keep ourselves abreast with times?

[ampere]

Originally Posted by champ27

Coming back to the earlier point, why is it that we tend to lose sight of the ground as we grow up the ladder? Can it be just the cultural aspect or our lack of willingness to keep ourselves abreast with times?

I can think of few reasons:

- Our appetite for learning keeps changing as our priorities in life change. (Marriage/Kids etc)
- Complacency creeps in while we get used to comforts in life. We get used to more fun while appetite for knowledge comes down
- Our professional aims change to being people oriented. This can be more via sub-conscience too!

What needs to be noted is that, even if our directions change, our appetite should not change. It can be directed at something else.
But at least we need to be open about it to accept that indeed we have changed our course.

[acurafan]

Originally Posted by champ27

Totally agree amp. In my experience of working with the top guys from west in my organisation, I have found them always happy to roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty. By doing so they tend to stay connected and are more aware of the realities on the ground. This stand them in good stead while taking much bigger strategic decisions.

There is a reason why they are like that. I work for a giant MNC and have worked for them in US. Managership is often not thrust on people as they become senior. My boss became a manger after he became a Principal and he is an exceptional individual contributor. We even read his textbook when we were in grad school. In our division, one gets a manager title six months before he actually manages someone. For one appraisal cycle one works with their boss to understand the logistics and then starts to manage people. On the other hand in the Indian subsidiary, everyone is a manager regardless of the ability. The management realized that lately and putting all new managers through leadership and people skill training, which I think is invaluable.

In my previous company, every year few people from each business units were nominated for Young executive program to be groomed as managers and future executives. I turned down that opportunity when I was in my late twenties because I felt I was not ready to manage people. I am sure if I was in India when a manager title gives you access to office instead of cubes, I would have readily taken it :-)

Regarding the personal development it is quite personal. In some field one needs to be at the "cutting edge" of the technology just to survive and grow, whereas one can survive by knowing the basics in other fields. IMHO it does not depend on external conditions but just own mind frame and hunger. In my personal experience I will make myself obsolete if I don't know the latest technologies in my field as an expert. In our division there are 90+ Ph.Ds and most of them are smarter than I am, so one can only survive through knowledge, the skills are very comparable all across.
On the other hand in the engineering division people don't need to understand the technology that well and yet survive quite well if they have good design skills and intuition.

[champ27]

Originally Posted by ampere

What needs to be noted is that, even if our directions change, our appetite should not change. It can be directed at something else.
But at least we need to be open about it to accept that indeed we have changed our course.

Mainly we don't want to take additional responsibility of learning about new areas when we can very well manage and grow even without doing so.

Originally Posted by acurafan

On the other hand in the Indian subsidiary, everyone is a manager regardless of the ability.

Here, we just have to stick around for a while before promotion comes knocking. It also has to do something with the huge employee base in India (the whole pyramid concept). Even if you don't do anything spectacular, over a period of time you will find a lot of new faces and hence the older guys are promoted to manage them regardless of their abilities. It may not be true for all cases but majority of them would lie under this category.

[AlphaKilo]

Well, I am going to play the "Spoil sport" here.

What is this thread about? "Employability of Graduates" or "Ability of Employed Graduates" ?

I wish the recruiters too followed (wherever applicable or after some improvisation locally) the psychological approach used by the Armed forces while selecting officer candidates through their Services selection board (all those who have been through it once will know what I am talking about). This would not only seperate the weed from the seeds but also will give the individual a fair idea of where he/she is good and where they lack, a scope for improvement.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by AlphaKilo

Well, I am going to play the "Spoil sport" here.
What is this thread about? "Employability of Graduates" or "Ability of Employed Graduates" ?

Very well said !
We kind of drifted from the topic. Let us stick to the main topic under scanner.

[Samurai]

If only the students ask themselves this question before entering college...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siu6JYqOZ0g

[gk01]

Came across this article.

I am inline with the writer. It really boils down to parenting. When these wrong notions are sown right in the childhood, nothing, not even the system can help them change their mindset easily.

[Warwithwheels]

Government approves scheme for setting up 20 IITs in public private partnership mode

Government has approved a scheme for setting up 20 IITs in PPP mode with an overall outlay of Rs 2,808.71 crore, the Lok Sabha was informed on Wednesday.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/h...w/17502172.cms

[sgiitk]

So we go down the drain. By all accounts except for one (Gandhinagar) the rest are in serious trouble. They are unable to attract or retain good faculty. One of them (the one responsible for the Akash fiasco) is becoming an image of a group in Agra with areas of research like Quantum Consciousness. I am glad that I am retiring soon, so will not see the end.

After all what goes up must come town, and no IIT has succeeded in establishing traditions like Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, MIT, Aachen, etc. Traditions is what keeps these great institutions going.

[humyum]

Oh well, met a recruiter and the experience was horrible to say the least

Looking at my CV he said,

I would look at it sceptically as you have a foreign bachelors and MBA and an Indian Diploma.

I was like 'Why' ?

He said 'Oh, dad suddenly got money and after your Diploma thought will send my son for a bachelors and MBA to UK and saved his son from slogging it out in India'

I was so aghast, What makes him think that education is not 'Slogging' in UK ?

I argued saying ' the education system is more self learning types in UK then, load and vomit types in India'.

Ultimately I gave up and he was like 'this is how recruiters think in India', all of them.

Is that really so ?