Monday, February 21, 2011

Professional Communication - Level Playing Field?

Normally I use this space for more light-hearted affairs. This time though I have a more serious message that I want to articulate. The gravity of the matter at hand has got me thinking about the validity of some of the things I've learnt in this module, as well as the nature of professional life and professional communication.

As I approach my graduation date I find myself going to several job interviews, as do many of my peers. I am one of the lucky ones; I got a job offer on my first attempt. Some of my friends aren't that fortunate though, and I want to highlight the plight of one of them. Lets just call him Karl for now.

Karl is a brilliant student; in fact when I saw him waiting outside the same interview room as me I was seriously hoping they was more than just one job vacancy, else he would surely be picked over me. As it turns out though, they were looking to hire several engineers, and I received an offer shortly after. Karl however, did not.

The problem with Karl is that he has a speech disorder. He stutters when he speaks so it takes longer for him to finish a sentence. This problem had apparently cost him a position with this company, something I found out as he was relating to me the phone conversation he had with the company's HR department shortly after the interview. He would also go on to tell me that he expected it and that it was not the first time.

I find the whole situation grossly unfair. Stuttering does not affect ones ability to be an engineer. Especially for that particular job we were applying for. Naturally he would have to talk to other people but it was not as if he was incoherent. Why should he be penalized for something that he could do nothing about? Is it a question of ignorance on the employer's part, or am I simply being naive? In any case it does not make sense to me.

This was what made me re-examine everything I had learnt in this module thus far. Karl could have composed the perfect cover letter, typed out an exemplary resume, and read every single article about EQ and IQ every written, which would have opened many doors for him, but he would still be promptly shown out of many of those doors as well. 

I arrived at the conclusion that many of the so called "rules and guidelines" of professional communication are not universal in nature, and as any engineer or scientist would tell you, non-universal laws = not cool. I am not saying they are not meaningful though; I have found that many of the things I have learnt thus far to be very useful, and can only be made more meaningful to me if someone gave me an 'A' for it (well it would be nice at least...). 

I suppose what I am trying to say is that while we may religiously adhere to these "rules", it is no guarantee that the person on the receiving end would extend us a similar courtesy. Perhaps that is the one true universal rule of professional communication.


2 comments:

  1. Sup man,

    I'm not sure how to help you, Faizal. I can only tell you success is a matter of luck! The person who rose to CEO may have many things going for him, but he also needed favors, openings, bys and through passes to get him from state zero to CEO. Similarly for your friend, he just went out of luck, while you were also simply lucky to get the job because luckily the job hirers saw something in you which you had also luckily presented. Not that preparation for the interview is useless; but no matter how you prepare, there still exists an unknown element of mystery, such as who the job interviewer might be, what his temper is like, and his state of emotion that day, as well as any surprise question he may throw at you which you couldnt prepare for. All these is why I say, Faizal, success is a matter of luck. No man on earth can claim objectively that they are brilliant, good, fantastic, perfect, because they simply are not perfect. A man's success is very much contingent on factors such as the nature of people around him, the atmosphere in the environment which surrounds him, as well as his own ability to make his own success which is also luck; because if a man took a course on professional communication and found it useful when he landed himself with a pretty girl, it was because he was lucky enough to have known about the module from somebody or some source, lucky enough to then somehow decide to take that module, and finally lucky to therefore have acquired the ability to communicate professionally; and further on he was lucky to have met the girl and somehow decided through his mating instinct to use the skills on the girl. So it's luck, luck, luck.

    I'm lucky to have read this post and give a reply to you too, Faizal. I'm also lucky to have known that success is a matter of luck, because I happen to study philosophy at some point in time in the past on my own, and I wouldnt be able to tell you this without having read about the things that I learnt. Some subcultures call luck grace, but that is a sensitive word, so I rather use luck! Haha!

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Faizal,

    I totally understand how you are feeling about this. In fact, when I first saw the title of this, I had a strong instinct that you were going to narrate this incident.

    Well, it does seem unfair from our point of view (yes, very idealistic). However, in the harsh reality of the corporate world, there are bound to be 'injustice'. Consider yourself to be in the shoes of the HR managers, there are 2 interviewees, both with similar experiences and knowledge. What distinguishes one from the other? Any slight imperfections in one would enhance the chance of the other. Such imperfections might be 'negligible' in normal situations but in a sense, this is a competition, to vie for the engineering position.

    In this case, while he does not have to make fanciful presentations to wow clients, he has to communicate with his colleagues on a day-to-day basis. When things go well, they might be able to ignore his stuttering. However, during a tense situation, his stammering might aggravate his colleagues' impatience.

    It makes good sense for the HR managers to be more guarded and so they decide to 'play it safe' by choosing you over Karl.

    ReplyDelete