Sahdev, being the youngest (or one among the youngest, being one part of the twins) of the Pandava brothers in Mahabharata, is probably one of the least
celebrated mythical characters. If anything, he's sometimes denigrated for
being 'the silent one'. I still remember one of my former bosses eons back
berating me for remaining 'silent like Sahdev'! This should not, though,
detract from Sahdev's valour - wasn't he the one who killed the evil Shakuni in
battle (I hope I'm right - too lazy to Google for this).
So it was quite a surprise to find the name of Sahadev mentioned in a positive light, that too in a business rag. In a piece on training strategies in the 'Corporate Dossier' section of Economic Times 14-Aug-09, the 'Chief Belief Officer' of Future Group (which runs the Big Bazaar chain of hypermarkets, among other businesses) says "We encourage them (that is, the training participants) to be like Sahadev (who knows all answers but speaks only when asked)...". This is said in the context of the need for the knowledge-seeker to go to the trainer, not the other way round, like king Vikramaditya having to go to the ghost (Vetaal) which is the theme of that piece.
Set me thinking. This quality of keeping mum even when you know all (or most of) the answers is perhaps something to be treasured. I go back to my first training program with an INGO, where the facilitator explained that feedback is appreciated by the recipient only when it's given upon being asked for. That is, unsolicited feedback (or for that matter, any piece of wisdom), many a times in the thin disguise of homilies ('upadesh'), is hardly likely to be appreciated by the recipient, regardless of its intrinsic merits.
At another point, during a session on 'organisational politics', the facilitator dwelt upon the 'four quadrants of wisdom', depicted as four animals - donkey, fox, vulture & owl. Among them, the highest place was reserved for 'the wise owl' who is aware of all the goings on but choses his own time to intervene (or even help others). The Sahadev syndrome again?
There seems to be definite merit in the concept. Learning is lifelong, and we should all aspire to accumulate knowledge all our life as a continous process. But it serves no purpose to fritter away such knowledge on unresponsive minds. The only purpose such unsolicited 'donation' of knowledge may achieve is boosting one's ego, nothing else. Like the 'experts' and 'commentators' I listen to on radio, espcially on the economic/financial programs, who excel in proffering their take on all and sundry issues given half a chance (pity nobody seems to keep track of their 'predictions' and hold them to account for the same).
The ET piece is based on an interesting concept of using the so called 'children's tales', part of India's heritage, as training tools par excellence, and rightfully so. This is in sync with the other pieces in the same issue which describe the increasing use of classical literature for management learning, including at IIMs in India. Pretty interesting. Maybe the 'Panchatantra' tales we avidly read when young would also some day find takers in the business training space?
So it was quite a surprise to find the name of Sahadev mentioned in a positive light, that too in a business rag. In a piece on training strategies in the 'Corporate Dossier' section of Economic Times 14-Aug-09, the 'Chief Belief Officer' of Future Group (which runs the Big Bazaar chain of hypermarkets, among other businesses) says "We encourage them (that is, the training participants) to be like Sahadev (who knows all answers but speaks only when asked)...". This is said in the context of the need for the knowledge-seeker to go to the trainer, not the other way round, like king Vikramaditya having to go to the ghost (Vetaal) which is the theme of that piece.
Set me thinking. This quality of keeping mum even when you know all (or most of) the answers is perhaps something to be treasured. I go back to my first training program with an INGO, where the facilitator explained that feedback is appreciated by the recipient only when it's given upon being asked for. That is, unsolicited feedback (or for that matter, any piece of wisdom), many a times in the thin disguise of homilies ('upadesh'), is hardly likely to be appreciated by the recipient, regardless of its intrinsic merits.
At another point, during a session on 'organisational politics', the facilitator dwelt upon the 'four quadrants of wisdom', depicted as four animals - donkey, fox, vulture & owl. Among them, the highest place was reserved for 'the wise owl' who is aware of all the goings on but choses his own time to intervene (or even help others). The Sahadev syndrome again?
There seems to be definite merit in the concept. Learning is lifelong, and we should all aspire to accumulate knowledge all our life as a continous process. But it serves no purpose to fritter away such knowledge on unresponsive minds. The only purpose such unsolicited 'donation' of knowledge may achieve is boosting one's ego, nothing else. Like the 'experts' and 'commentators' I listen to on radio, espcially on the economic/financial programs, who excel in proffering their take on all and sundry issues given half a chance (pity nobody seems to keep track of their 'predictions' and hold them to account for the same).
The ET piece is based on an interesting concept of using the so called 'children's tales', part of India's heritage, as training tools par excellence, and rightfully so. This is in sync with the other pieces in the same issue which describe the increasing use of classical literature for management learning, including at IIMs in India. Pretty interesting. Maybe the 'Panchatantra' tales we avidly read when young would also some day find takers in the business training space?
No comments:
Post a Comment