A job interview

Pre-reading task

1. Have you been for a job interview at some time? If so, how did you feel before, during and after the interview?

2. What are some of the things that you feel create a good impression in an interview?

Do you feel terrified when you go for a job interview? I think we all feel the same way to a greater or lesser extent! Basically you have to learn to 'sell' yourself. You have to convince yourself that you deserve to get the job and, what's more, that they are lucky to get someone like you to work for them! All it takes is practice and a little confidence.

It's natural for us, during the course of the interview, to think of the reasons why we shouldn't get the job rather than why we should — for example — the qualifications aren't quite right, the job sounds far too demanding, can I take the responsibility? Have I been out of the work­force for too long? Have I got the communicative ability to cope with it? Instead of concentrating on your weaknesses, concentrate on your strengths. Instead of worrying about the fact that you're 'too old', think about all the wisdom and experience you can bring to a job which a younger person perhaps can't.

It's a good idea to spend some time trying to sort out what the employer wants. Don't go into an interview 'blind' — do some home­work. Even if the job functions seem obvious, make a list of them start­ing with the most important ones. Then under each function put down two or three things you have done that are relevant. For example, if the job calls for 'organising ability', list all the things, inside and outside of employment, that you have organised - even if it's only a local 'bring and buy' stall! If you're changing jobs, emphasise your skills and not your official title of employment. Many skills are transferable and what you must emphasise is how your skills can be transferred from one field to another. Such skills could include selling, writing and editing, speaking, organising, managing, supervising, raising money. If you think about your skills and experience and how they could be relevant to the job you're seeking, you'll feel much more prepared and confident. Talking to people, in the same or related fields, and looking through professional journals are other hints for successful preparation for the job you deserve!

Looks do count unfortunately! If you're going for a high-powered secretarial post or an important managerial job, don't wear your jeans! Wear something that you know looks good and is suitable for the type of job you're seeking. Pretend it's your first day — what would you wear? It's always the first few minutes of the interview that are worst! You could try breaking the ice by asking a general question about a book you've noticed on the interviewer's shelf. As the interview progresses, don't be afraid to ask questions about the job. For example, 'What is the day-to-day routine like?'; 'Where did the person who had the job before me go?'; 'What are the possibilities for growth and expansion'?; 'When are the busiest times?'; 'What are the biggest problems?' You can also be much more specific: 'I see your sales are up this year, can you tell me why?' Showing your knowledge reveals commitment and interest.

Remember that selling yourself means that you are in charge of what you want to communicate about yourself. You don't have to be pushy or aggressive to get your points across. The interviewer wants to hear your ideas, particularly if they reveal the way you'll approach your job. Finally, when answering the very common question, 'Why do you want this job?', try to reply with the view of your employer's needs in mind rather than your own. Talk about the job — what challenges it presents and why you are the person to handle it. Discuss your aspirations in terms of the company's growth. For example, 'I plan to be a top sales­person one day and I believe this firm will offer me the opportunity to show what I can do.' And after all this, don't be discouraged or lose confidence if you don't get the job!

to sort out – разсортувати, розібрати, навести порядок, владнати

stall – кіоск, “розкладка”

to emphasise – підкреслити, наголосити

looks – зовнішній вигляд

to break the ice – зняти усі бар’єри для спілкування

routine – [ r u: t I: n ] - розпорядок

pushy – агресивний, нав’язливий

Discussion

1. To which extent do you think personal looks matter during a job interview?

2. Do you believe that it is necessary to sell yourself at an interview? Do you think that you should hide your weaknesses and show your strongest points?

3. Does an interviewee have to tell the truth about himself/herself and nothing but the truth? Why or why not?

4. Do you think it is important to find out about a position offered as much as possible? If so, how would you do that?

IS AGGRESSION NECESSARY?

Pre-reading task

1. How do you define aggression?

2. Do you need to be competitive and aggressive to survive in our society? Support your arguments with examples.

3. Is it possible to be competitive without being aggressive? Explain with examples.

Some scholars have suggested that certain kinds of aggression are useful and, perhaps, even essential. Konrad Lorenz, for example, has argued that aggression is "an essential part of the life-preserving organization of instincts." Basing his argument on his observation of nonhumans, he sees aggressiveness as being of prime evolutionary importance, allowing the young animals to have the strongest and wisest mother and fathers and ena­bling the group to be led by the best possible leaders. From their study of Old World monkeys, the anthropologist Sherwood Washburn and the psychiatrist David Hamburg concur. They find that aggression within the same group of monkeys plays an important role in feeding, reproduction, and in determining dominance patterns. The strongest and most aggressive male in a colony will assume a dominant position through an initial display of aggressiveness. This serves to reduce subsequent serious fighting within the colony (the other males know who's boss). Furthermore, because the dominant male domi­nates reproduction, the colony increases its chances of survival as the strong male passes on his vigor to subsequent generations.

With these data in mind, many observers urge caution in attempting to control aggression in man, suggesting that, as in lower animals, aggression is necessary for survival. This reasoning is based, in part, on the assumption that the same mechanism that drives one man to kill his neighbor drives another to "conquer" outer space, "sink his teeth" into a difficult mathemati­cal equation, "attack" a logical problem, or "master" the universe.

But this is probably not true. Overt aggression is no longer necessary for human survival. Moreover, to equate creative activity and high achieve­ment with hostility and aggression is to confuse the issue. It is possible to achieve mastery of a problem or a skill without hurting another person or even without attempting to conquer. It is possible to reduce violence without reducing man's curiosity or his desire to solve problems. This is a difficult distinction for us to grasp, because the western mind — and perhaps the American mind in particular — has been trained to equate success with vic­tory, to equate doing well with beating someone. M. F. Ashley Montagu feels that an oversimplification and misinterpretation of Darwin's theory has provided the average man with the mistaken idea that conflict is necessarily the law of life. Ashley Montagu states that it was convenient, during the industrial revolution, for the top dogs, who were exploiting the workers, to justify their exploitation by talking about life being a struggle for survival, and about it's being natural for the fittest (and only the fittest) to survive. The danger, here, is that this kind of reasoning becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and can cause us to ignore or play down the survival value of non-aggressive and noncompetitive behavior for man and other animals. For example, Peter Kropotkin concluded in 1902 that cooperative behavior and mutual aid have great survival value for many forms of life. There is ample evidence to support this conclusion. The cooperative behavior of cer­tain social insects, such as termites, ants, and bees, is well known. Perhaps not so well known is a form of behavior in the chimpanzee that can only be described as "altruistic." It goes something like this: Two chimpanzees are in adjoining cages. One chimp has food and the other doesn't. The foodless chimpanzee begins to beg. Reluctantly, the "wealthy" chimp hands over some of his food. In a sense, the very reluctance with which he does so makes the gift all the more significant. It indicates that he likes the food and would dearly enjoy keeping it for himself. Accordingly, it suggests that the urge to share may have deep roots, indeed. But Kropotkin's work has not been given much attention —. indeed, it has been largely ignored — perhaps because it did not fit in with the temper of the times or with the needs of those who were profiting from the industrial revolution.

Let us look at our own society. As a culture, we Americans seem to thrive on competition; we reward winners and turn away from losers. For two centu­ries, our educational system has been based upon competitiveness and the laws of survival. With very few exceptions, we do not teach our kids to love learning—we teach them to strive for high grades. When sportswriter Grantland Rice said that what's important is not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game, he was not describing the dominant theme in Ameri­can life; he was prescribing a cure for our over-concern with winning.... Vince Lombard, a very successful professional football coach, may have summed it up with the simple statement, "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." What is frightening about the acceptance of this philosophy is that it implies that the goal of victory justifies whatever means we use to win, even if it's only a football game — which, after all, was first conceived as a rec­reational activity.

It is certainly true that, in the early history of man's evolution, a great deal of aggressive behavior was adaptive. But as we look about and see a world full of strife, of international and interracial hatred and distrust, of senseless slaughter and political assassination, we feel justified in questioning the survival value of this behavior. The biologist Loren Eisley paid tribute to our ancient ancestors, but warned against imitating them, when he wrote:

"The need is now for a gentler, a more tolerant people than those who won for us against the ice, the tiger, and the bear."

slaughter – резня, убийство

chimp - chimpanzee - шимпанзе
to thrive – преуспевать, процветать
prophecy – предсказание, пророчество
oversimplify – упрощать
vigor – энергия, бодрость
conquer – завоёвывать

ample – достаточный, в изобилии

Дата добавления: 2015-10-02