Thursday, April 24, 2014

German, Jewish and Neither

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/opinion/sunday/german-jewish-and-neither.html?_r=1
.
Laupheim, a small town in southern Germany, once boasted a large Jewish community and named a prominent street after one of its Jewish sons: Carl Laemmle, who went on to found Universal Studios. But all of that changed in the 1930s. By 1992, when I started fifth grade, Laemmle’s name had long since been removed from the map, and my mother and I were the only Jews in town.
“Allsbach, Lisa,” the teacher asked at the beginning of our first class. “Protestant or Catholic?”
“What?”
“I have to sign you up for either Catholic or Protestant religion classes. So, Lisa?”
“Catholic.”
“Good. Bach, Klaus?”
“Protestant.”
“Emmerle, Johannes?”
The list went on. Soon, I realized, Herr Weiss would get to M. And I still didn’t know what to say — in part out of an instinctive understanding that I would be marked out; in part because, not being religious, really, I didn’t know the right answer.
“Mounk, Yascha. Protestant or Catholic?”
“Well, I guess I’m sort of Jewish.”
Photo
At a synagogue in Frankfurt, West Germany, in 1961, a worshiper showed portraits of relatives killed in the concentration camps.CreditLeonard Freed/Magnum Photos
The class laughed. Uproariously.
“Stop making things up,” Johannes Emmerle, a Protestant, shouted as the hilarity ebbed. “Everybody knows that the Jews don’t exist anymore!”
Herr Weiss reprimanded Johannes. “Don’t talk unless I call on you. We must have order. O.K., Yascha. You’ll have a free period when the others take religion. There’s a Turk in another class, I think. You two can keep each other company.”
Then he added, as an afterthought: “And, Johannes, you are wrong, as a matter of fact. There are a few Jews. Again.”
Johannes wasn’t too far off the mark. Of the more than 500,000 Jews who lived in Germany when Hitler took power in 1933, only about 15,000 remained on German territory at war’s end, and many of them planned to emigrate. German Jews, it seemed, would soon be extinct.
But that extinction never came to pass. Some Jews who had fled the Third Reich returned to build a new, better society. Others, liberated from the concentration camps but without a home to return to, temporarily settled in camps for “displaced persons.” Most of them soon made their way to Israel or the United States, but some got stuck for one reason or another, and never left. As West Germany rapidly grew, more Jews came to the country as businessmen, artists or refugees — especially after the fall of the Soviet Union, when tens of thousands were encouraged to relocate. All told, well over 100,000 Jews now live in the Federal Republic.
My family, too, came to West Germany as immigrants. Born in the shtetls of Eastern Europe, my grandparents embraced Communism as teenagers, leaving home to become political activists. They survived the Holocaust by fleeing to the Soviet Union and returned to Poland after the war, keen to put their ideals into practice at long last. But then the regime they had helped to build threw them out amid a large-scale anti-Semitic witch hunt. Out of options, my mother and her father sought refuge in West Germany.
Born in 1982 as the citizen of a peaceful, affluent and increasingly cosmopolitan country, I spent a mostly happy childhood in places like Munich, Freiburg and Karlsruhe. I was a fervent supporter of the national soccer team and dreamed of running for the Bundestag. German is, and will remain, the only language I speak without an accent.
My family’s Jewish identity has never been strong. I had neither a bris nor a bar mitzvah. When I was young, my mother gave me Christmas presents so that I wouldn’t feel left out.
Even so, as I grew older, I felt more and more Jewish — and less and less German. Gradually, I concluded that staying in Germany was not for me.
The reaction of my classmates in Laupheim might suggest that ignorance or hatred — which have subsided since I was a child, but remain real problems — are why I left. But that’s not quite true. If there was one thing that made me feel I would never truly belong, it wasn’t hostility: It was benevolence.
Starting in the 1960s, Germany began to break a silence of decades about the past. A new generation confronted its forefathers about what they had done during the Third Reich. The country embarked on the slow, painful process of facing up to the enormity of the Holocaust.
As Germany’s understanding of its history changed, so did popular attitudes toward Jews. Especially in the country’s hipper neighborhoods, Judaism was suddenly all the rage. Nary a literary reading failed to feature a Yiddish poem. Few were the gallery openings that lacked an ensemble of Aryans playing klezmer. Especially in the 1980s and early 1990s, it seemed as though the whole country had come down with a bout of philo-Semitism.
I first realized that I had become a flesh-and-blood object for this demonstrative good will when I moved from provincial Laupheim to cosmopolitan Munich. Suddenly, I found myself treated as a kind of celebrity — somebody to be admired for being different, but also to be handled with special care.
When I went to a party thrown by Franz, a high-school friend, I found him in a heated discussion about Woody Allen with a soft-spoken blonde.
“Franz here thinks that Woody is creepy and that his movies are mediocre,” Marie, the girl, told me.
“No, no,” Franz said, turning bright red. “I never said he was creepy or mediocre.”
“You just said he was creepy because he married Mia Farrow’s daughter. And that he’s not as serious as — ”
“Well,” Franz hedged, glancing at me, “I didn’t mean it quite like that. Sure, it’s a little weird that he married his girlfriend’s daughter. But, you know, they were both adults and it’s not illegal, so — ”
“Why are you being so strange?” Marie asked.
“I’m not being strange at all. It’s just important to see both sides of the argument. You make it sound as though I had something against Woody Allen. I don’t. He’s a likable guy. As you said, his Jew humor is admirable.”
Marie turned to me, with a mocking smile. “You must be the reason for Franz’s sudden transformation. What’s the deal? Are you writing something about Woody Allen? Or are you related to him?”
I laughed. “Rest assured that I have no particular horse in this race.”
Franz mumbled, “Well, actually, yes, in a way, Yascha is re — ” Helplessly, he petered out.
“What?” Marie asked. “You really are related to Woody Allen?”
Franz stared at Marie, Marie stared at me, and I scanned the room for a desperately needed drink.
“No, not at all,” I finally replied. “I guess what Franz meant to say is that I’m Jewish.”
Marie gasped. “Oh, how exciting. A real Jew!”
Franz, meanwhile, set about telling me how great a work “Deconstructing Harry” was.
At first, I enjoyed the attention. After living in a place where my classmates had known so little about what it meant to be Jewish, it was nice to be treated with kid gloves. But my excitement did not last long. Increasingly, I realized that the mere mention of my heritage erected an invisible wall between my classmates and me. Back in Laupheim, there had at least been a kind of bravery in asserting my heritage. In Munich, I found myself increasingly circumspect about revealing my identity.
My experience of philo-Semitism had another effect. Until I moved to Munich, I had never doubted that I was a German. But now I realized that even my most well-intentioned compatriots saw me as a Jew first, and a German second. And so I, too, began to identify as more of a Jew than a German.
My feeling of not belonging only intensified as the philo-Semitic moment faded, and a new mood of “enough is enough” took hold. In 1998, the novelist Martin Walser argued that Germans had become unhealthily obsessed with the Third Reich, and that the memory of Auschwitz was increasingly being used to harm Germany. The country, he said, should draw a definitive “finish line” underneath the past. Polls found that most Germans agreed.
Once again, Germany’s changed understanding of its past manifested itself in ordinary interactions. One Saturday morning, for example, I went to Munich’s Oktoberfest with a group of acquaintances. A jolly brass band in lederhosen was playing. We clinked our mugs in a traditional Bavarian toast.
Stephanie, a petite woman in her late 30s, was trying to make a joke. “How do you fit 200 Jews into a Volkswagen Beetle?” she asked.
“Knock it off,” said Hans, a big-boned, folksy friend of mine. “This is not appropriate.”
“Why should I?” Stephanie shot back. “Because you tell me to shut up? Because they tell me to shut up? Come on, it’s just a joke!”
“I doubt it’ll be funny,” Hans said.
“Not funny? Have a sense of humor! Why can’t a joke about the Jews be funny? It’s 2006. The Holocaust happened 60 years ago. We should tell jokes about the Jews again!”
“Look,” Hans said, “you know as well as I do that Germans have a special responsibility to be sensi — ”
“A special responsibility? I’m not even 40! No, no. I won’t stay silent any longer. Here’s how you fit them in. You gas them. You incinerate them. You stuff them in the ashtray. That’s how you do it.”
Stephanie’s tasteless joke allowed me to put in words what had long made me uncomfortable even about less crass advocates of the “finish line.” Clearly, there was something artificial about the ritualistic displays of historical contrition that had long been central to public life in Germany. But to assert that the time had come to move beyond the past, once and for all, was no less artificial. Normality cannot be decreed by fiat.
Both the ignorance I had encountered in Laupheim and the philo-Semitism I experienced in Munich had made me feel like an outsider — but each also made me more determined to help in the creation of a German-Jewish identity. Now that my very presence was enough to make some people resentful, however, I grew impatient with the endless complications of being a German Jew. I wanted nothing more than to be seen, finally, as an individual. And so, despite everything I loved about Germany, and unlike so many other German Jews, I decided to leave.
When I first moved to New York, as a graduate student, I hoped that living here would make it possible for me to choose who I wanted to be. In Germany, I always thought twice before mentioning that my ancestors were Jewish: I knew that, once I’d pronounced that fateful word, I would, in the minds of many, be reduced to it. In New York, a city of more than a million Jews, I found that this hardly changed how others saw me.
Being free to construct my own identity has had an unexpected effect: I’ve come to realize that being Jewish is not particularly important to me after all. Sure, I enjoy “Seinfeld” and a whitefish bagel. But is that enough to make me “culturally” a Jew? I’m not convinced. I can see why many other secular, nonobservant Jews — who speak Hebrew, or grew up following Jewish ritual — feel that being Jewish defines them. But defining myself strongly as a Jew when I know so little about religion or ritual would, I believe, cheapen the tradition I would be claiming to invoke.
New York has given me the same liberty it has afforded generations of immigrants: the freedom to be true to myself. In an age of identity politics, we assume that this must mean the freedom to proclaim one’s identity. But, for me, it has just as much to do with the liberty to shed an identity to which I’d long been reduced.
A true New Yorker, E.B. White suggested, is one who has come to the city “in quest of something.” It is because New York is defined as much by its newcomers as by its natives that I hope to spend my life here. My identity is no longer that of a Jew or a German. It is that of a seeker who has found; that of a stranger who has come to be at home; that of, simply and immeasurably, a New Yorker.
Yascha Mounk is a doctoral candidate in political theory at Harvard and the author of “Stranger in My Own Country: A Jewish Family in Modern Germany.”

Fundação Botin

A Fundação Botín, organização que atua no desenvolvimento social mundial, está com inscrições abertas até o dia 26 de maio para o programa de Fortalecimento da Gestão Pública na América Latina.
O curso é destinado a universitários de 19 e 23 anos, que tenham concluído de 50 a 75% do curso de graduação (não importa a área) até o dia 30 de setembro, e que tenham interesse em seguir carreira no setor público.
Durante oito semanas, os 40 estudantes selecionados assistirão a aulas e participarão de palestras e debates sobre as áreas de fundamentação política, jurídica e histórica, economia, filosofia política e serviços públicos. O programa inclui também viagens acadêmicas e culturais à Espanha, Bélgica e Estados Unidos, além de uma passagem pela Faculdade Getúlio Vargas (FGV), no Brasil. Todas as despesas (passagens aéreas, traslados e alojamento) estão inclusas.
O objetivo da Fundação é desenvolver nos participantes habilidades e competências necessárias para o bom exercício de funções públicas, para que, no futuro, sejam capazes de promover desenvolvimento social, econômico e cultural em seus países. Entre critérios considerados para a escolha dos estudantes, estão trajetória acadêmica e envolvimento com questões públicas e sociais.
http://careers.theguardian.com/careers-blog/strengths-based-job-interviews
.

Strengths-based job interviews: what are they and how do they work?

Strengths-based questioning discovers your interests so recruiters know their job vacancy will suit you. Hannah Friend explores the new approach and how best to prepare
Wave
Traditional competency-based questions are being ousted by a wave of strengths-based questions. Photograph: Nic Bothma/EPA
If you've been for an interview recently, you may have been asked a few curve-ball questions like "are there enough hours in the day?" or "do you prefer starting or finishing things?" These might look like random questions to test your quick-wittedness, but there's more to it.
Traditional competency-based questions, such as "can you describe a time when you've successfully used communication skills?", are being ousted by a wave of strengths-based queries. While it's not a completely new approach, it's being used more and more, and benefits candidates just as much as employers.
Strengths-based recruitment (SBR) has a very simple goal: to find out a candidate's interests. It's still about finding someone who can do the job, but also who will enjoy the role and organisation, and therefore perform better and be more likely to stay in the job. This is a win-win situation for your job satisfaction and saves the employer time, while getting better results.
Elizabeth Bacchus, director of the Successful CV Company, says: "Companies have recognised they are seeing a more genuine insight into candidates with strength-based interviews. When an individual uses their strengths they perform at their best and learn new information quicker."
The process can also be very revealing for the person being interviewed, and help you to work out whether you want the job if offered it.
Sally Bibb, director of strengths consultancy, Engaging Minds: "We have found time and time again that the people who don't get offered the job a) understand why and realise that they wouldn't be happy in the role because it's just not them, and b) don't feel like they've failed as they often do if they don't get through a competency-based interview."
With big names, such as Barclays, Nestlé and EY, using SBR as part of their recruitment process, if you're actively looking for a new job it's not something you can ignore.
Matt Stripe, Nestlé UK & Ireland group HR director, says: "Strengths is particularly useful when recruiting individuals who don't have a lot of experience – such as graduates. It allows us to identify potential and individuals who have the same passion about our industry as we do. It also generates fewer fake, pre-prepared answers, and gives a genuine insight into candidates."
Since SBR focuses on what you like instead of what you can do, you might be tempted to jump for joy and throw your interview preparations out the window; it's easier to identify what you enjoy doing, over where your skills lie.
But like all aspects of interviews, these types of questions still need preparation and careful thought. While you can't change the fundamentals of what you enjoy for a recruiter, thinking about how your preferences fit with the organisation's culture and the job requirements is still important.
Sally Bibb says: "The preparation is about mental state, ie be relaxed, be prepared to be open, think about what you love doing (in life, not just work) and don't try to be something you're not. The feedback we get from the thousands of people who our clients have interviewed for a range of roles is that they enjoyed the interview and the interviewers learned a lot about them as people."
Strengths-based questions will also inevitably show your dislikes, so be honest with yourself and the interviewer about what tasks you don't enjoy.
Lisa LaRue, career coach at London consultancy CareerWorx, says: "It's equally important to understand your weaknesses as interviewers are just as likely to ask questions that aim to uncover these too. A classic question is: 'What part of your job do you enjoy the least?' It's likely that those parts of your job you like least are the areas where you lack natural aptitude or skill."
So as long as you're prepared for both competency and strengths-based questions, this trend seems to be a good thing for potential candidates.
Elizabeth Bacchus, says: "I'm very pleased that companies are recognising that strength-based interviews are giving them much more valuable insights into candidates and how those individuals can add value to organisations. I think it will expand the talent pool and enable organisations to align staff in a more structured and strategic way that will benefit companies."
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To get more content and advice like this direct to your inbox, sign up for our weekly update and careers ebook.

Entrevista de Emprego

 2

Entrevista é a etapa da seleção que mais reprova candidatos

Por Edson Valente | Valor
SÃO PAULO  -  São muitas as armadilhas que podem arruinar as chances de um candidato em um processo seletivo. As mais perigosas são as que se armam nas entrevistas, segundo uma pesquisa da Accountemps, especializada em recrutamento de temporários para as áreas de finanças, contabilidade e escrituração.
O levantamento, conduzido por uma empresa independente de pesquisa, perguntou a mais de 2.100 diretores financeiros americanos em que etapa da seleção os candidatos costumam cometer mais erros. Quarenta e três por cento deles apontaram a entrevista, 11 pontos percentuais à frente dessa mesma resposta em uma pesquisa similar de 2010. Derrapadas no currículo ficaram em segundo lugar pelos dados mais recentes, com 19%.
“Contratações erradas são custosas para o negócio, e os empregadores estão cada vez mais precavidos para não escolher alguém pouco adequado para a vaga”, disse Max Messmer, presidente da Accountemps. “A entrevista dá a melhor compreensão sobre a conformidade do candidato.”
Messmer destaca que é necessário se preparar para essa etapa do processo, o que inclui prever cenários diversos do formato tradicional. Confira algumas possibilidades:
1. Entrevistas comportamentais. Ao responder a perguntas com base em comportamento, do tipo “Pode me contar sobre uma ocasião em que aumentou a produtividade em seu último emprego?”, os empregadores buscam relacionar experiências anteriores com o que deverá ser exigido pela vaga em aberto. Esteja preparado para ilustrar resultados positivos e como resolveu problemas.
2. Entrevistas por vídeo. Skype e ferramentas similares permitem que o empregador analise candidatos com mais facilidade e custos menores. Antes da conversa, cheque se toda a aparelhagem necessária está em ordem, vista-se como se fosse para uma entrevista pessoal, evite desordem ao redor e lembre-se de olhar para a câmera, e não para a tela do computador.
3. Entrevistas múltiplas. Os empregadores querem ter certeza de que estão de fato escolhendo o melhor candidato, com base na maior quantidade de informações possível. Encare a sequência de conversas como uma chance de mostrar suas habilidades mais apropriadas e conhecer melhor a empresa em que porventura venha a trabalhar.
4. Painel de entrevistas. É uma forma encontrada pelas empresas para otimizar o processo de entrevistas múltiplas. Esses encontros podem ser intimidantes; procure estabelecer conexões com cada entrevistador. Olhe-os nos olhos, responda às perguntas chamando a eles pelo nome e peça cartões de visita para enviar mensagens de agradecimento personalizadas.
5. Entrevistas em grupo. São conduzidas pelos empregadores para observar as habilidades de inter-relacionamento dos candidatos. Faça-se ouvir respeitosamente, sem interromper os outros. Embora esteja concorrendo a uma vaga, trate os outros entrevistados de maneira profissional e diplomática.
(Edson Valente | Valor)


© 2000 – 2014. Todos os direitos reservados ao Valor Econômico S.A. . Verifique nossos Termos de Uso em http://www.valor.com.br/termos-de-uso. Este material não pode ser publicado, reescrito, redistribuído ou transmitido por broadcast sem autorização do Valor Econômico.

Leia mais em:
http://www.valor.com.br/carreira/3509380/entrevista-e-etapa-da-selecao-que-mais-reprova-candidatos#ixzz2zpBzIjot

http://www.valor.com.br/carreira/3509380/entrevista-e-etapa-da-selecao-que-mais-reprova-candidatos