Newspaper Page Text
November 30, 1984/The Maroon Tiger/Page 19A
By Veronica Green
Business Affairs Editor
The initial objective in inter
viewing is to get a job offer. How
To Get A Better Job Quicker
author Richard Payne, an MBA
from Harvard Business School,
explains step by step exactly how
you can be offered an excellent
position. You may not be the
best person for the job. The key
is to convince the employer that
you can do the job he needs
done. Here are some guidelines
to follow as explained in How To
Get A Better Job Quicker.
A primary objective is to
disclose the needs of your
prospective boss before you
begin to talk about yourself. This
will allow you to relate his needs
to your qualifications instead of
aimlessly talking about yourself.
Thus you can parallel your
qualifications to the prospective
employer’s desire. Find out what
job duties and personal
characteristics are applicable.
Simply explain to the recruiter
that instead of waisting his time
by rambling on about yourself,
you would rather “zero in on the
things you would like to hear
more about.” Or simply state
that you would like to know
more about the job description.
While the interviewer explains
more about the job, be sure to
BUSINESS—
Working Harder On Interviews
ask open ended questions to
improve your understanding of
the employer’s needs.
Secondly, relate yourself to
the needs of your prospective
employer. After the recruiter
explains the type of person he is
searching for, ask for an oppor
tunity to talk about yourself.
According to Payne, “If possible,
categorize your jobs, your
assignments, your experiences -
and talk about them in the
context of one of the problems
your prospective boss has
presented to you.” It is also
important to “offer specific
examples that demonstrate you
have both the experience and
ability your prospective boss is
seeking in the ideal candidate.”
In light of the third objective,
Payne advises that you “Hold
your own under cross examina
tion. This is where the going gets
a little tough. Here the recruiter
may place emphasis on your
weak points and try to pick you
apart. However, do not allow
yourself to be picked.”
The recruiter wants to make
sure he is making a sound
investment. A future student
would not invest thousands of
dollars without finding out what
various colleges have to offer.
Likewise, the potential boss
wants to be reassured that his
prize employee can stand on two
feet and rise to the challenge
with confidence and poise. •
The best way to keep a cool
head is to spend time thinking
about situations and questions
that might be intimidating prior
to the interview. Recuriters often
ask questions in a manner that
would make the average person
angry. It should be noted that if
the question is answered in a
defensive and negative manner,
the boss may feel that you would
handle a similar situation on the
job in the same way. That would
A Civil Rights . . .
(Continued from Page 14)
communications. In recent years
students from Clark College,
Morehouse College and
Spelman College have par
ticipated in NBMC’s internship
program. These interns were
exposed to many facets of the
broadcast industry (com
munity/public interest,
research, law, programming,
advertising and ownership).
In an effort to get students
directly involved with the com
munications industry, the NBMC
has now opened its doors to the
students of the Atlanta Universi
ty Center undergraduate
schools. The students with the
help of Ms, Joan W. Lewis
(advisor) and Pluria Marshall
be bad for business. Instead of
getting upset, approach it with
caution, being aware you can
come up “smelling like a rose” if
you are careful. You will appear
to be a team player who is easy to
get along with when things get
hot.
Allow the cross examination
answers to be short and to the
point. Do not spend the bulk of
the interview defending
yourself. A recruiter however,
may not want to “stop picking a
juicy spot.” Control is once again
have started the first un
dergraduate chartered chapter
of the NBMC.
The students will be responsi
ble for monitoring and in
vestigating every media outlet in
Atlanta, whether it be television,
radio, print or cable media. This
will allow students involved a
chance to deal directly with
media professionals and better
to deal directly with media
professionals and better
enhance their knowledge of the
communications industry. This
chapter will allow any student
and instructortheopportunity to
attain knowledge about the
communications industry.
The Atlanta Chapter of NBMC
invites you and challenges you to
be a part of the pursuit of new
roles and new goals in this in-
the key. After having answered a
question, without hesitation
redirect the conversation to a
more positive area by depicting
yourself in terms of the needs he
previously stated or by asking a
question.
Here I am reminded of a bible
verse that states: “Do you know
that in a race all the runners
compete, but only one receives
the prize? So run that you may
obtain it.” An interview is exactly
the same. “Press on toward the
goal to win the prize....”
dustry.
*For further information
about the National Black Media
Coalition call Kevin Moses at
996-4973 or Joan W. Lewis at 681-
3080.
Julian
Bond. . .
(Continued from Page 18)
was not myth for the men of
Morehouse as displayed at that
impressive assembly. Men of
“The House” are not easily
deceived and we challenge the
administration of College to
bring in more mentors of Bond’s
calibre, because no longer will
the average speaker impress the
only men in the world to possess
the “mystique.”
Is There A Need For US Industrial Policy?
By Mack Mattingly
U.S. Senator (Ga.)
I have chosen to discuss the so-
called need for a U.S. industrial
policy. As trade has grown in
prominence, the debate over
how our own industry functions
has become the focus of many
liberal democrats. Within this
debate, the maladies of the
domestic economy and the high
deficits in our balance of trade
have been used to justify propos
ed national government plan
ning. This kind of planning has
been dubbed “industrial
policy.”
Exactly what is an industrial
policy? I believe the definition of
the term isasvagueand inconsis
tent as the proposals some in
Congress and some Democratic
presidential hopefuls have in
troduced. If we can assume that
an industrial policy if “an idea
supposedly disgned to make it
easier for people to cope with a
changing economic environ
ment,” as Treasury Secretary
Donald Regan stated, or to make
it easier for the private sector to
compete, we can conclude that
the current fascination with an
industrial policy reflects three
fundamental facts:
1) that the economy is ex
periencing major structural
change which impacts our trade;
2) that Japan’s success in its
export of manufactured goods is
due to it industrial policy; and 3)
that Washington can somehow
make better business decisions
than business can itself.
I believe none of these sup
positions can stand up to the
hard fact that the United States
does not need a federal govern
ment designed industrial policy.
A brief examination of each will
clarity my point.
First, we are correct in assum
ing that theeconomy is currently
experiencing major structural
change which impacts trade.
However, how we approach the
adjustment to that change is the
important point. With a national
industrial policy, the liberal’s
response is to spend more
federal money and suggest more
federal intervention in the ac
tivities of workers, businessmen,
investors and consumers. They
promote a national industrial
policy on the selection of an
industry by industry basis and
guide government policies ac
cordingly.
We do not need this kind of
policy. Instead, the federal
government must pursue a
macro-economic policy that
reaches a balance of domestic
measures designed to create a
favorable environment for
domestic investment, savings
and productivity gains. This
would include further reduction
in tax rates, regulation and the
high labor costs in those in
dustries which are the most
uncompetitive in world market.
The government must get fiscal
and monetary policy under
control in order to restore
business confidence. More
government intervention will
not achieve this goal.
Second, the success of Japan’s
industrial policy is oversold. For
example, Japan’s Ministry of
International Trade and Industry
(MITI) wanted the Japanese auto
industry to consolidate into two
companies. The companies
refused to go along, and the
Japanese industry, with nine
major players, became the rfiost
efficient in the world.
Even the most ardent sup
porters of the Japanese MITI-
approach admit that most of the
credit for the Japanese
resurgence is actually rooted in
the nation’s high rate of savings
and investment and the ingenui
ty of private entrepreneurs.
Japan is not the only example
which illustrates the deficiencies
of a national industrial policy.
Other industrial nations, like
Canada and France which now
are suffering from the burden of
heavy government intervention
and national planning, are good
case studies.
Third, having once made my
onw business decisions as a
private businessman, I have been
in Washington long enough to
realize that the government does
not have the wisdom or skill to
outguess the workings of the
market or the operation of the
private entrepreneur. The
proposition that the government
can pick the “winners and
losers” is not only beyond the
means of government, it is not
the responsibility of the govern
ment.
Would Georgia fare well by a
government designed industrial
policy? I do not believe so.
Underlying industrial policy
proposals is the need to relieve
the hardship of workers in basic
industries like autos and steel.
Given limited resources, an
industrial policy cannot
simultaneously ease the decline
of traditional industries while
promoting the growth of
promising ones without making
trade-offs or concessions. Con
sequently, the trade of goods
and services in those sectors
prominent in Georgia’s
economy, like in the service
industry and in agriculture,
would suffer since all secotrs to
which an industrial policy
applies must compete for the
limited resources available.
Furthermore, ideas of an in
dustrial policy conjure up images
of protectionism. There can be
no federal industrial policy
without some form of protec
tionism and protectionism is a
bad idea for trade in Georgia.
In essence, the choice
between a free-enterprise pro
business, proworkers and pro
farmer policy and a liberal
democratic industrial policy is
this: a choice between having
economic allocation decisions
made by 230 million Americans
acting in the free marketplace, or
20-30 government planners ac
ting collectively in a political
arena. I would certainly choose
the former and hope all of you
would, too.
Our past experience with
liberal domestic economic
policies proves the kind of policy
I recommend to be the most
effective. Until the 1980 elec
tions, the United States had a
disguised macroeconomic in
dustrial policy and one that
failed. It was one of high taxa
tion, increased government
spending, overregulation, no
real growth, low productivity
ancould justify.
Since 1981, government and
business have pursued the most
pragmatic industrial policy
namely, to produce a low tax
rate, tight inventory levels,
trimmed labor costs, accelerated
depreciation, deregulation and
increased innovation and
productivity. This is a free-
enterprise proposal which
responds to today’s marketplace.
We must continue to respond to
structural economic changes in
this manner.