RK,
You pose a very interesting question. I believe that you are saying that we need to capable of being both the sage and the guide. As you illustrate, the balance between ego drive and empathy possessed by high successful sales people,is what makes make them successful. Trainers, consultants, and teachers need to balance providing knowledge, being the guide, and wisdom, being the sage in order to succeed on behalf of the student and to fill the need for personal gratification. As with effective sales, the balance is dependent on the situation, as you point out. Reading the situation is key, and those who are able to do so are highly effective. This is what makes all of these professions both an art and a science.
Thanks for your posting and insights.
Jh

I use a four stage approach to teaching. This is in order to cover the method the student is most comfortable in learning.

Stage 1 is to discuss the theory and background of what is being taught. It answers the reason why we need to know the material, as well as some concept of what is being taught. I also explain how I will teach. This only works with some students.
Stage 2. Demonstrate. Show how it is done, for the visual students.
Stage 3. Have them perform it while I coach. (Guide on the Side). Tactile students.
Stage 4. They show me. This verifies that they understand and that they are comfortable with the knowledge gained.

Does this approach make sense to anyone else?

As someone involved in both learning strategies and intercultural communication, I think it would be very interesting to explore the difference between the Indian guru and the Western professor. The guru is much more than a “sage on the stage”, partly because there is no stage. But the Western professor is traditionally no more than that. It would even be considered “unfair” and out of place in the Anglo-American traditions to get personally involved in the learning process of students. This probably wasn’t true for the Greeks, as the examples of Socrates and Aristotle demonstrate (Aristotle taught while walking around the grounds with his students). It wasn’t true in the monastic tradition that led to the creation of universities in Europe. And to this day, Oxford and Cambridge remain exceptions by having undergraduates educated through the tutorial system. But the norm in the west is the professor as a broadcaster of authorized knowledge.

This attitude spills over even into corporate training, where it is clearly inappropriate. Fortunately there are a lot of trainers who accept to buck the model and function more creatively by facilitating learning instead of just broadcasting knowledge.

But I think we all have a lot to learn about the best practice in different cultures. For example, the guru is expected to transfer spiritual vision and power (darsana or darshan) to the disciple, an idea that few teachers in the west would consider as desirable, let alone doable.

I believe this is a very diverse group. It would be interesting to compare the viewpoints of different cultures.