Employability in year 2011

As we get ready to usher in 2011, most parts of the world are staring at economic reality and uncertain future. No one knows for sure in India, how many are employed for a livelihood. Last cited information indicates a total of 459 million people with 7% ( 26 million) under organised employment. A recent reference by the Ministry of Labour indicates that Contract labour is 130 million. The rest would  presumably be self employed and or engaged in agriculture. While this is where we stand today, future forecast states that India would be needing 240 million new work force by 2022 and  another 80 million by 2015 as per CII estimates. So, what is happening on ground. Most employment surveys indicate, that hiring has improved , doubt remains if that is actually creating the millions.

If this is the demand side, let us look at the supply side. More than 240 million would pass out from schools and vocational education would be needed for 170 million students. The remaining may need higher education. The current capacity of our infrastructure is barely 3 million students in higher education. Shortages of trainers, vocational education infrastructure is apalling . All the major private players in vocational education space can barely address intake of half a million a year.

I wonder if the Government is actually serious in doing something about this gap. Take a look at skilled resources who are retiring out of defence forces every year. A backlog of nearly 2 million retirees already exist, and yet they have hardly any meaningful resettlement plans while the industry is supposed to be starving for skilled talent. Simply by using this abled work force by transferring their current skill set into corporate requirement can help in mitigating some of the acute shortage that industry is clamouring e.g., in the Automotive industry a significant population can be absorbed in franchise network across the country.

The government seems to be more worried about assessments and certification. Since government is not likely to be the largest employer , certification should be driven by industry. Most businesses are looking at rural economy. I am sure opportunities exist in all parts of the country. Creating , mini cooperatives by enabling entrepreneurship can spar rapid economic development. We have seen in the past. AMUL did wonders to Gujarat. China did it 25 years ago, and they have a GDP 5 times of India. L&T realising need for skilled labour in construction has set up a school where training is imparted on the job/ apprentice model. The pass outs are placed suitably. They have stated in ET, that Rs 24000 is the cost incurred by L&T for training vocational skill. Team Lease , a staffing solution provider has plunged into this business. They see it as a natural integration to their core area. They are charging Rs 30,000 to Rs 60,000 per candidate. This means, cost of imparting vocational education is not going to be cheap. Surprisingly Government of India seems to have provided Rs 15 per hour for modular employability courses. Such prices will make a mockery of skill development. These Government run institutes have facilities but no faculty. Some are languishing with out dated equipment and teaching processes.

It is high time , that a cooperative model is created between the private sector and government institutions with least red tapism, if one has to seriously do something about creating employability and entrepreneurship in the Indian sub-continent a partnership model is a must. The key enablers would be to draw out a curricullum based on industry needs, faculty with industry experience ably supported by performance and learning and development experts. While this can come from the private sector, the Government , should make available their current resources and facilities. Industry can augment investment in technology and tools for the prepare phase and support employment post training. Such a model can address the needs

Is training a performance enabler or a measure of employee welfare?

Most organisations cut training expenses, whenever cost reduction is an imperative. During the recession, training expenses, manpower and associated costs bore the brunt. Now, when economic revival is visible, are companies spending on training? It appears that many organisations are following a cautious approach and training budgets are assigned after high degree of scrutiny and diligence. Decisions are now being taken at an executive level, even for a minor expense. Consider this paradox; most training expenses are booked as a measure of employee welfare rather than skill development solution. These days, several international training companies are doing good business, while the Indian ones are struggling to keep afloat. It appears that the certificate brand as perceived by the employee, as opposed to actual operation effectiveness and business impact is a key decision consideration. Often, training vendors are requested to submit a proposal to impart 1 day training as a part of a business meeting. No ADDIE here, period.
How did we get to this state of affairs?
In the earlier times, management trainee scheme was employed as an investment for developing the employee – using on the job exposure and classroom training, with a graduation like ceremony for successful completion and final placement. This was practiced in segments like Banking, FMCG and diversified groups like Tata’s. The businesses valued knowledge and skill in their command and control based organisation. With emergence of IT and OA in the early 80’s, Customer interactive skills like selling and client handling gained ground as a trend setting strategy used to educate the market- picked up from the pharmaceuticals. In the 90’s, when Indian economy opened its door, operations training through compliance requirements like ISO, six-sigma, CMMI, led corporate training as a measure to improve business competitiveness. As India moved ahead in this millennium, and information management driven through technology acquired high importance, measurement of performance got the focus. Since most business processes got automated (by-product of ISO and business process management) with better metrics management, training as a performance enabler got detached from the business performance. The metrics captured the outcome, but failed to capture the in process measures e.g. ., if “x” no of calls led to 1 order, (this got captured) but definition of a call standard was not. Since training enables better performance through modified behaviour (skill development), the enabling measure was missing. In the earlier days, this was well aligned. Take for example a repair technicians performance measure when post training intervention could impact repair at first call performance based on an acceptable standard. We now have a situation, that what get’s measured reflects the results but no further drill down is possible, because some of the process steps are missing. For training related intervention, many CEO’s fail to see the connection between training and performance due to absence of credible analytics.
How does the future hold?
Training will continue to be viewed as a dispensable performance enabler. Given the global business trends, the IBM CEO Study of 2010 indicates that people skills have reduced its importance from 2nd most to 4th position. It appears that training and development needs to redefine in the changing scheme of things. Focus , will shift from how well you do something to how well you know something, given, that further technological advancements may trigger solutions requiring little or low skills.
My two cents?
L&D must make the first move by talking metrics and talking performance. Vendors and training departments must collaborate to ensure that a feel good employee welfare workshop is not labelled training. Every Rupee spent in training must be measured for returns like any other investment. The function must necessarily help create and or facilitate measures that can accurately convey the impact of the training intervention by aligning skills to the business process. Take for example a measurement of a business meeting. The end outcome of this meeting could track participation index, decisions arrived, post meeting actions executed on time. If all of this is developed into a work process, a training intervention will reflect results. The important thing here is to get to this stage so that measures are aligned to the work process.

Make learning relevant to enhance performance

It seems to me that training is evolving . At the time it was initiated , the core objective was to bring employees and workers upto speed through a consistent set of practices, replicable for implementation by all. Look at armed forces - they have institutionalised training to performance, very effeciently and effectively. Regular , knowledge and skill enhancement is critical to create combat readiness and edge. They have perfected the art of blending competencies, subject expertise, applied skill and behavorial skills needed to create a well orchestrated fighting force , battle ready for cohesive functioning - perfect link between performance environment and learning environment. All learning moments are taken care off.

Do we see this happening in the corporate world ? Opportunity exists in making this alignment happen. First , the similarities : Both business and defence environment calls for high level strategic planning and thinking- addressing risks and uncertainity. This needs perfect execution through efficient work processes . The difference arises where skills are involved. Army has a bank of skill inventory with proficiency measurement system ranging from a novice to a instructor level, coroporate world hardly has one. Alignment to the performance environment is at best fuzzy.That is where the trouble is. Most corporates view training as a program and not neccessarily integrated with the work. Army sees it as an integral process and critical to survivality. Time has come to study the performance environment more closely and develop knowledge and skill solutions that can meet the performance needs.