are the graduates and engineers trainable???
An interesting exploration began 3 years ago for me, when I embarked on creating learning interventions that would enable engineers to get corporate ready. Over the years I experienced the immense potential in the engineers who took our programs.
The breadth and depth of learning that got unleashed through facilitated group discussions, reflection and consolidation reinforced my belief that the individuals have inherent abilities.
So I was really surprised to read an article recently which said that according to a NASSCOM report that 90% graduates and 75% engineers were rejected by corporates because they were not worth training. I had heard about "not ready" or "not employable" but “not worth training” was a surprise statement which I am unable to accept or digest.
Over the years we have equated communication abilities to how well a person articulates in English. I agree for a BPO or ITES activity where business is directly linked to speaking English. However technical communication could be easily accomplished through diagrams, small phrases and limited vocabulary.
I had first hand experience of this when I had been to Japan to get trained by OKI engineers. The Japanese engineers knew very little English. And we had been given interpreters/translators. Within three to four days we recognized that the communication was getting awry as the interpreters were only transliterating. We all know what confusion and havoc that can be caused in a technical space. We took a conscious decision to ask the interpreters to just observe and we started communicating directly. And to our surprise with our limited Japanese and their limited English and a white board for drawing figures we were able to do without a language interpreter. Over years I have also learnt that if we have the right questions then language is no barrier. Germans, French, Koreans and Japanese have created global products and work with global clients with no language barrier.
Another interesting observation was the power of group learning. Once the group got comfortable with each other, learning became as enjoyable as a game. Every question brought in a new dimension to the technology learning. I must confess I was surprised at what got generated in the classes. And many of the participants had been rejected by corporates and were without a job for over a year. Right now many of them are working in companies like Aricent, Bosch, Sasken and Huawei and are handling key technology projects.
I attribute this to two factors (there may have been others but these stood out). One the confidence in ones self that I can learn and contribute; two having no fear in asking questions even if it was mundane. I think the technology, tool or platform were just vehicles for learning.
I agree on one count that some of the participants had become engineers by peer pressure and the herd mindset that we from the corporates had created. Hence they probably were in a wrong area. But even these people would typically fit in implementation and testing roles.
I would understand if the corporates had said it does not make business sense to invest in training and we would prefer ready candidates. Even though the time taken for individual abilities to unleash is different for different people, our experience has been that most of them are “trainable”.
An interesting exploration began 3 years ago for me, when I embarked on creating learning interventions that would enable engineers to get corporate ready. Over the years I experienced the immense potential in the engineers who took our programs.
The breadth and depth of learning that got unleashed through facilitated group discussions, reflection and consolidation reinforced my belief that the individuals have inherent abilities.
So I was really surprised to read an article recently which said that according to a NASSCOM report that 90% graduates and 75% engineers were rejected by corporates because they were not worth training. I had heard about "not ready" or "not employable" but “not worth training” was a surprise statement which I am unable to accept or digest.
Over the years we have equated communication abilities to how well a person articulates in English. I agree for a BPO or ITES activity where business is directly linked to speaking English. However technical communication could be easily accomplished through diagrams, small phrases and limited vocabulary.
I had first hand experience of this when I had been to Japan to get trained by OKI engineers. The Japanese engineers knew very little English. And we had been given interpreters/translators. Within three to four days we recognized that the communication was getting awry as the interpreters were only transliterating. We all know what confusion and havoc that can be caused in a technical space. We took a conscious decision to ask the interpreters to just observe and we started communicating directly. And to our surprise with our limited Japanese and their limited English and a white board for drawing figures we were able to do without a language interpreter. Over years I have also learnt that if we have the right questions then language is no barrier. Germans, French, Koreans and Japanese have created global products and work with global clients with no language barrier.
Another interesting observation was the power of group learning. Once the group got comfortable with each other, learning became as enjoyable as a game. Every question brought in a new dimension to the technology learning. I must confess I was surprised at what got generated in the classes. And many of the participants had been rejected by corporates and were without a job for over a year. Right now many of them are working in companies like Aricent, Bosch, Sasken and Huawei and are handling key technology projects.
I attribute this to two factors (there may have been others but these stood out). One the confidence in ones self that I can learn and contribute; two having no fear in asking questions even if it was mundane. I think the technology, tool or platform were just vehicles for learning.
I agree on one count that some of the participants had become engineers by peer pressure and the herd mindset that we from the corporates had created. Hence they probably were in a wrong area. But even these people would typically fit in implementation and testing roles.
I would understand if the corporates had said it does not make business sense to invest in training and we would prefer ready candidates. Even though the time taken for individual abilities to unleash is different for different people, our experience has been that most of them are “trainable”.
