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”.
It is a very clearly written article, with focus on an issue, which is often ignored in theory and practice. It is written with a purpose, which is noble and universally admirable.
ReplyDelete"Training" Engineers to make them job-worthy is the most effective way of making our resource use optimal- I mean most efficient.
Bridging the gap between our University education and the requirements in practice, is the most needed service. This is a gap existing in all fields of our education system- engineering, economics, management, technology and poliyicval science--to name only a few.
I hope that most engineers-both during the process of graduation and during the phase, after obtaining degrees and seeking jobs, would take advantage of your services.
I am sure that your article would be widely read and responded. sender. VRP- an economist
This is typically the experience of most of the managers too. We have seen many times that an engineer who is rejected by Project Manager 'A' is very well groomed and assigned a key project by another Project Manager 'B'. The prime difference is in using EFFECTIVELY the engineers' Attitude, Skills,and Knowledge (ASK). When there is some deficiency in the SK (Skills/Knowledge) elements, it can be filled in by some amount of training. I am strongly believe in that !
ReplyDeleteHowever, Attitude is a key factor which brings the big barrier in 'Training' or 'Trainability'. And again, this is not just the attitude of Engineer. It goes with the attitude of Manager as well. If Manager PERCEIVEs that the engineer is not worth the training, there can be a situation where the Training is not UTILISED for the project. Even in that case, the engineer is blamed (for having wasted the money on the training).
Summary: We must have an open environment where Learning is isolated from Perceptions/Expectations of OTHERs. When I say OTHERs, it means many things... I leave it to you to define it.
Definitely all Indian students - with working English knowledge are trainable. I have hired and trained enough with high success rate.
ReplyDeleteThe fear to learn and survive is one good quality, you can never find in any country.
See the quality of life, IT industry has brought to India. Thanks to all the big shots, who helped this.
I hope the leaders of NASSCOM would help all who want to suceed.
I can't understand why software people is worrying so much. They are the worst recruiters I have seen. They pick of some specialist engineer to write some other task which is not at all a part of his curriculum. In the long run, I feel this will damage the knowledge base on India.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note...
ReplyDeleteI dont like the word "training". Purely a personal dislike. Reminds me of how, in laboratories, rats are "trained" by giving electric shocks on certain routes and cheeze on other. It resembles, to me, "conditioning". Somewhere, it violates what is human in human beings that is above animals. And I dislike it more because the "mass production" approaches that have emerged in the rapidly growing computer industry does seem to resemble this something that I dislike about the word "training". It is applied not only to the recepients of the traing, but is also used to judge the effectiveness of the "trainers"! (Btw, the word trainer reminds me of the fellow in a circus who trains the animals to do all those interesting, un-animalish things that humans love to watch.
Closer to the topic of the article... you say "... some of the participants had become engineers by peer pressure and the herd mindset that we from the corporates had created ...". In my observation and experience, more than the corporates or peers, it's a phenomenon that is related to social pressures about what gives me recognition in the circle of family and extended family and society. Recall what the CEO of an "Product Engineering" company told me 3 years ago... many of his good engineers started leaving after spending about 4-6 years in his company. When he probed deeper, they said that they absolutely loved the work and the pay, but in the area of marriage-veluation, they had started having difficulty because the parents of the prospective spouses had not heard of the name of the company where they worked.
- Pradeep Hatkanagalekar