As Education-to-Employment gap becomes worse, the popularity of 'Employability' training grows. This is a worldwide phenomenon: The government usually pays, and many micro businesses are set up every year in the hope that the students will also pay for it themselves. The format is usually cheap and cheerful: Bring in the learner for a few days, tell them how to write CVs, present themselves in the interviews, how to dress, how to shake hands and how to look confident.
Since those people I know in this trade are not stupid, I would think that they are driven either by incredible optimism or sheer opportunism. How else can one believe that if someone was not employable before their kind intervention, they become one just by learning to do better handshakes? There is no denying that learning to write CVs, or doing better at interviews, are important skills; but these things can only work if the students know in the first place what they want to do, and have the right skills to do the jobs they want to do.
Realistically, this is not the job that a 10 day training can do: This should indeed be the function of all the 16/17 years of education one receives before even walking into the 'employability' classes. However, the employability training makes the things worse by attempting to give the answers and pretending to bridge a gap what it can't. Instead of exposing the students to a process of self-awareness and preparation, employability training attempts to give them a magic pill, in a world where there are no magic pills.
However, I come across well-meaning people all too often who wants to be in this 'space'. Having explored this a bit myself, I usually discourage them from getting in. The primary reason is that my belief that this 'space' is full of pretenders and charlatans, who have no skills other than that of cornering some government money, and their practices turn the field into a 'market for lemons', and one can't survive there with any scruples. But, more than that, I don't see, at least within the current practise, how any scalable and sustainable business can be built, which my correspondents are usually trying to do. They talk about the 'huge' opportunity, but usually don't have a model which can take things beyond that one or two schools they know themselves.
This doesn't, however, mean that I think no business models can be built: I just think that those wanting to get in have to think differently. One aspect of this is to seek to change the education system itself, which is what I am engaged in as a part of my day job. However, I also believe that there are other opportunities to create 'employability solutions' and have now developed five questions for the aspiring entrepreneurs wanting to get into this business.
Here are those five questions:
1. Can you build a sustained engagement? I have come to believe that it is not possible to make a student employable by a few days training, and this needs engagement over a longer period of time. In fact, this engagement should be sought as early in the students' lifecycles as possible, possibly in High School or earlier. If this is extra-curricular (which it is likely to be), the activities should be designed to 'nudge' the students into self-awareness and self-paced preparation, rather than posing employability as a quick-and-easy solution.
2. Can you build a 'Freemium' model? The government supported employability programmes is where the scams are. However, the students don't like paying for the Employability programme, because the value of these programmes are uncertain. Any entrepreneurial model have to stand in the middle: Its engagement model should be based on a 'free' component which everyone can do, and then followed by 'Premium' service components which the students would want to buy.
3. Can you scale? This is indeed rather obvious but it is really difficult to scale these programmes. In a way, those who are successful in their careers are not available to train others, which leaves those with employability crisis in their hands to do the training beyond, indeed, the entrepreneur himself. This brings in the technology aspect, though I am often told that the students don't like technology. My point is indeed that using technology is better than using unqualified by trainers, but even before I get to that point, I am surprised that many people believe that the students can be made employable while remaining technology averse.
4. Can you make the students learn themselves? The prescriptive model of learning is mostly out of sync with a changing world, but more so in the Employability programmes. The students must be self-aware and find a path for themselves, picking up knowledge and skills along the way towards their desired objectives: If they can't do that. they are unlikely to be employable. This is a pedagogical issue, but this is also a business model opportunity. Indeed, in the world of MOOCs and YouTube, the content is hardly the problem - and indeed, this is precisely where the opportunity of premium services lie. However, prescribing courses is self-defeating, so one has to ask this as a separate question and not as a subset of Q2 or Q3.
5. Can you expose the students to the world of work? For all the engagement and training, there is nothing like the real thing. It is difficult to make anyone employable without necessarily exposing them to the world of work, either through internships, projects or more sustained employment. Again, this is an opportunity to build services, but this is absolutely integral to the proposition itself. And, indeed, a good programme will manage the exposure - it is not just about going to an office for a few days - and will have definitive outcomes.
Indeed, these are broad top level questions, but instead of going into the discouraging mode that I usually do when told about employability businesses, I have now decided to stick to these questions. I see lot of successful business models are being built, mostly in the developed world, ranging from boot camps to structured internship programmes, and indeed one could construct a business model drawing on these. But, to start, one needs to escape the temptation of following what is usually done - and be ready to innovate.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
A week into lockdown and things are beginning to change. Mornings are late, afternoons are lazier and evenings never end; meditations are filling out the time for Yoga routines and Netflix profiles are strewn with half-finished movies. This state-mandated, state-funded period of idleness is being likened to being called up to serve, but is nothing like that: Such a comparison is really an affront to the idea of service. Instead, this is just one long streak of panic; of the centre not holding and life not going on as usual. With the usual patterns and rules in suspended animation and business talk - and business - being rendered meaningless, space is opening up for unusual questions: Is Capitalism about to end? Is this the death of globalisation? Does it get uglier from here? My grandfather's generation would have scoffed at us. They saw through wars and pandemics. But, in fairness, we haven't had a life-ending crisis of our own. Notwithstanding the experiences of th
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
Meritocracy is a convenient lie, as Socrates foretold, and it is the ballast of the social system we have built. The story goes like this. Once upon a time, we had kings and queens and their families and nobles, who got the best meat and the best mate, and everyone lived happily. But then the things fell apart as luxury corrupted the nobles and feebled the spirits of their offsprings - and the peasants and the artisans came claiming their fair share. So we had the age of revolutions in Europe and North America, when we created a new, fairer social system, under a 'natural aristocracy of men', where destiny was no longer shaped by birth but by intelligence and hard work, and anyone could make it in life. And, everyone again lived happily ever after. Of course, this did not really happen. Slavery persisted, at least for a long time. The 'fair' system mostly excluded the real peasants and workers and once they have done their duty dying for various revolutions, they were s
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.