Training people is one thing. What comes next is quite another. There is a difference between employability and being employed. There Training people is one thing What comes next is quite another is also a rather significant gap between schools with respect to the percentage of on-campus placement. It also seems to depend on who one speaks with or how numbers are narrated. The employability-to-employment gap, one might propose reasonably enough, is also a problem for experienced workers. The solution mostly offered, across countries, is reskilling, upskilling, or further education. In almost all cases, the argument given is that a transition is needed to some sort of technical or semi-engineering skills. For marketing executives, accountants, administration, the drumbeat remains steady. Learn, and you will rise and run again. That may indeed be the case for some. After all, it is taken for granted that one will upgrade in quite a few industries. Remain stagnant at your own risk. For engineers, reams are being written about the automation of code. The consequential numbers in the wider environment remain elusive. We generally take it that things are eventually sorted out. But then there is the gap between employability and the employed gap. How does one deal with it after coming out of a training course? There is little historical consolation to draw upon. This seems to be a relatively new phenomenon. If it is bad for young engineers, how is it for everyone else?  A natural path of inquiry here should be this: What is happening to engineering to create this gap? Going down that path is not the purpose of this piece, however. We are trying to figure out the “next thing” that people need to do after training. employability and the employed gap Course instructors cannot offer jobs. This is the basic problem today. Therefore, while designing courses, they should jettison the assumption that their students will find a job to apply their training to. Course instructors cannot offer jobs. This is the basic problem today while designing courses, they should jettison the assumption that their students will find a job to apply their training to It is true that some will have ongoing employment, self-employment, or, with some luck, may play a role. But then, there is everyone else in the class. How should a course be designed, then? If I am training to be a project manager, the trainer should embed into the curriculum a basic assumption that I have to run projects without a salary. This will be a massive shift in approach. The core strategy behind the course design will now become financial. Think about it. I am training so that, as a consultant, I can offer a financial return from managing a project that covers my fees and gives my client an appreciable increase in profitability. In other words, my involvement and the quality of my work will make a material difference. This is very tough. Culturally, it is quite likely that a project management trainer will balk at this. And with good reason, too. I would just say that reasoning, while sound, cannot offer income. Doing the numbers in terms of cause and effect is also possible. We have done exercises like these in graduate school. Some MBA programs have tougher math. We pivot in business and even within the profit centres of large companies. The paradigm shift is that project management is no longer a way to marshal tech employees and ensure they are following schedules. It now becomes a direct revenue generator in itself. We have to crack a wall here. This means shifts in roles and hierarchies, and the definition of work. Even in the freelance or SME world, power dynamics will change. Much of this will not happen overnight. In many cases, there will be no shift. This is understood and inevitable. Changes happen in small percentages. The impact of small percentages becomes larger elsewhere over time. I call this off-ramp. In all training programs, this existential need to re-design confronts those who will be trained. It is difficult to say if this will get bigger as a problem. But thinking of a new kind of training approach has to take into account a deepening of what is manifest. There are three factors to consider. One, youth underemployment and unemployment, especially on-campus. Then, there are mid-career redundancies. The third is a greying population in many parts of the world(including Asia). Now, the greying population includes people who are not-so-old but may have to support others who are relatively far more advanced in years(due to longevity). All of them need a gainful income. I do not use the word employment. We are increasingly moving towards a partly post-employment future. The business of training is no longer about designing courses as one used to do. One has to craft a way to a viable future for his/her wards. This is what we are headed towards. Trainers, beware. Note: Cover image is courtesy Unsplash.

The is an opinion piece based on the author’s POV and does not necessarily reflect the views of HackerNoon.

The Off-Ramp Part 1: Training Design and Existential Challenges

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

AI Literacy for SMEs in Southeast Asia

106 Stories To Learn About Education Technology

11 Absolute Most Shocking Things From College Cheating Scandal And How Blockchain Could Fix them…

126 Stories To Learn About Online Education

30 Years of Tech Tools in EdTech Development

4 Companies Providing Education in The Metaverse

AI Literacy for SMEs in Southeast Asia

106 Stories To Learn About Education Technology

11 Absolute Most Shocking Things From College Cheating Scandal And How Blockchain Could Fix them…

126 Stories To Learn About Online Education

30 Years of Tech Tools in EdTech Development

4 Companies Providing Education in The Metaverse

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps