Govt skilling programmes struggle to produce workplace-ready talent: Report

A Gi Group Holding report finds gaps in practical exposure, behavioural skills and workplace tools, with only a quarter of participants securing full-time jobs where they trained

Government skilling programmes are not consistently translating training into workplace readiness or full-time employment, with gaps in behavioural skills and exposure to current workplace tools emerging as key barriers, according to a report by global human resources and staffing firm Gi Group Holding, shared exclusively with Business Standard.

 

Only 25 per cent of participants secured direct placement in a full-time role at the organisation where they trained through the scheme, while 33 per cent used their training certificates to seek employment elsewhere, according to the report titled ‘From Degrees to Capability: Redefining India’s Entry-Level Talent Landscape’.

 

The report was based on responses from 1,329 participants, including 750 employers and 579 candidates and early-career professionals, across 12 sectors and eight major Indian cities. Gi Group said the hiring-related findings were based on the Pradhan Mantri Viksit Bharat Rozgar Yojana (PMVBRY), while the findings on government-backed skilling programmes were based on the National Apprenticeship Promotion Scheme (NAPS).

 

 

Gi Group Holding is an Italy-headquartered human resources services company offering temporary and permanent staffing, domestic and international recruitment, executive search, search and selection, recruitment process outsourcing, site-managed services, and HR consulting and training. According to its website, Gi has a direct presence in 37 countries across Europe, the Asia-Pacific and the Americas.

 

In India, it also provides apprenticeship management services under the government-backed NAPS and National Apprenticeship Training Scheme (NATS), including candidate sourcing, onboarding, registration and compliance.

 

The report said that among employers surveyed, 47 per cent said government skilling certificates carried no weight in their hiring decisions, while only 11 per cent said they prioritised or automatically shortlisted candidates with such certificates.

 

It said that among candidates who did not convert training into permanent employment, behavioural agility was the biggest gap, cited by 38 per cent, followed by outdated equipment or software at 34 per cent and wage mismatch at 13 per cent.

 

“The main skill barriers to employability are the lack of soft skills and practical exposure. Some of these skilling schemes are not designed to have practical exposure. We also know that there is the practical exposure which is a ‘check in the box’ and there is a practical exposure where the student or the trainee actually works in real life business or industry scenarios where the experience and exposure is very close to what they would undergo when they actually working as an employee of that organization,” said Sonal Arora, country manager for India at Gi Group.

 

More than 60 per cent of employers said fewer than 40 per cent of entry-level candidates cleared their initial domain and skill assessments, pointing to a wider mismatch between what the education and skilling system provides and what employers increasingly seek.

 

The report also found that employers placed greater emphasis on demonstrated skills and practical readiness than on formal credentials — 76 per cent said they shortlisted candidates based on practical readiness, including software fluency and certificates or internship exposure, while academic merit drove shortlisting for only 6 per cent.

 

Private and edtech certifications were valued most by 45 per cent of employees, nearly twice the 24 per cent who preferred traditional university or college certifications. Government-backed skilling certificates were valued by only 15 per cent.

 

Arora said the preference for private education in India had created a perception that private institutions offered better-quality education and training, which had also carried over to skilling. However, she said the gap was less about investment and more about execution.

 

Private institutions, being smaller and more decentralised, could update curricula faster in response to changes in technology and industry, introduce new courses and phase out outdated ones, while government institutions, operating at a larger scale, often faced longer processes for such changes, she said.

 

“Also the practical exposure (in government institutes) is not as relevant. It’s more like a ‘check in the box’ and their placement cells are not that strong. Whereas the private sector institutions have targets and goals for placements for next year so they seek industry collaborations more actively because they are dependent on student enrollment to keep their business running,” she added.

 

The gap was particularly pronounced outside major cities. Nearly half (49 per cent) of Tier 2 and Tier 3 graduates said they felt completely unprepared when entering their first job, while 67 per cent of Tier 1 graduates said they felt fully prepared. Over 80 per cent said their colleges had not provided access to industry-standard tools or software, while 74 per cent found meeting expected English communication standards difficult. Nearly four in 10 candidates cited a lack of local industry as a barrier to finding work.

 

Nine out of 10 employers no longer treated a degree from a Tier 2 or Tier 3 institution as proof of a candidate’s capability. For half of employers, the degree served only as “Basic Compliance” — an entry requirement, after which candidates still had to demonstrate their skills through separate assessments. Another 41 per cent assigned “Low Trust” or considered the degree irrelevant, relying instead on their own assessments to judge whether candidates had the required skills. Only 9 per cent continued to place high trust in the capabilities of graduates from Tier 2 or Tier 3 institutions.

 

The report also found that responsibility for remaining employable was increasingly shifting to workers themselves. Sixty-one per cent of employees said they were responsible for keeping their skills current, compared with 28 per cent who placed that responsibility on employers and 11 per cent on universities. Among freshers with no work experience, self-reliance rose to 71 per cent.