How education connects to the country’s development?

This week several former soviet countries are celebrating their Independence Day, among them the 2 dearest to me – Moldova and Ukraine. A lot of articles are written these days about how the countries had developed for the last 18 – 20 years. What was good, what was bad, what could have been better…still majority of the articles are about politics, economy and social life, few are about education, about personal and professional development of the citizens, and what even fewer about the interconnections of the social elements: how politics influences economics, how economics influence social life, how education influences politics, economics and social life. As I really believe that when you take all the components and their interconnection you can make a true analysis.

One of the articles about the development of Ukraine somehow tries to do that and I recommend for you to read it when you have the time, here is the link: http://focus.in.ua/society/59015.

What I would like to speak about in this blog post is to try to answer the question: how education is influencing the country’s economic development? On the other hand economy is the engine of development of a modern country, so actually the question goes broader: how education is influencing country’s development?

Generally there are 3 big factors of education influence on the economical development of a country:
- The quantity of education (coefficient of influence 34% of maximum 100%)*
- The quality of education (coefficient of influence 41%)
- The quantity and quality of education (coefficient of influence 48%)
*according to a 10 year study of the Research center of Colombia University

Now let’s take them one by one:
The first factor is quantity. This is characteristic to ex-soviet countries were education was mainly for free, and around 95% of young populations were graduates of basic schools and more than 80% of higher education. On the short term this system was showing good results after the Independence. Young people were high ranked on the international labor market and also internally economy was showing signs of development. On the long run though the system showed itself as rigid and not flexible. More and more students & companies today are saying that they are not going in the same direction.

The second factor is quality. This situation is characteristic to western cultures and countries: Great Britain, Belgium, and USA. The focus of the education system was on quality, in these countries it is really hard to get to higher education. High quality education actually has transformed here into a privileged attribute of life. From economic point of view it this strategy had a good impact, as important jobs were done by high skilled people, still socially the impact was not as great, as a lot of dramas are happening in the lives of young people that did not succeed to get to a good university.

The third factor is quantity and quality. This educational system is specific to Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland) and some Asian countries (Taiwan, Korea). In this countries % of people having free access to education is high and the quality is one of the best in the world. As a result for the past 10 years these countries are rated in top 10 places where the standards of living are highest.

But here is the paradox; it is connected to what I was saying earlier, that all the elements of the country’s system should be in synergetic development. In the top 30 countries of the world with best education: Finland, Korea, Japan, Sweden, Great Britain, Russia…these countries are also in top 30 of the other ranks: the countries with biggest suicidal rate; the countries with the unhappiest people. So great education that leads only to great economic results does not necessary leads to a happy nation.

From my point of view education should not be connected only to the economic growth, but to the life of the individual, because from 168 hours of the week only 40 hours we are spending at work…that is why the curricula’s should be more balanced…

The transition period has passed for the ex-soviet countries; it is time to stop blaming the “old regime” and start being a better nation and country – today. But we can only do that if all the country’s stakeholders unite together!

My inspirations for this article:
- Independence Day
- “The influence of the educational quality on the economic prosperity” (MPA – Environmental Science and Policy, Columbia University, May 2009)
- Article from focus.in.ua

Stop filling the gaps, use the strength!

Yesterday I was evaluating the sales meetings that I had in June and an interesting fact attracted my attention – majority of my meeting were about the weakness of employees.

Usually during a sales meeting I am writing the questions that arise and the issues that are discussed in order to develop the educational program that really fits the needs of the company. So I was going through all the questions and topics and the word “weaknesses” was keep popping up all the time.

I was talking about my discovery with my colleagues and also with some of my fellow trainers, it is a fact – majority of the meetings between a training company and a potential client are like a doctor consultancy: what hurts your company?

But at the same time analyzing the answer to the question i am putting at each meeting “how do you measure, track, capitalize on the developed knowledge, skill or competency?” were quite vague. This is usually what happen, we identify that there are gaps in our employees, we do a training to fill the gap, then we continue to assess new needs and new gaps, considering that previous filled gap is somehow performing on its own!?.

In 2004 Gallup made a research on “how do people use their strengths at work?”. They had over 900 000 interviews, in over 20 countries and the results were quite astonishing: only 20% of the interviewed said they are using 100% of their strengths at work, and only 18% actually know what are their strengths actually.

The main conclusion that we can drag out of this research is actually a question that all HR Managers and trainers should put to themselves: how would a company perform if its employees would know their strengths and use them for 100%?

How many trainings or long-term educational programs you see today that would sound like this: “You are great in sales, negotiations and persuasion? Let’s keep the level of the skill at a high level and let’s make it more effective”! Well…sincerely speaking… I did not see many…but corporate education should also do this. Development is not only about identifying and healing the weak points, it is also about constant shaping the strengths and using them.

I quite often during the sales meeting use the example of football. High performing teams are those that use the strengths of the players, not focusing on the weaknesses. The player of the year 2009 – Lionel Messi, is short, he cannot shoot with the right leg and he loses majority of the 1-to-1 physical contacts on the field.

But he became the best player, because his coach knew how to use his strengths: speed, agility, vision of play and transform strength in performance and results.
Yes, weak points of the employees should be identified and trained, but what is more important is how to transform the weak point into strength, and how afterwards to really capitalize on it.