India’s Textile, Apparel And Garment Industry Does Not Have Only Skills Gap, It Has Leadership Gap Too!

By Dr Owen Fernandes

I spent many years associated with the textile, apparel and garment industry before transitioning into leadership development and the broader field of human development. My academic grounding in textile engineering gave me an appreciation of the science, systems and precision behind manufacturing. My later work with leaders and organizations taught me something equally important: even the best production system ultimately depends on the quality of the people leading it.

That is why I find myself asking a difficult question: Why does leadership development appear to receive so little attention in one of India’s most labour-intensive industrial sectors?

This is not to suggest that the textile, apparel and garment industry does not provide training. It certainly does.

India’s Ministry of Textiles operates Samarth, a major capacity-building scheme intended to provide demand-driven, placement-oriented skills across much of the textile value chain. The scheme was extended upto March 2026 with a target of training 300,000 people. Leading textile and apparel companies are also investing in employee development. Arvind, for example, reports more than 500,000 hours of training and has established GURUKUL as a learning-and-development platform for its employees. These are important initiatives, and they deserve recognition.

But we must distinguish between technical training and leadership development. Teaching someone how to operate a machine, maintain quality, follow a safety process, improve sewing-line efficiency or meet a production standard is essential. Yet it is not the same as teaching a supervisor how to communicate respectfully, manage conflict, build trust, give feedback, recognize distress, motivate a team or lead people through change.

The industry may not have a shortage of training. It may have a shortage of the right kind of leadership training at the levels where people experience leadership every day.

When Production Becomes the Only Language
Textile mills, apparel units and garment factories operate under relentless commercial pressure. Delivery commitments must be honoured. Costs must be controlled. Quality cannot be compromised. Machines cannot remain idle, production lines must achieve their targets, and global buyers expect speed, consistency and compliance.

In such an environment, leadership can easily become reduced to supervision, and supervision can become reduced to chasing output.

The line supervisor is expected to get the work done. The production manager is judged by volume, efficiency and rejection rates. The factory head is accountable for cost, quality and delivery. When these measures dominate every conversation, the human conditions through which performance is achieved may receive attention only when something goes seriously wrong.

Managers consequently learn to ask: “Did we meet the target?”

They may be less prepared to ask:
“How was that target achieved?”
“What pressure did the team experience?”
“Are people afraid to speak?”
“Who is showing signs of exhaustion?”
“What are we doing to develop the next generation of leaders?”

Output matters. But sustainable output depends upon people who feel safe, respected, capable and valued.

The Supervisor Is the Missing Link
In many textile, apparel and garment organizations, supervisors are promoted because they are technically competent, experienced or highly productive. These are legitimate criteria, but they do not automatically make someone capable of leading people.

A technically strong employee may understand the machine or production line but struggle to understand human behaviour. A newly promoted supervisor may know how to correct a fabric defect, reduce wastage or address a sewing bottleneck, but not how to conduct a difficult conversation. Under pressure, instruction can become intimidation, urgency can become aggression, and accountability can become humiliation.

This is not always because supervisors are uncaring. Frequently, they have simply never been taught another way to lead.

International evidence from the garment sector demonstrates that people-oriented leadership training can produce commercial results. A Better Work–Tufts University assessment found that training female supervisors in communication, motivation and effective supervisory behaviour produced an average productivity increase of 22 per cent compared with the control group.

That finding should capture the attention of every textile, apparel and garment manufacturer. Leadership development is not time taken away from production. Properly designed, it is an investment in production.

Mental Health Cannot Remain Outside the Factory Gate
Textile and garment manufacturing can involve repetitive work, demanding targets, shift systems, physical fatigue and continuous pressure around quality and delivery. Many employees may also carry financial difficulties, family responsibilities, migration-related separation and concerns about job security. People do not leave these pressures at the factory entrance.

Mental well-being is therefore not merely a personal matter. It influences concentration, attendance, workplace relationships, safety, decision-making and productivity. Leaders do not need to become therapists, but they must learn to recognize distress, listen without judgement, respond appropriately and create an environment in which asking for help is not treated as weakness.

The World Health Organization estimates that depression and anxiety contribute to the loss of approximately 12 billion working days globally every year. Mental health at work is not peripheral to performance; it is one of the conditions that shapes performance.

Why Leadership Development Remains Uneven
Several factors may explain the industry’s limited emphasis on leadership development.

First, the return from a new machine appears tangible and immediate, while the return from developing a supervisor can seem difficult to measure.

Second, training budgets are often directed towards technical competency, safety, compliance and buyer requirements because these carry visible operational or regulatory consequences.

Third, many textile and garment businesses operate under thin margins and intense delivery pressure. Releasing managers and supervisors for leadership development can be seen as a production loss rather than a capability investment.

Fourth, organizational hierarchies can sometimes discourage questioning. Leadership development, however, asks managers to examine their own behaviour, listen more carefully and accept that authority alone does not create commitment.

Finally, some organizations still consider “soft skills” to be optional. There is nothing soft about resolving conflict, retaining skilled employees, leading change, addressing poor performance or protecting the dignity of workers under pressure. These are hard business capabilities.

From Managing Labour to Leading People
India’s textile, apparel and garment sector is entering a period shaped by automation, sustainability expectations, digital technologies, changing workforce aspirations and global scrutiny of working conditions. Technical capability will remain vital, but it will not be sufficient.

The industry needs leadership development at three critical levels:

• Senior leaders must learn to create cultures in which performance and people development reinforce one another.
• Middle managers must be equipped to lead change, collaborate across functions, coach others and translate strategy into responsible execution.
• Frontline supervisors must develop practical skills in communication, listening, feedback, conflict management, inclusion, emotional intelligence and mental-health awareness.

Leadership training should not be delivered as an occasional motivational event. It should be connected to factory and production realities, reinforced by senior management and measured through indicators such as attrition, absenteeism, grievances, safety, quality, productivity and internal promotions.

The textile, apparel and garment industry has spent decades improving fibres, fabrics, processes, machinery, sewing technology, quality systems and supply chains. Its next competitive advantage may come from improving the experience of being led. India does not need to choose between productivity and people development. Evidence from the global garment sector suggests that better leadership can strengthen both.

A loom cannot run effectively when its threads are neglected. Neither can an organization.

The future of India’s textile, apparel and garment industry will not be woven by technology alone. It will be woven by the quality of leadership experienced by every person from the boardroom to the production floor.

And perhaps it is time we invested in those leaders with the same seriousness with which we invest in the machines they operate.

 About the Author
Dr. Owen Fernandes graduated with honours from VJTI in 1990 and spent 15 years in the textile industry, primarily in sales and marketing, beginning in India before working across Africa and Europe. He subsequently moved into leadership and human development and has spent nearly three decades developing leaders, teams and organizations across continents and multiple industries.