India’s youth entrepreneurship wave is expanding fast, but the distance between ambition and scalable leadership is widening just as quickly. Campus ventures are multiplying, early-career professionals are taking on higher responsibility, and companies are expecting sharper problem-solving and digital readiness from graduates.
To understand how young founders are actually performing on the ground, where early teams falter, and what employers will look for in the Class of 2026, we spoke with Kiran Sivadas, Co-founder of Enventure Engineering and Vice-President of the Stanford Seed Transformation Network (STN) South Asia, an alumni community of Stanford Seed entrepreneurs working to scale businesses with sustained impact across the region.
1) What leadership gaps are you noticing among young founders who are entering the market today?
Today’s young professionals are exceptionally aware, globally exposed, and eager to build impact-oriented ventures. Yet, many struggle with translating vision into the kind of leadership that is essential to scale and build a business. One of the gaps I notice often is in disciplined decision-making: young founders often oscillate between over-analysis and impulsive choices, and often end up making rushed decisions that may not align with their original business thesis, leading to what I call ‘business zigzag’. Prioritisation is another challenge. With abundant access to information and tools, many try to do too much too soon, underestimating the power of focus in the early stages.
The transition from individual contribution to team leadership is the most challenging shift. Young founders often carry a “founder-doer” mindset, believing that speed comes from personal involvement rather than from building capability in others. This slows down organisational growth and creates burnout cycles.
Resilience, interestingly, is not lacking in intention but in structure; founders are driven but often do not have the systems, mentors, or emotional buffers needed to withstand long, uncertain build cycles. Strengthening these behavioural muscles early can dramatically change the growth trajectory of ventures.
2) Where do professionals in their 20s and early 30s struggle the most — decision-making, prioritisation, resilience, or the transition from individual work to leading teams?
Among young professionals, the most common struggle I observe is around high-quality decision-making under ambiguity. Early-career talent today enters a workplace where information moves quickly, markets shift rapidly, and expectations for autonomy are high. Many have strong analytical skills but lack the judgement that comes only from iterative, real-world decision cycles.
Prioritisation and focus are another key challenge. With constant stimulation, new tools, competing tasks, and multiple career pathways, the ability to distinguish the urgent from the important becomes crucial. Those who grow fastest are not the most talented but the most disciplined in where they invest focus and attention.
The transition from individual work to leading teams remains the steepest learning curve. Young professionals often struggle with delegation, feedback, and motivating others, skills that require empathy, patience, and the willingness to slow down in order to scale up.
Resilience is becoming more relevant than ever. While this generation is purpose-driven, many underestimate the emotional volatility of building early-stage ideas or operating in dynamic environments. Sustainable resilience requires routines, mentorship, and internal clarity, not just enthusiasm.
Overall, the most significant growth needs lie in behavioural competencies: judgment, focus, communication, and people leadership.
3) Among communication skills, problem-solving, analytical strength, ownership, and digital readiness, which capabilities do you think companies will value most in 2026 graduates?
By 2026, companies will prioritise a blend of analytical capability, ownership mindset, and digital readiness. While communication skills will remain foundational, what employers increasingly want are graduates who can think independently, solve unstructured problems, and adopt new technologies quickly. Digital readiness, particularly the ability to use AI tools productively, will shift from a differentiator to a minimum expectation, as it’s not about AI usage, but what efficiencies one delivers to the business by adopting AI, and how much initiative one has taken to drive change and improvement.
Ownership will be the defining cultural attribute. In an environment where organisations operate lean and cross-functional, employers value graduates who take accountability for outcomes rather than simply completing tasks. This means comfort with learning loops, self-direction, and proactive problem-solving.
Analytical strength, too, will be central, not just numerical ability but the capacity to interpret data, frame business problems, and make informed decisions. Companies will expect graduates to translate insights into action rather than rely solely on managers for direction.
Communication remains critical, but not in the traditional sense. Graduates must communicate across hybrid teams, synthesise information succinctly, and collaborate effectively in fast-moving digital environments.
Overall, the most valued graduates will be those who demonstrate mental agility, adaptability to AI-enabled workflows, and the ability to connect insights to execution, skills that allow them to contribute meaningfully from day one.
4) In your observation, which types of student ventures in India tend to survive beyond the first year, which ones fail early, and what are the key reasons behind these outcomes?
Student ventures in India that tend to survive beyond the first year typically exhibit three characteristics: a clear problem-solution fit, early customer validation, and founders who demonstrate disciplined habits. Ventures in sectors like education, campus-focused consumer products, and digitally enabled services often endure because students can test ideas rapidly within their immediate environment, but that does not need to be considered a limiting factor.
In contrast, ventures that fail early often fall into two categories: ideas driven by trends rather than needs, and ventures that lack depth of execution. Many student teams jump into high-glamour sectors, AI, fintech, or Web3, without meaningful differentiation or understanding of regulatory and technical complexities. Additionally, early-stage founders frequently underestimate the importance of customer conversations, consistent iteration, and building simple, testable prototypes.
A major reason for early failure is capability imbalance within founding teams. Many teams are heavy on technical skills but lack sales, operations, or financial discipline. Limited persistence is another factor; students often abandon ventures after initial setbacks, exams, or internships. Survival ultimately correlates with the founders’ ability to learn fast, focus sharply, and adapt continuously.
5) What capability gaps or consistent sectoral patterns do you see among student entrepreneurs or early-career professionals entering today’s fast-evolving workforce?
Across the student and early-career ecosystem, the most consistent capability gap I observe is the imbalance between aspiration and execution. Young professionals today are highly exposed to global trends, entrepreneurial narratives, and emerging technologies, but many struggle with the fundamentals required to convert ideas into sustained value. The most prominent gap is in structured problem-solving; students often jump to solutions, especially tech-driven ones, without deeply understanding user behaviour or market dynamics.
Another recurring gap is commercial acumen. Many early founders have strong technical or creative skills but limited understanding of go-to-market strategy, pricing, cashflow, or operational discipline. This leads to ventures that are exciting on paper but fragile in real-world conditions.
Sectorally, student ventures cluster heavily around high-visibility domains like AI tools, fintech, and consumer apps, while underserved sectors such as agriculture, healthcare delivery, and climate adaptation receive far less student innovation despite substantial need and opportunity. Ventures in over-crowded trend-driven sectors tend to fail early, while those rooted in local problems with clear business models have better longevity.
Overall, the capability gaps reflect a need for deeper market immersion, stronger business fundamentals, and a mindset that balances innovation with disciplined execution, qualities essential in a fast-evolving workforce.
