annotated bibliography
rupali
biblography2.pdf
An exploratory study of factors affecting undergraduate
employability David J. Finch, Leah K. Hamilton, Riley Baldwin and Mark Zehner Bissett School of Business, Mount Royal University, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – The current study was conducted to increase our understanding of factors that influence the employability of university graduates. Through the use of both qualitative and quantitative approaches, the paper explores the relative importance of 17 factors that influence new graduate employability. Design/methodology/approach – An extensive review of the existing literature was used to identify 17 factors that affect new graduate employability. A two-phase, mixed-methods study was conducted to examine: Phase One, whether these 17 factors could be combined into five categories; and Phase Two, the relative importance that employers place on these factors. Phase One involved interviewing 30 employers, and Phase Two consisted of an empirical examination with an additional 115 employers. Findings – Results from both the qualitative and quantitative phases of the current study demonstrated that 17 employability factors can be clustered into five higher-order composite categories. In addition, findings illustrate that, when hiring new graduates, employers place the highest importance on soft-skills and the lowest importance on academic reputation. Research limitations/implications – The sectors in which employers operated were not completely representative of their geographical region. Practical implications – The findings suggest that, in order to increase new graduates’ employability, university programmes and courses should focus on learning outcomes linked to the development of soft-skills. In addition, when applying for jobs, university graduates should highlight their soft-skills and problem-solving skills. Originality/value – This study contributes to the body of knowledge on the employability of university graduates by empirically examining the relative importance of five categories of employability factors that recruiters evaluate when selecting new graduates.
Keywords Employability, University graduates, Soft skills, Problem solving skills, Pre-graduate experience, Functional skills, Academic reputation, Employment, Undergraduates
Paper type Research paper
Background In the past 60 years, participation in post-secondary education has increased dramatically. Prior to the Second World War, post-secondary education was constrained to the societal elite that possessed the required economic capacity (Sutherland, 2008). However, following the Second World War, a combination of public policy and demographic shifts saw post-secondary education expand considerably in developed countries. For example, the number of degree granting post-secondary institutions in Canada expanded from 28 to 87 between 1918 and 2009 (Harris, 1976; Scott, 2006). Recently in Canada, undergraduate student enrolment has increased at a rate of approximately 3.1 per cent per annum, while graduate student enrolment has seen an even faster rate of growth (approximately 5 per cent since 2000; Statistics Canada, 2009). This increased enrolment has resulted in a significant increase in the number of credentials granted by these post-secondary institutions. By 2009, over
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm
Received 22 July 2012 Revised 2 January 2013
Accepted 31 March 2013
Education þ Training Vol. 55 No. 7, 2013
pp. 681-704 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0040-0912 DOI 10.1108/ET-07-2012-0077
681
Factors affecting undergraduate employability
60 per cent of the working-age population in Canada held post-secondary education qualifications (Canadian Council on Learning, 2009).
Despite the increasing participation rate in post-secondary education, not all university graduates obtain jobs that fully harness their skills and credentials. In fact, evidence suggests that one out of every five university graduates is overqualified for their job, working in a position that only requires a high school education (Li et al., 2006). In addition, labour market surveys indicate that the proportion of overqualified university-educated workers has been increasing over time (Li et al., 2006).
One primary way to improve labour market outcomes for new university graduates is to ensure they have employability skills. Indeed, Wickramasinghe and Perera (2010) contend that these employability skills are critical for economic and social development. Moreover, from an employer’s perspective, an educated and skilled workforce is vital to sustain a competitive advantage in the market (Lin et al., 2012; Batra, 2010; Hitt et al., 2001).
Increasing our understanding of factors that influence undergraduate university students’ successful transition into the labour market is critical, both to reduce the proportion of new graduates who are overqualified for their jobs, and to ensure that employers can recruit graduates who have the skills their organisations need to succeed in the twenty-first century knowledge-based economy. In a recent survey by McKinsey, 40 per cent of employers indicated that there is a significant skills gap between graduates and entry-level requirements. McKinsey concluded that “there is an issue with education systems that fail to produce future workers with the kinds of skills required by today’s organisations – let alone those of tomorrow” (McKinsey and Company, 2012, p. 23).
The relationship between education and employability[1] has been examined from a range of stakeholder perspectives, including university recruiters (Moy, 2006); faculty members (Aistrich et al., 2006); and employers (Finch et al., 2012). In addition, some researchers have focused on comparing perceptions of employability across stakeholder groups (Culkin and Mallick, 2011; Wickramasinghe and Perera, 2010; Nicholson and Cushman, 2000). For instance, studies have considered how employability is influenced by specific factors such as age (Van der Heijden et al., 2009b), pre-graduate experience (Gault et al., 2010; Gabris and Mitchell, 1989) and academic reputation and brand (Tas and Ergin, 2012; Alessandri et al., 2006). Generally speaking, employability is examined from one of two perspectives: the organisational perspective is concerned with the ideal organisational structures and processes that will contribute to an organisation’s competitive advantage (De Vos et al., 2011; Nauta et al., 2009); in contrast, the individual perspective considers the factors that are required for individual success in the labour market (Van der Heijden et al., 2009a).
Despite the attention paid to the relation between education and employability, researchers have argued that much of the research into employability factors is theoretical and prescriptive, and that there is a lack of empirical evidence supporting these theoretical propositions (Wickramasinghe and Perera, 2010). In addition, there has been a heavy reliance on case studies, which typically suffer from a lack of generalisability (Wickramasinghe and Perera, 2010). As a result, it is difficult to extrapolate or compare findings. Ultimately, scholars have identified a need for additional research that examines the transition of new graduates to the workforce (Holden and Hamblett, 2007). In this context, the current study seeks to contribute to the body of knowledge on the employability of new graduates from the individual
682
ET 55,7
perspective by empirically examining the relative importance of factors that recruiters evaluate when assessing new graduates.
This paper is structured as follow: first, we review the existing literature on factors that influence undergraduate university students’ successful transition from the classroom to the workforce. Next, we use the literature review as the basis for conducting a qualitative study that identifies the key factors considered by employers when evaluating new graduates. Following this, we extend the qualitative findings by conducting an empirical study that explores the relative importance that employers place on these employability factors, examining 17 factors individually and at a composite level of five categories. Finally, we present our contributions, limitations, and implications for future research and practice.
Literature review Employability is a multi-dimensional construct that includes: the ability to secure first employment; the ability for an individual to transfer between positions at the same employer; and the ability to secure employment from a new organisation (Hillage and Pollard, 1998). De Vos et al. (2011) contend that employability incorporates both objective and subjective elements. In the current study, we identify employers’ subjective perceptions regarding the factors that are important to the employability of new graduates.
Previous research findings suggest that employability factors may be analysed at two levels (Bhaerman and Spill, 1988; Longest, 1973). The first level considers specific employability factors (e.g. listening skills, writing skills, academic performance). The second level condenses these factors into higher-order categories (e.g. soft-skills, functional skills). For instance, Finch et al. (2012) measured 46 individual employability factors relevant to 253 marketing practitioners and found that the 46 factors loaded onto seven higher-order composite categories. In Finch et al.’s (2012) study, the higher- order category “meta-skills” contained specific employability factors such as listening skills, professionalism, and interpersonal skills. These findings are similar to those suggested by Bhaerman and Spill (1988), who proposed three higher-order categories consistent with the US Department of Labour’s Job Training Partnership Act: first, pre-employment and work maturity skills (i.e. labour market knowledge, initiative, professionalism); second, basic education skills (i.e. communications, analysis, and reasoning); and finally, job-specific skills (i.e. entry-level or advance functional skills of a field). While individual employability factors (e.g. writing skills) are important, there are benefits associated with grouping categories of related employability factors into higher-order categories. These categories are consistent with the approach taken by previous researchers, and they provide a parsimonious classification system for both employers and university educators who have a vested interest in increasing employability among university graduates.
Next, we review the breadth of literature associated with employability. This section is structured based on five proposed higher-order categories soft-skills; problem- solving skills; job-specific functional skills; pre-graduate experience; and academic reputation. Within these higher-order categories, we review literature on 17 individual factors (indicated by italics).
Soft-skills Recently, educational researchers and employers have placed increasing attention on the importance of soft-skills (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2010). While discipline-specific
683
Factors affecting undergraduate employability
knowledge is typically content specific, soft-skills are non-academic skills (e.g. communication skills) that are presumed to be useful in a range of working environments (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2010). Evidence suggests that soft-skills are an important predictor of employability (Finch et al., 2012; Lievens and Sackett, 2012; Nickson et al., 2012; Rynes et al., 1997). Specific soft-skills that may affect employability include the following types of communication skills: written communication skills (Ariana, 2010; Graham et al., 2010; Andrews and Higson, 2008; Gardner et al., 2005); verbal communication skills (Gray, 2010; Gardner et al., 2005); and listening skills (Cooper, 1997; Goby and Lewis, 2000). Similarly, professionalism has been identified as contributing to employability (Ashton, 2011; Mat and Zabidi, 2010; Shafer et al., 2002; Cable and Judge, 1996). Lastly, scholars have identified interpersonal skills – such as the ability to work effectively in teams – as an important employability factor (Wellman, 2010; Borghans et al., 2008; Chowdhury et al., 2002). In sum, research conducted from a range of disciplines and occupations converges on the finding that soft-skills influence employability.
Problem-solving skills Several researchers have identified that problem-solving skills are core to employability (Reid and Anderson, 2012; Stiwne and Jungert, 2010; Wellman, 2010; Fallows and Steven, 2000). Similar to soft-skills, problem-solving skills are important across disciplines (e.g. engineering, marketing) and employer type (Stiwne and Jungert, 2010; Wellman, 2010). Problem-solving skills are higher-order cognitive skills that are complex, requiring “judgment, analysis, and synthesis; and are not applied in a rote or mechanical manner” (Halpern, 1998, p. 451). Problem solving is a competency closely related to intelligence (or general mental ability; Scherbaum et al., 2012), which is the best predictor of job performance across a variety of occupations (Schmidt and Hunter, 1998, 2004). Problem solving incorporates a range of competencies including critical thinking skills (Reid and Anderson, 2012; Halpern, 1998), creativity (Kilgour and Koslow, 2009; Halpern, 1998), leadership skills (Conrad and Newberry, 2012), and adaptability (Jabr, 2011; Barr et al., 2009).
Job-specific functional skills Job-specific functional skills – including job-specific competencies, job-specific technical skills (e.g. Rosenberg et al., 2012), and knowledge of software (Perry, 1998) – are essential when considering an individual’s employability (Huang and Lin, 2011; Laker and Powell, 2011; Smith et al., 2008; Pang and To Ming, 2005; Bhaerman and Spill, 1988; Longest, 1973). Generally speaking, these skills send a signal to employers that a new graduate has mastered the specific proficiencies needed to perform highly on a particular job (Bhaerman and Spill, 1988). It is important to note that job-specific functional skills are more context specific than soft-skills and problem-solving skills. For instance, the technical skills required by a software engineer will differ from those required by a business analyst.
Pre-graduate experience The relationship between pre-graduate experience and employability has been studied extensively (Hopkins et al., 2011; Gault et al., 2010; Callanan and Benzing, 2004; Gault et al., 2000; Gabris and Mitchell, 1989). Pre-graduate work experience may include in-programme experiential learning opportunities (e.g. co-op and internships) or more informal career-related work experience such as part-time or summer employment.
684
ET 55,7
In one study of 142 recent university graduates, students who completed internships reported both higher job acquisition skills and job satisfaction (Gault et al., 2000). The researchers concluded that “experiential education plays a vital role in enhancing the preparation and success of undergraduates in the entry-level job market” (Gault et al., 2000, p. 52). Similarly, in a qualitative interview study investigating graduate and employer perspectives of employability, findings suggest that UK employers highly value graduates’ work experience, viewing it as an indicator of workplace readiness (Andrews and Higson, 2008). Professional confidence is a construct that is closely related to pre-graduate work experience, in part because it is increased by experiential learning opportunities (Overton et al., 2009). Like pre-graduate work experience, professional confidence is associated with employability (Brown et al., 2003). In sum, the literature suggests that pre-graduate experience influences employability as it enables students to develop their overall skills by experiencing real-world challenges and applications (Gabris and Mitchell, 1989).
Academic reputation Academic reputation has a significant impact on a variety of outcomes of interest to employers, policy makers, and academics alike. For instance, researchers have examined how student retention and perceptions are affected by: institutional image (Pampaloni, 2010); institutional branding (Bennett and Ali-Choudhury, 2009; Judson et al., 2008); institutional ranking (Capobianco, 2009); and programme structure (Sauer and O’Donnell, 2006). Comparatively, few studies have explored the relationship between academic reputation and employability.
Reputation is a social construct that is defined as the generalised level of esteem for an organisation held by a stakeholder (Deephouse and Carter, 2005; Dalton and Croft, 2003; Fombrun and Shanley, 1990). Evidence suggests that the academic reputation of a specific school (e.g. Harvard) or a category of schools (e.g. Ivy League) may enhance employability of graduates from these institutions (Chevalier and Conlon, 2003). Evidence suggests that academic reputation and its relationship to employability should be considered at three levels. The first level considers institutional-level reputation. Institutions and the ranking systems that have emerged in the past two decades (e.g. Maclean’s University Rankings, Forbes Top Colleges List) influence the employability of new graduates (Alessandri et al., 2006; Capobianco, 2009). Second, scholars have identified that programme-level reputation also can influence the perception of employability skills (McGuinness, 2003). For example, the Financial Times (2012) releases an annual ranking of MBA programmes which may influence the employability of graduates from these programmes. Lastly, individual academic performance (e.g. grade-point average) contributes to the employability of a new graduate (Ng et al., 2010) and is frequently used in selection systems for entry-level positions (Rynes et al., 1997).
In sum, consistent with Finch et al. (2012), our literature review identified five higher-order composite categories of employability factors: soft-skills; problem-solving skills; job-specific functional skills; pre-graduate experience; and academic reputation. Within these five higher-order categories are 17 individual employability factors. The goal of the current study is to empirically examine the relative ranking of these 17 measures and five composite categories among a sample of employers. To this end, we conducted a mixed-methods study that incorporates two phases. In Phase One we conducted a qualitative study to provide preliminary support for the importance of the 17 individual employability factors and their associated five
685
Factors affecting undergraduate employability
composite categories. Based on our findings from Phase One, in Phase Two we developed a measure that allowed us to explore the relative importance of the employability factors and their composite categories.
Operationalising employability factors Phase One: qualitative interview study Methodology. In Phase One of this study, we used qualitative methods to further explore and verify the employability factors and categories identified in our literature review. Specifically, we conducted 30 one-on-one interviews with hiring managers and influencers. To ensure participation by diverse employers (Creswell, 2009), we engaged in purposeful sampling methods based on Statistics Canada data. Three stratification criteria were used to identify candidates: first, confirmation that individuals directly hired or had significant influence on the hiring decision of new graduates; second, a broad representation of industry sectors; and finally, a mix of small, medium, and large organisations. Based on these criteria, a pool of candidates was recruited through the local chamber of commerce and the local human resources professional association in a large western Canadian city. Table I presents individual profiles of the participants.
We conducted standardised, structured interviews that included a variety of open- ended questions. This format was chosen to provide sufficient structure to explore major themes, while maximising objectivity and ensuring that participants were not led to predetermined responses (Corbin and Strauss, 1990). Of central importance to the current study, the majority of questions focused on the identification of employability factors for new graduates. In addition, participants responded to questions about their professional background and hiring experience.
Each participant was interviewed independently in a private location. The mean interview length was 20:29 minutes. All interviews were digitally recorded and then transcribed. To maximise objectivity, each interview was independently coded by two members of the research team (Corbin and Strauss, 1990). First, the researchers independently reviewed the audio tapes of each interview in their entirety. This provided a holistic perspective of each interview. Moreover, this process enabled the researchers to independently code major themes at the individual participant level. The second stage of the reduction process eliminated duplicate or overlapping themes. This reduction process was done in a manner that identified the composite themes without losing the integrity of each interviewee’s contribution (Moustakas, 1994). To mitigate this risk during the reduction process, a separate document was maintained by the researchers of all participant content removed during the analysis.
Results. During the first phase of the coding process, a total of 31 major themes were independently identified by the researchers. The second stage consolidated these into eight major composite themes. The researchers then sought to compare these themes to the 17 employability factors identified during the literature review. Based on both the literature review and interview data, Table II illustrates support for the five composite categories, while Table III illustrates a range of support for the 17 employability factors. Interpersonal skills (29/30) and programme-level reputation (27/30) were the most consistently identified individual factors during the interviews. In contrast, knowledge of software (10/30) was the factor that was mentioned the least frequently. Ultimately, the qualitative research provided additional background and context that enabled a better understanding of the scope and relationship between employability factors. This proved invaluable during the empirical phase of this study.
686
ET 55,7
Phase Two: an empirical examination of employability factors Methodology. Phase One provided preliminary support for the 17 individual employability factors and their associated five composite categories. In Phase Two we expanded these findings by empirically examining the relative importance of these factors amongst practitioners. Employability is one of the central objectives of higher education (Poropat, 2011). Consequently, the target population for our empirical study was employers who have direct influence on hiring decisions pertaining to new graduates. To reach a large and diverse group of professionals from a wide range of industries, functional roles, and business sizes, we partnered with the chamber of commerce and the economic development authority in a large western Canadian city. The chamber facilitated data collection by distributing the survey link to the 1,200 members who subscribe to their weekly e-newsletter. In addition, the survey link was posted on the economic development authority’s web site. In both cases, we specified that managers who were responsible for hiring new graduates were invited to participate. Data were collected over a 14-day period.
Participant Title Industry Size of organisation (no. of employees)
Participant 1 Manager, passenger experience Transportation Medium (50-499) Participant 2 Manager, talent acquisition Transportation Large (500þ ) Participant 3 Senior chef Hospitality Large (500þ ) Participant 4 Executive sous chef Hospitality Large (500þ ) Participant 5 Manager, daily programmes Recreation Medium (50-499) Participant 6 Manager, human resources Recreation Medium (50-499) Participant 7 Operations manager Hospitality Large (500þ ) Participant 8 General manager Hospitality Small (1-49) Participant 9 President Arts and culture Small (1-49) Participant 10 Operations manager Arts and culture Small (1-49) Participant 11 President and chief executive
officer Energy and utilities Small (1-49)
Participant 12 Chief operating officer Energy and utilities Small (1-49) Participant 13 Senior sales coordinator Energy and utilities Large (500þ ) Participant 14 Team lead, early talent Energy and utilities Large (500þ ) Participant 15 Vice president Professional services Large (500þ ) Participant 16 Business analyst Energy and utilities Large (500þ ) Participant 17 Manager, campus recruitment Energy and utilities Large (500þ ) Participant 18 Senior auditor Energy and utilities Large (500þ ) Participant 19 Manager, human resources Energy and utilities Large (500þ ) Participant 20 Engineering manager Energy and utilities Small (1-49) Participant 21 Manager, talent acquisition Energy and utilities Large (500þ ) Participant 22 Marketing director Arts and culture Small (1-49) Participant 23 Provincial director Non-profit Large (500þ ) Participant 24 Chief executive officer Non-profit Small (1-49) Participant 25 Finance director Arts and culture Medium (50-499) Participant 26 Programme manager Arts and culture Small (1-49) Participant 27 President and chief executive
officer Non-profit Medium (50-499)
Participant 28 Director Non-profit Large (500þ ) Participant 29 President Arts and culture Small (1-49) Participant 30 Operations manager Entertainment Small (1-49)
Table I. Practitioner interviewees
687
Factors affecting undergraduate employability
F a ct
o r
L it
er a tu
re su
p p
o rt
In te
rv ie
w su
p p
o rt
S co
p e
S o ft
-s k
il ls
L ie
v en
s a n
d S
a ck
et t
(2 0 1 2 ),
R y
n es
et a l.
(1 9 9 7 )
2 8 /3
0 T
h e
im p
o rt
a n
ce o f
so ft
-s k
il ls
w a s
co n
si st
en tl
y id
en ti
fi ed
b y
b o th
th e
in te
rv ie
w e es
a n
d a ss
o ci
a te
d li
te ra
tu re
. W
h en
a sk
ed to
d ef
in e
so ft
-s k
il ls
, in
te rv
ie w
e es
ci te
d co
m m
u n
ic a ti
o n
a n
d p
ro fe
ss io
n a li
sm a s
d o m
in a n
t ch
a ra
ct er
is ti
cs P
ro b
le m
-s o lv
in g
sk il
ls R
ei d
a n
d A
n d
er so
n (2
0 1 2 ),
K il
g o u
r a n
d K
o sl
o w
(2 0 0 9 )
2 5 /3
0 In
te rv
ie w
ee s
in d
ic a te
d th
a t
it is
es se
n ti
a l
fo r
n ew
g ra
d u
a te
s to
b e
“p ro
b le
m so
lv er
s” .
In te
rv ie
w ee
s id
en ti
fi ed
ch a ra
ct er
is ti
cs su
ch a s
cr it
ic a l
th in
k in
g , cr
ea ti
v it
y, le
a d
er sh
ip ,
a n
d a d
a p
ta b
il it
y a s
co re
to p
ro b
le m
so lv
in g
F u
n ct
io n
a l
sk il
ls H
u a n
g a n
d L
in (2
0 1 1 ),
L a k
er a n
d P
o w
el l
(2 0 1 1 ),
S m
it h
et a l.
(2 0 0 8 ),
L o n
g es
t (1
9 7 3 ),
P a n
g a n
d T
o M
in g
(2 0 0 5 )
2 8 /3
0 Jo
b -s
p ec
if ic
fu n
ct io
n a l
sk il
ls em
er g
ed a s
a cr
it ic
a l
cr it
er io
n in
2 8 /3
0 in
te rv
ie w
s. T
h es
e fu
n ct
io n
a l
sk il
ls v
a ry
b a se
d o n
th e
p ro
fe ss
io n
. F
u n
ct io
n a l
sk il
ls w
er e
o ft
en ci
te d
a s
jo b
-s p
ec if
ic co
m p
et en
ci es
o r
m o re
g en
er a l
sk il
ls su
ch a s
k n
o w
le d
g e
o f
sp ec
if ic
so ft
w a re
p ro
g ra
m m
es A
ca d
em ic
re p
u ta
ti o n
A le
ss a n
d ri
et a l.
(2 0 0 7 )
1 9 /3
0 T
h e
q u
a li
ta ti
v e
re se
a rc
h a n
d li
te ra
tu re
re v
ie w
id en
ti fi
ed th
e in
fl u
en ce
o f
b o th
in st
it u
ti o n
a l-
a n
d p
ro g
ra m
m e-
le v
el re
p u
ta ti
o n
.D im
en si
o n
s o f
a ca
d em
ic re
p u
ta ti
o n
w er
e id
en ti
fi ed
in 1 9 /3
0 in
te rv
ie w
s a s
a co
n si
d er
a ti
o n
in h
ir in
g .
T h
es e
in te
rv ie
w ee
s o ft
en ci
te d
th e
im p
o rt
a n
ce o f
sp ec
ia li
se d
tr a in
in g
th a t
is u
n iq
u e
to ce
rt a in
p ro
g ra
m m
es .
In th
is se
n se
, th
es e
h ir
in g
m a n
a g
er s
o ft
en ci
te d
p ro
g ra
m m
e re
p u
ta ti
o n
a s
m o
re re
le v
a n
t th
a n
in st
it u
ti o n
a l
re p
u ta
ti o n
P re
-g ra
d u
a te
w o rk
ex p
er ie
n ce
C a ll
a n
a n
a n
d B
en zi
n g
(2 0 0 4 ),
G a u
lt et
a l.
(2 0 1 0 ),
G ab
ri s
a n
d M
it ch
el l
(1 9 8 9 )
1 9 /3
0 T
h e
fi n
a l
th em
e id
en ti
fi ed
w a s
th e
im p
o rt
a n
ce o f
p re
-g ra
d u
a te
w o rk
ex p
er ie
n ce
a s
a n
em p
lo y
ab il
it y
fa ct
o r.
T h
is p
re -g
ra d
u a te
w o rk
ex p
er ie
n ce
m a y
in cl
u d
e in
-p ro
g ra
m m
e ex
p er
ie n
ti a l
le a rn
in g
o p
p o
rt u
n it
ie s
(i .e
. co
-o p
a n
d in
te rn
sh ip
s) o r
m o
re in
fo rm
a l w
o rk
ex p
er ie
n ce
su ch
a s
re la
te d
p a rt
-t im
e o r
su m
m er
em p
lo y
m en
t. T
h is
re fl
ec ts
p re
v io
u s
li te
ra tu
re id
en ti
fy in
g th
e v
a lu
e o f
w o rk
ex p
er ie
n ce
fo r
th e
em p
lo y
ab il
it y
o f
g ra
d u
a te
s (C
a ll
a n
a n
a n
d B
en zi
n g
, 2 0 0 4 ; G
a u
lt et
a l.,
2 0 1 0 ; H
o p
k in
s et
a l.,
2 0 1 1 )
Table II. Employability factors – composite categories
688
ET 55,7
F a ct
o r
L it
er a tu
re su
p p
o rt
In te
rv ie
w su
p p
o rt
S co
p e
W ri
tt en
co m
m u
n ic
a ti
o n
sk il
ls
G a rd
n er
et a l.
(2 0 0 5 ),
A ri
a n
a (2
0 1 0 ),
G ra
h a m
et a l.
(2 0 1 0 )
2 1 /3
0 B
ei n
g ab
le to
co m
m u
n ic
a te
ef fe
ct iv
el y
th ro
u g
h w
ri ti
n g
is th
e m
a in
fo rm
o f
co m
m u
n ic
a ti
o n
in o u
r so
ci et
y a n
d is
a v
a lu
ed sk
il l
th a t
in cr
ea se
s em
p lo
y ab
il it
y o p
p o
rt u
n it
ie s
(G ra
h a m
et a l.,
2 0 1 0 ;G
a rd
n er
et a l.,
2 0 0 5 ).
In th
e cu
rr en
t st
u d
y, w
e u
se d
w ri
tt en
co m
m u
n ic
a ti
o n
a s
a fa
ct o r
em p
lo y
er s
co n
si d
er w
h en
h ir
in g
n ew
g ra
d u
a te
s b
ec a u
se it
is a
ta n
g ib
le sk
il l
th a t
ca n
b e
ef fe
ct iv
el y
ev a lu
a te
d V
er b
a l
co m
m u
n ic
a ti
o n
sk il
ls
G a rd
n er
et a l.
(2 0 0 5 ),
G ra
y (2
0 1 0 )
2 5 /3
0 T
o co
m m
u n
ic a te
ef fe
ct iv
el y,
g ra
d u
a te
s en
te ri
n g
th e
w o
rk fo
rc e
n ee
d to
m ee
t h
ig h
st a n
d a rd
s o f
o ra
l co
m m
u n
ic a ti
o n
(G ra
y, 2 0 1 0 ).
N ew
g ra
d u
a te
s th
a t
ca n
co m
m u
n ic
a te
id ea
s a n
d a sk
q u
es ti
o n
s to
g a in
in fo
rm a ti
o n
w il
l b
e m
o re
p ro
d u
ct iv
e a n
d ef
fi ci
en t
in th
e w
o rk
en v
ir o n
m en
t. In
th e
cu rr
en t
st u
d y,
w e
d ef
in e
v er
b a l
co m
m u
n ic
a ti
o n
a s:
sk il
ls u
se d
to ef
fe ct
iv el
y co
m p
re h
en d
, cr
it iq
u e,
a n
d a n
a ly
se in
fo rm
a ti
o n
; co
m m
u n
ic a te
cl ea
rl y
a n
d p
er su
a si
v el
y ;
a n
d ex
p re
ss id
ea s
L is
te n
in g
sk il
ls C
o o p
er (1
9 9 7 ),
G o b
y a n
d L
ew is
(2 0 0 0 )
2 2 /3
0 L
is te
n in
g sk
il ls
a re
h ig
h ly
v a lu
ed b
y em
p lo
y er
s w
h en
a n
a ly
si n
g d
es ir
ab le
sk il
ls in
n ew
g ra
d u
a te
em p
lo y
ee s
(G o b
y a n
d L
ew is
, 2 0 0 0 ;
C o o p
er ,
1 9 9 7 ).
H a v
in g
ex ce
p ti
o n
a l
li st
en in
g sk
il ls
is a n
in d
ic a ti
o n
o f
h ig
h ly
p ro
d u
ct iv
e in
d iv
id u
a ls
th a t
u lt
im a te
ly le
a d
s to
b et
te r
em p
lo y
ab il
it y
(C o o p
er ,1
9 9 7 ).
In th
e cu
rr en
t st
u d
y, w
e d
ef in
e li
st en
in g
sk il
ls a s:
se le
ct iv
el y
p er
ce iv
in g
, in
te rp
re ti
n g
, u
n d
er st
a n
d in
g ,
a ss
ig n
in g
m ea
n in
g ,
re a ct
in g
, re
m em
b er
in g
, a n
d a n
a ly
si n
g w
h a t
is h
ea rd
P ro
fe ss
io n
a li
sm M
a t
a n
d Z
ab id
i (2
0 1 0 ),
S h
a fe
r et
a l.
(2 0 0 2 );
C ab
le a n
d Ju
d g
e (1
9 9 6 )
1 7 /3
0 T
h e
p ro
fe ss
io n
a l
ro le
th a t
in d
iv id
u a ls
a cc
ep t
w h
en en
te ri
n g
ce rt
a in
in d
u st
ri es
re q
u ir
es sp
ec if
ic p
ro fe
ss io
n a l
o b
li g
a ti
o n
s, a tt
ri b
u te
s, in
te ra
ct io
n s,
a tt
it u
d es
, a n
d ro
le b
eh a v
io u
rs (M
a t
a n
d Z
ab id
i, 2 0 1 0 ).
P ro
fe ss
io n
a li
sm ca
n d
ir ec
tl y
re fl
ec t
th e
q u
a li
ti es
a n
d v
a lu
es o f
a n
o rg
a n
is a ti
o n
a n
d em
p lo
y er
s n
ee d
to ev
a lu
a te
th e
p er
so n
- o rg
a n
is a ti
o n
fi t
w h
en a n
a ly
si n
g th
e p
ro fe
ss io
n a li
sm o f
a n
ew g
ra d
u a te
(C ab
le a n
d Ju
d g
e, 1 9 9 6 ).
T h
e im
p o
rt a n
ce o f
p ro
fe ss
io n
a li
sm is
v a lu
ed h
ig h
ly b
y em
p lo
y er
s b
ec a u
se th
ei r
em p
lo y
ee s
re p
re se
n t
th e
o rg
a n
is a ti
o n
in p
u b
li c
o n
a d
a il
y b
a si
s
(c o n ti n u ed )
Table III. Employability
factors – individual
689
Factors affecting undergraduate employability
F a ct
o r
L it
er a tu
re su
p p
o rt
In te
rv ie
w su
p p
o rt
S co
p e
In te
rp er
so n
a l
sk il
ls L
ie v
en s
a n
d S
a ck
et t
(2 0 1 2 ),
R y
n es
et a l.
(1 9 9 7 )
2 9 /3
0 T
h e
in d
iv id
u a l
ca p
a b
il it
y to
u se
in te
rp er
so n
a l
sk il
ls to
b u
il d
re la
ti o n
sh ip
s a n
d co
m m
u n
ic a te
w it
h o th
er s
ca n
b e
a st
ro n
g p
re d
ic to
r o f
fu tu
re su
cc es
s fo
r n
ew g
ra d
u a te
s (L
ie v
en s
a n
d S
a ck
et t,
2 0 1 2 ).
In te
rp er
so n
a l
sk il
ls a re
a ss
o ci
a te
d w
it h
o th
er fa
ct o rs
su ch
a s:
so ci
a l
se n
si ti
v it
y, re
la ti
o n
sh ip
b u
il d
in g
, w
o rk
in g
w it
h o th
er s,
li st
en in
g ,
a n
d co
m m
u n
ic a ti
o n
sk il
ls (L
ie v
en s
a n
d S
a ck
et t,
2 0 1 2 ).
F o r
th e
p u
rp o se
o f
th e
cu rr
en t
st u
d y,
in te
rp er
so n
a l
sk il
ls a re
d ef
in ed
a s
o n
e’ s
ab il
it y
to w
o rk
a n
d co
m m
u n
ic a te
w it
h o th
er s
w h
il e
b ri
n g
in g
v a lu
e to
th e
o rg
a n
is a ti
o n
C ri
ti ca
l th
in k
in g
sk il
ls R
ei d
a n
d A
n d
er so
n (2
0 1 2 ),
H a lp
er n
(1 9 9 8 )
2 0 /3
0 T
h e
ab il
it y
to th
in k
cr it
ic a ll
y a ll
o w
s in
d iv
id u
a ls
to g
en er
a te
n ew
id ea
s to
re a ch
d es
ir ed
a n
d ra
ti o n
a l
o u
tc o m
es (R
ei d
a n
d A
n d
er so
n ,
2 0 1 2 ).
F ro
m a n
em p
lo y
er ’s
p er
sp ec
ti v
e it
is im
p o
rt a n
t to
h av
e em
p lo
y ee
s th
a t
g en
er a te
o ri
g in
a l
id ea
s to
o v
er co
m e
o b
st a cl
es to
a cc
o m
p li
sh co
m p
a n
y g
o a ls
. C
ri ti
ca l
th in
k in
g is
a p
ro ce
ss in
v o lv
in g
cr ea
ti v
e th
in k
in g
, d
ec is
io n
m a k
in g
, p
ro b
le m
so lv
in g
, re
a so
n in
g ,
a n
d k
n o w
in g
h o w
to le
a rn
fr o m
p re
v io
u s
si tu
a ti
o n
s (R
ei d
a n
d A
n d
er so
n , 2 0 1 2 ).
A cr
it ic
a l
th in
k er
is g
o a l
o ri
en te
d a n
d lo
o k
s fo
r w
a y
s to
a ch
ie v
e d
es ir
ed g
o a ls
(H a lp
er n
, 1 9 9 8 ).
F o r
th e
p u
rp o se
o f
th is
st u
d y
cr it
ic a l
th in
k in
g is
d ef
in ed
a s:
th e
co n
ju n
ct io
n o f
k n
o w
le d
g e,
sk il
ls ,
a n
d st
ra te
g ie
s th
a t
p ro
m o te
s im
p ro
v ed
p ro
b le
m so
lv in
g ,
ra ti
o n
a l
d ec
is io
n m
a k
in g
, a n
d en
h a n
ce d
cr ea
ti v
it y
C re
a ti
v e
th in
k in
g sk
il ls
K il
g o u
r a n
d K
o sl
o w
(2 0 0 9 ),
H a lp
er n
(1 9 9 8 )
1 2 /3
0 C
re a ti
v e
th in
k in
g is
u n
iq u
e to
in d
iv id
u a ls
th a t
ca n
cr ea
te o ri
g in
a l
id ea
s a n
d b
ri n
g th
em to
th ei
r w
o rk
p la
ce ,
g iv
in g
th ei
r o rg
a n
is a ti
o n
a co
m p
et it
iv e
ed g
e (K
il g
o u
r a n
d K
o sl
o w
, 2 0 0 9 ).
F o r
th e
p u
rp o se
o f
th is
st u
d y,
cr ea
ti v
e th
in k
in g
is d
ef in
ed a s
th e
cr ea
ti v
e p
ro ce
ss es
in d
iv id
u a ls
b ri
n g
to th
ei r
w o
rk en
v ir
o n
m en
t a n
d th
e v
a lu
e th
ei r
id ea
s b
ri n
g to
th a t
b u
si n
es s.
C re
a ti
v it
y a n
d th
e p
ro ce
ss es
o f
g en
er a ti
n g
u n
iq u
e id
ea s
a re
n o t
a o n
e- si
ze fi
t a ll
p ro
p o si
ti o n
, b
u t
n ee
d to
b e
ta il
o re
d to
in d
iv id
u a ls
a n
d th
e en
v ir
o n
m en
t in
w h
ic h
th ey
a re
a p
p li
ed (H
a lp
er n
, 1 9 9 8 )
(c o n ti n u ed )
Table III.
690
ET 55,7
F a ct
o r
L it
er a tu
re su
p p
o rt
In te
rv ie
w su
p p
o rt
S co
p e
L ea
d er
sh ip
sk il
ls C
o n
ra d
a n
d N
ew b
er ry
(2 0 1 2 )
1 7 /3
0 C
o n
ra d
a n
d N
ew b
er ry
(2 0 1 2 )s
ta te
th a t
o n
e o f
th e
la rg
es t
sk il
l g
a p
s cu
rr en
tl y
in a ca
d em
ia is
n o t
te a ch
in g
st u
d en
ts le
a d
er sh
ip sk
il ls
v a lu
ed b
y p
ro sp
ec ti
v e
em p
lo y
er s.
L ea
d er
sh ip
is v
it a l
to em
p lo
y er
s lo
o k
in g
fo r
n ew
g ra
d u
a te
em p
lo y
ee s
(C o n
ra d
a n
d N
ew b
er ry
, 2 0 1 2 ).
In th
e cu
rr en
t st
u d
y, w
e d
ef in
e le
a d
er sh
ip a s
th e
ab il
it y
to m
o ti
v a te
o th
er em
p lo
y ee
s a n
d g
u id
e th
em to
su cc
es s
A b
il it
y to
a d
a p
t to
te ch
n o lo
g y
B a rr
et a l.
(2 0 0 9 ),
Ja b
r (2
0 1 1 )
1 2 /3
0 C
h a n
g in
g te
ch n
o lo
g y
is a
v a ri
ab le
th a t
is fo
rc in
g st
u d
en ts
to a d
a p
t to
ch a n
g in
g en
v ir
o n
m en
ts to
st a y
co m
p et
it iv
e (B
a rr
et a l.,
2 0 0 9 ; Ja
b r,
2 0 1 1 ).
B ei
n g
te ch
n o lo
g ic
a ll
y a st
u te
a ll
o w
s n
ew g
ra d
u a te
s th
e ab
il it
y to
b e
co m
p et
it iv
e in
a w
o rk
en v
ir o n
m en
t (J
a b
r, 2 0 1 1 ).
T h
u s
b ei
n g
ab le
to a d
a p
t to
te ch
n o lo
g y
m a k
es o n
e m
o re
d es
ir ab
le to
em p
lo y
er s.
F o r
th e
p re
se n
t st
u d
y th
e ab
il it
y to
a d
a p
t to
te ch
n o lo
g y
is d
ef in
ed a s
th e
ab il
it y
to u
se cu
rr en
t te
ch n
o lo
g y
to le
a rn
a n
d p
ro b
le m
so lv
e Jo
b -s
p ec
if ic
co m
p et
en ci
es H
u a n
g a n
d L
in (2
0 1 1 ),
L o n
g es
t (1
9 7 3 )
2 2 /3
0 E
m p
lo y
er s
v a lu
e p
o st
-s ec
o n
d a ry
in st
it u
ti o n
s th
a t
p la
ce a
h ig
h v
a lu
e o n
tr a in
in g
jo b
-s p
ec if
ic co
m p
et en
ci es
(P a n
g a n
d T
o M
in g
, 2 0 0 5 ).
In d
ee d
, a cc
u m
u la
ti n
g jo
b -
sp ec
if ic
co m
p et
en ci
es o v
er ti
m e
a ll
o w
s a
g ra
d u
a te
to b
ec o m
e su
cc es
sf u
l in
h is
/h er
ch o se
n ca
re er
p a th
Jo b
-s p
ec if
ic te
ch n
ic a l
sk il
ls L
a k
er a n
d P
o w
el l
(2 0 1 1 ),
S m
it h
et a l.
(2 0 0 8 ),
P a n
g a n
d T
o M
in g
(2 0 0 5 )
2 5 /3
0 In
d u
st ry
h a s
in d
ic a te
d th
a t
it w
a n
ts a ca
d em
ia to
p ro
d u
ce n
ew g
ra d
u a te
s th
a t
h av
e st
ro n
g te
ch n
ic a l
sk il
ls (S
m it
h et
a l.,
2 0 0 8 ).
F o r
th e
p u
rp o se
o f
th e
cu rr
en t
st u
d y,
jo b
- sp
ec if
ic te
ch n
ic a l
sk il
ls a re
d ef
in ed
a s
u si
n g
sp ec
if ic
te ch
n ic
a l
sk il
ls to
p ro
b le
m so
lv e
in o rd
er to
co m
p le
te o n
e’ s
jo b
. T
ec h
n ic
a l
sk il
ls a re
o ft
en ta
n g
ib le
a n
d sp
ec if
ic ,
fo r
ex a m
p le
, cr
ea ti
n g
a b
a la
n ce
sh ee
t o r
a n
a ly
si n
g a
d a ta
se t
u si
n g
st a ti
st ic
s K
n o w
le d
g e
o f
so ft
w a re
S h
o em
a k
er (2
0 0 3 ),
M cC
o rk
le et
a l.
(2 0 0 1 )
1 0 /3
0 G
ra d
u a te
s a re
co n
ti n
u a ll
y b
ei n
g p
u t
in fr
o n
t o f
n ew
a n
d ev
o lv
in g
so ft
w a re
in w
o rk
en v
ir o n
m en
ts (M
cC o rk
le et
a l.,
2 0 0 1 ).
H a v
in g
st u
d en
ts ex
p o se
d to
so ft
w a re
u se
d in
th ei
r d
is ci
p li
n e
w o u
ld p
re p
a re
th em
fo r
th e
fu tu
re ,
th u
s b
ri n
g in
g co
n fi
d en
ce to
em p
lo y
er s.
If g
ra d
u a te
s a re
ex p
o se
d to
a n
d fa
m il
ia r
w it
h d
if fe
re n
t ty
p es
o f
so ft
w a re
w it
h in
th ei
r d
is ci
p li
n e,
th is
w il
l cr
ea te
co n
fi d
en ce
in th
e em
p lo
y er
’s m
in d
w h
il e
lo w
er in
g th
e ri
sk o f
h ir
in g
a n
ew g
ra d
u a te
(S h
o em
a k
er ,
2 0 0 3 )
(c o n ti n u ed )
Table III.
691
Factors affecting undergraduate employability
F a ct
o r
L it
er a tu
re su
p p
o rt
In te
rv ie
w su
p p
o rt
S co
p e
P re
-g ra
d u
a te
w o rk
ex p
er ie
n ce
C a ll
a n
a n
a n
d B
en zi
n g
(2 0 0 4 ),
G a u
lt et
a l.
(2 0 1 0 ),
G ab
ri s
a n
d M
it ch
el l
(1 9 8 9 )
2 7 /3
0 T
h e
cu rr
en t
st u
d y
d ef
in es
p re
-g ra
d u
a te
w o
rk ex
p er
ie n
ce a s
p re
v io
u s
w o
rk in
v o lv
em en
t in
th e
fo rm
o f
in te
rn sh
ip s,
co -o
p s
a n
d w
o rk
te rm
s o r
o th
er a ct
iv it
ie s.
P re
- g
ra d
u a te
w o rk
ex p
er ie
n ce
h a s
b ee
n d
ir ec
tl y
li n
k ed
to fu
tu re
em p
lo y
m en
t a n
d is
a fa
ct o r
th a t
is ca
n d
id ly
lo o k
ed a t
b y
em p
lo y
er s
w h
en ev
a lu
a ti
n g
n ew
g ra
d u
a te
p o te
n ti
a l
(C a ll
a n
a n
a n
d B
en zi
n g
, 2 0 0 4 ).
E v
id en
ce su
g g
es ts
th a t
ev en
a v
er a g
e p
er fo
rm in
g in
te rn
s a re
m o re
li k
el y
to re
ce iv
e jo
b o ff
er s
th a n
st u
d en
ts w
h o
d id
n o t
co m
p le
te in
te rn
sh ip
s (G
a u
lt et
a l.,
2 0 1 0 ).
T h
u s
p re
v io
u s
w o
rk ex
p er
ie n
ce th
ro u
g h
in te
rn sh
ip s
g iv
es n
ew g
ra d
u a te
s a
co m
p et
it iv
e a d
v a n
ta g
e b
ec a u
se th
ey a re
ex p
o se
d to
re a l
w o
rk in
g co
n d
it io
n s
P ro
fe ss
io n
a l
co n
fi d
en ce
C h
o w
d h
u ry
et a l.
(2 0 0 2 ),
W ie
n er
et a l.
(1 9 9 9 ),
K n
o u
se et
a l.
(1 9 9 9 )
2 1 /3
0 A
h ig
h le
v el
o f
se lf
-c o n
fi d
en ce
is li
n k
ed d
ir ec
tl y
to p
er fo
rm a n
ce ,
su ch
th a t
h ig
h er
le v
el s
o f
p er
ce iv
ed co
n fi
d en
ce le
a d
to a
m o re
ef fe
ct iv
e in
d iv
id u
a l
(W ie
n er
et a l.,
1 9 9 9 ).
A h
ig h
ly co
n fi
d en
t em
p lo
y ee
w il
l p
er fo
rm to
a h
ig h
er q
u a li
ty th
a n
h er
/h is
p e er
s m
a k
in g
th em
se lv
es a n
d th
ei r
o rg
a n
is a ti
o n
m o re
ef fe
ct iv
e (C
h o w
d h
u ry
et a l.,
2 0 0 2 ).
C o n
fi d
en ce
a ll
o w
s fo
r a n
in d
iv id
u a l
to ta
k e
ri sk
s a n
d se
p a ra
te th
em se
lv es
fr o m
th ei
r p
e er
s to
m ee
t g
o a ls
(C h
o w
d h
u ry
et a l.,
2 0 0 2 ;K
n o u
se et
a l.,
1 9 9 9 ).
In th
e cu
rr en
t st
u d
y w
e d
ef in
e p
ro fe
ss io
n a l
co n
fi d
en ce
a s
o n
e’ s
ab il
it y
n o t
to fe
a r
ce rt
a in
si tu
a ti
o n
s, re
m a in
a ss
er ti
v e
in -g
ro u
p d
is cu
ss io
n s
a n
d re
m a in
co n
fi d
en t
in d
ec is
io n
m a k
in g
A ca
d em
ic p
er fo
rm a n
ce N
g et
a l.
(2 0 1 0 )
1 6 /3
0 T
h e
cu rr
en t
st u
d y
se ek
s to
ev a lu
a te
th e
im p
o rt
a n
ce o f
a cu
m u
la ti
v e
G P
A w
h en
em p
lo y
er s
a re
a ss
es si
n g
n ew
g ra
d u
a te
s to
fi ll
jo b
p o st
in g
s. G
P A
is a
ta n
g ib
le a n
d ea
si ly
m ea
su re
d p
er fo
rm a n
ce in
d ic
a to
r a n
d is
o ft
en a sk
ed fo
r b
y p
ro sp
ec ti
v e
em p
lo y
er s
(N g
et a l.,
2 0 1 0 ).
G P A
sa y
s a
lo t
ab o u
t a
ca n
d id
a te
a n
d ca
n b
e a
m a jo
r d
et er
m in
in g
fa ct
o r
w h
en se
cu ri
n g
a jo
b
(c o n ti n u ed )
Table III.
692
ET 55,7
F a ct
o r
L it
er a tu
re su
p p
o rt
In te
rv ie
w su
p p
o rt
S co
p e
P o st
-s ec
o n
d a ry
in st
it u
ti o n
a l
re p
u ta
ti o n
A le
ss a n
d ri
et a l.
(2 0 0 7 )
1 7 /3
0 In
st it
u ti
o n
a l
re p
u ta
ti o n
is im
p o
rt a n
t to
u n
d er
st a n
d a s
a n
ew g
ra d
u a te
se ek
in g
em p
lo y
m en
t b
ec a u
se ea
ch p
o st
-s ec
o n
d a ry
in st
it u
ti o n
cr ea
te s
it s
o w
n im
a g
e a n
d ca
rr ie
s it
s o w
n re
p u
ta ti
o n
a m
o n
g in
d u
st ri
es (A
le ss
a n
d ri
et a l.,
2 0 0 7 ).
U n
iv er
si ti
es h
a v
e b
ec o m
e m
o re
co m
p et
it iv
e w
it h
in th
e m
a rk
et tr
y in
g to
a tt
ra ct
th e
b es
t st
u d
en ts
a n
d in
tu rn
p ro
v id
e th
e b
es t
jo b
o p
p o rt
u n
it ie
s fo
r th
e st
u d
en ts
th a t
h a v
e b
ee n
re cr
u it
ed (A
le ss
a n
d ri
et a l.,
2 0 0 7 ).
T h
is a ll
o w
s p
o st
-s ec
o n
d a ry
in st
it u
ti o n
s to
cr ea
te a
co m
p et
it iv
e ed
g e
b y
a tt
ra ct
in g
to p
st u
d en
ts a n
d in
tu rn
to p
co m
p a n
ie s
P ro
g ra
m m
e re
p u
ta ti
o n
B ri
n t
et a l.
(2 0 1 1 ),
H el
g es
en a n
d N
es se
t (2
0 0 7 ),
M cG
u in
n es
s (2
0 0 3 )
2 7 /3
0 S
p ec
if ic
p ro
g ra
m m
e- le
v el
re p
u ta
ti o n
h a s
b ee
n id
en ti
fi ed
to co
n tr
ib u
te to
th e
a ca
d em
ic re
p u
ta ti
o n
o f
a n
in st
it u
ti o n
a n
d u
lt im
a te
ly in
fl u
en ce
p er
ce iv
ed em
p lo
y ab
il it
y sk
il ls
(M cG
u in
n es
s, 2 0 0 3 ).
T h
e em
er g
en ce
o f
p ro
g ra
m m
e- le
v el
ra n
k in
g sy
st em
s a n
d a v
er a g
e co
m p
en sa
ti o n
o f
n ew
g ra
d u
a te
s (e
.g .
b u
si n
es s
sc h
o o ls
) a re
ex a m
p le
s o f
th e
li n
k b
et w
ee n
p ro
g ra
m m
e- le
v el
re p
u ta
ti o n
a n
d em
p lo
y ab
il it
y
Table III.
693
Factors affecting undergraduate employability
For Phase Two of the current study, we created a new measure based loosely on Paranto and Kelkar’s (1999) measure of employers’ perceptions of skills needed to succeed in today’s work environment. Our measure included the 17 individual employability factors identified in the literature review and supported by the findings from Phase One. Consistent with Paranto and Kelkar’s (1999) measure, respondents evaluated the importance of each of the 17 factors using a seven-point Likert-type scale (1¼not important to 7¼very important). Participants were also asked to indicate the industry in which they are currently employed, the size of their organisation, and their job title and age.
The final sample consisted of 115 employers. Generally, respondents were either directly responsible for hiring new graduates (56 per cent) or had a major influence on hiring decisions (31 per cent). The major sectors represented include: educational services (22.4 per cent), professional services (17.3 per cent), technology (10.4 per cent), and energy and utilities (7.5 per cent). The sample was stratified between small- and medium-sized organisations (1-49 employees; 49 per cent of sample), medium-sized organisations (50-499 employees; 24 per cent of sample), and large organisations (4500 employees; 27 per cent of sample).
Results. To examine the relationship amongst the 17 individual factors we started by conducting an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal components extraction (and a promax rotation). The results of the EFA provided preliminary support for the proposed five composite categories. To test the internal consistency of each category, we conducted a Cronbach’s a reliability test (Cronbach, 1951). The results of the Cronbach’s a’s ranged from 0.51 to 0.79 and offered additional support for the unidimensional composition of each category. Lastly, we completed a category-level correlational analysis to examine the relationship amongst the categories. The relatively low intercorrelations among the five categories suggest these factors are independent. In summary, our data analysis supports the proposition that employability factors can be clustered effectively into five unidimensional categories. Table IV provides a summary of the results from the EFA while Table V illustrates the intercorrelations between the composite categories.
Table VI presents the category-level ranking. As this table demonstrates, soft-skills was the highest ranked category, followed by problem-solving skills. In contrast, academic reputation was the lowest ranked category. Moreover, as illustrated in Table VII, consistent with the category-level finding, five of the six highest ranked individual employability factors were from the category of soft-skills. Whereas, three of the four lowest individual employability factors were measures of academic reputation.
Discussion This exploratory study considers employers’ views of the factors that are important for new graduates who are seeking employment. Based on qualitative and quantitative findings, we identified 17 individual employability factors that can be clustered into five composite employability categories. These findings contribute to the existing literature on employability by empirically examining how the extensive list of employability factors can be aggregated in a way that is both theoretically and practically meaningful. In addition, we examined how employers prioritise employability factors. Ultimately, these findings can be used to enhance the employability of new graduates, and should be considered by researchers and educators alike when reflecting on employers’ hiring practices and preferences. In what follows, we address our key findings and practical implications as they pertain to the five employability categories identified in our results.
694
ET 55,7
Soft-skills: our results support a growing body of research that identifies soft-skills as one of the most important competencies employers look for when hiring new graduates (Finch et al., 2012; Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2010). Indeed, of the 17 individual employability factors measured, five of the six highest ranked factors were from the category of soft-skills. This suggests that new graduates who demonstrate soft-skills (e.g. effective communication and interpersonal skills) will be more competitive in the marketplace than those who do not.
Category Factor loading
Soft-skills (Cronbach’s a¼0.79) Eigenvalue¼2.73 Written communication skills 0.64 Verbal communication skills 0.81 Listening skills 0.68 Professionalism 0.79 Interpersonal skills 0.77 Problem-solving skills (Cronbach’s a¼0.67 ) Eigenvalue¼2.04 Critical thinking skills 0.72 Creative thinking skills 0.83 Leadership skills 0.70 Adaptability 0.57 Functional skills (Cronbach’s a¼0.68) Eigenvalue¼1.87 Job-specific competencies 0.73 Job-specific technical skills 0.75 Knowledge of software 0.78 Pre-graduate experience (Cronbach’s a¼0.51) Eigenvalue¼1.44 Work experience 0.81 Professional confidence 0.71 Academic reputation (Cronbach’s a¼0.76) Eigenvalue¼2.04 Academic performance 0.67 Institutional reputation 0.89 Programme reputation 0.90
Table IV. Proposed new
graduate employability categories – factor
loadings and Cronbach’s a
Category Soft-skills Academic reputation Functional skills Problem-solving skills
Soft-skills 1.00 Academic reputation 0.43 1.00 Functional skills ns 0.24 1.00 Problem-solving skills 0.42 0.27 ns 1.00 Pre-graduate experience 0.28 ns ns 0.38
Note: All correlations are significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)
Table V. Proposed new graduate
employability categories – intercorrelations
Category Mean SD
Soft-skills 6.28 0.64 Problem-solving skills 5.80 0.73 Pre-graduate experience 5.35 0.86 Functional skills 4.88 1.07 Academic reputation 4.36 1.04
Table VI. Mean ranking –
category level
695
Factors affecting undergraduate employability
These findings suggest that learning outcomes linked to soft-skills development should take priority in the development of both academic programmes (e.g. degrees or majors) and specific courses within these programmes. On the one hand, evidence suggests that, when it comes to soft-skills, there is an increasing gap between the content and skills taught in educational institutions and the needs of industry (Finch et al., 2012). These findings call into question the perceived value of traditional undergraduate education among these employers. On the other hand, soft-skills are a central learning outcome in many post-secondary programmes and disciplines. Taken together, this suggests that an employer’s view of the competencies needed in new graduates is changing faster than academic programmes can adapt. Recall that the prioritisation of soft-skills in new graduates often transcends disciplines and working environments (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2010). Therefore, our findings suggest that, to be competitive, universities must emphasise the development of soft-skills within all of their programmes. This will ensure that graduates enter the workforce with the number one skill that employers want: soft-skills.
Problem-solving skills: consistent with past research (e.g. Reid and Anderson, 2012; Stiwne and Jungert, 2010; Wellman, 2010; Fallows and Steven, 2000), in the current study employers identified problem-solving skills (e.g. critical thinking skills) as an important factor when assessing new graduates’ employability. Second only to soft-skills, problem solving was considered a key skill employers assess when hiring new graduates. The current findings provide additional support for the notion that problem-solving skills are important across disciplines (Wellman, 2010), perhaps due to their strong predictive validity when it comes to job performance (Schmidt and Hunter, 2004, 1998). Taken together, the relatively high importance placed on soft-skills and problem-solving skills suggests that employers value skills that transcend specific roles and occupations, and place relatively less value on job-specific functional skills.
Pre-graduate experience: the third most important category of factors, as identified by employers, is pre-graduate experience. Importantly, findings from both the qualitative and quantitative phases of the current study illustrate that employers view the learning opportunities inherent in co-op and internship placements as highly
Individual factor Associated category Mean SD
1. Listening skills Soft-skills 6.41 0.76 2. Interpersonal skills Soft-skills 6.35 0.82 3. Verbal communication skills Soft-skills 6.32 0.76 4. Critical thinking skills Problem-solving skills 6.24 0.87 5. Professionalism Soft-skills 6.19 1.06 6. Written communication skills Soft-skills 6.11 0.93 7. Creative thinking skills Problem-solving skills 6.09 0.83 8. Adaptability Problem-solving skills 5.73 1.09 9. Professional confidence Pre-graduate experience 5.69 0.89
10. Job-specific competencies Functional skills 5.62 1.19 11. Leadership skills Problem-solving skills 5.15 1.32 12. Work experience Pre-graduate experience 5.01 1.20 13. Job-specific technical skills Functional skills 4.76 1.36 14. Academic performance Academic reputation 4.64 1.24 15. Programme reputation Academic reputation 4.30 1.26 16. Knowledge of software Functional skills 4.26 1.49 17. Institutional reputation Academic reputation 4.16 1.30
Table VII. Mean ranking – individual measure level
696
ET 55,7
valuable for graduate job-seekers and their prospective employers. This finding replicates and extends previous literature demonstrating the importance of work experience for graduate employability (Gault et al., 2010; Callanan and Benzing, 2004).
Job-specific functional skills: the next category identified as an important employability factor is job-specific functional skills. Within this category, three individual factors were measured: job-specific competencies, job-specific technical skills, and knowledge of software. Results demonstrated that these skills are not as important to employers as the previous three categories identified. To be a successful job applicant as a new graduate, technical skills are important but ranked intermediate to the other categories. Employers who have technical requirements understand that they may have unique software and/or technical processes that graduates may not have been exposed to in their studies. However, by selecting graduates with strong problem-solving skills, employers can ensure that it will be easy for their employees to learn these job-specific functional skills through training or on-the-job experience.
Academic reputation: the final category examined in the current study was academic reputation (i.e. academic performance, programme reputation, and institutional reputation). Our results illustrate that, compared to the above-mentioned categories, employers place the least importance on academic reputation when hiring new graduates. In fact, of the four lowest ranked individual employability factors, three were measures of academic reputation. That said, these factors were still ranked above the mid-point on the scale, suggesting that employers do place some importance on them. These findings contribute to the relatively small body of literature on the relationship between academic reputation and employability. Interestingly, it appears that there may be a disconnect between the importance students place on academic reputation when choosing their post-secondary institution (Capobianco, 2009) and the relative lack of importance employers place on academic reputation when hiring graduates.
Directions for future research There are two employability factors that were not included in the current study: team work skills and information-processing skills. In the current study, we examined a variety of soft-skills including communication skills and interpersonal skills. Although interpersonal skills can include the ability to work effectively in teams, future researchers may wish to measure team work skills as a separate employability factor within the soft-skills category (Gault et al., 2000). Similarly, within the problem-solving category, researchers may wish to examine the role of information-processing skills (Karakaya and Karakaya, 1996). Both of these factors were also identified by the National Association of College and Employers (NACE) (2012) as important for employees but were not specifically measured in the current study.
In the current study results demonstrated that, according to hiring managers who recruit new graduates, soft-skills are key to employability. This leads to an interesting question: how are employers evaluating these skills, both at the resume screening phase (e.g. via screening software) and later in the selection process (e.g. via assessment centres or structured interviews)? And, are these soft-skills a valid predictor of job performance? Ultimately these are important empirical questions that merit attention.
Limitations We would be remiss not to acknowledge some limitations of the current study. Although our findings were corroborated by two independent samples, for the
697
Factors affecting undergraduate employability
quantitative (Phase Two) study, we partnered with the chamber of commerce and the economic development authority in a large western city. While this approach resulted in a fairly large and diverse sample of employers, the sectors were not completely representative of the region. Although respondents came from diverse sectors, in this sample, educational services is significantly overrepresented and other sectors such as retail, hospitality, healthcare, professional services, and energy and utility are underrepresented (Calgary Economic Development, 2012). In addition, because the survey was distributed via e-mail to the chamber’s members, this excluded non- chamber members from our sample. Future researchers may wish to replicate and extend the current findings using a larger, more representative sample of employers. It is also important to note that employers were the target population for this study. While employers’ perceptions are particularly important for many graduates, we acknowledge that employability is only one of the many goals of most undergraduate university programmes. Most programmes also strive to foster a love for lifelong learning and to develop graduates who are engaged citizens in their communities.
Conclusion The goal of increasing our understanding of factors that affect new graduates’ transition into the labour market stems from a pressing issue facing a large proportion of new graduates: high rates of un- and under-employment (Li et al., 2006). Based on a two-phase, mixed-methods study that included interview data from 30 employers and quantitative data from an additional 115 employers, we demonstrated that employability factors can be clustered into five higher-order composite categories. In addition, we explored the relative importance of these categories, and found that, when hiring new graduates, employers place the highest importance on soft-skills and the lowest importance on academic reputation. By better understanding the value employers place on employability factors, universities can design curricula based on the development of key skills that employers desire, and students can better position themselves in the marketplace (e.g. by highlighting certain attributes – such as soft-skills – when applying for jobs).
Note
1. Consistent with De Vos et al. (2011), we define employability as “the continuous fulfilling, acquiring or creating of work through the optimal use of competencies” (p. 438).
References
Alessandri, S., Yang, S. and Kinsey, D. (2006), “An integrative approach to university visual identity and reputation”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 258-270.
Aistrich, M., Saghafi, M.M. and Sciglimpaglia, D. (2006), “Ivory tower or real world: do educators and practitioners see the same world?”, Marketing Education Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 73-80.
Andrews, J. and Higson, H. (2008), “Graduate employability, ‘soft skills’ versus ‘hard’ business knowledge: a European study”, Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 411-422.
Ariana, S. (2010), “Some thoughts on writing skills”, Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 134-140.
Ashton, D. (2011), “Media work and the creative industries: identity work, professionalism and employability”, Education and Training, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 546-560.
Barr, S.H., Baker, T., Markham, S.K. and Kingon, A.I. (2009), “Bridging the valley of death: lessons learned from 14 years of commercialization of technology education”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 370-388.
698
ET 55,7
Batra, J. (2010), “Knowledge management: emerging practices in IT industry in NCR”, IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 Nos 1/2, pp. 57-67.
Bennett, R. and Ali-Choudhury, R. (2009), “Prospective students’ perceptions of university brands: an empirical study”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 85-107.
Bhaerman, R. and Spill, R. (1988), “A dialogue on employability skills: how can they be taught?”, Journal of Career Development, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 41-52.
Borghans, L., ter Weel, B. and Weinberg, B.A. (2008), “Interpersonal styles and labor market outcomes”, The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 815-858.
Brint, S., Proctor, K., Hanneman, R., Mulligan, K., Rotondi, M. and Murphy, S. (2011), “Who are the early adopters of new academic fields?”, Higher Education, Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 563-585.
Brown, B., O’Mara, L., Hunsberger, M., Love, B., Black, M., Carpio, B., Crooks, D. and Noesgaard, C. (2003), “Professional confidence in baccalaureate nursing students”, Nurse Education in Practice, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 163-170.
Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1996), “Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 294-311.
Calgary Economic Development (2012), “Calgary: Western Canada’s business centre”, December, available at: www.calgaryeconomicdevelopment.com/economic-research/studies-reports/ whats-new (accessed 20 December 2012).
Callanan, G. and Benzing, C. (2004), “Assessing the role of internships in the career-oriented employment of graduating college students”, Education and Training, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 82-89.
Canadian Council on Learning (2009), “Post-secondary education in Canada: meeting our needs?”, available at: www.ccl cca.ca/pdfs/PSE/2009/PSE2008_English.pdf (accessed 13 December 2012).
Capobianco, F. (2009), “Reputation versus reality: the impact of US news and world report rankings and education branding on hiring decisions in the job market”, unpublished doctoral thesis, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Arteche, A., Bremner, A.J., Greven, C. and Furnham, A. (2010), “Soft skills in higher education: importance and improvement ratings as a function of individual differences and academic performance”, Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 221-241.
Chevalier, A. and Conlon, G. (2003), “Does it pay to attend a prestigious university?”, Centre for the Economics of Education, May, ISSN 2045-6557, available at: http://cee.lse.ac.uk/ceedps/ ceedp33.pdf (accessed 13 December 2012).
Chowdhury, S., Endres, M. and Lanis, T.W. (2002), “Preparing students for success in team work environments: the importance of building confidence”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 346-359.
Conrad, D. and Newberry, R. (2012), “Identification and instruction of important business communication skills for graduate business education”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 112-120.
Cooper, L.O. (1997), “Listening competency in the workplace: a model for training”, Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 75-84.
Corbin, J.M. and Strauss, A. (1990), “Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria”, Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 3-21.
Creswell, J.W. (2009), “Editorial: mapping the field of mixed methods research”, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 95-108.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 297-334.
699
Factors affecting undergraduate employability
Culkin, N. and Mallick, S. (2011), “Producing work-ready graduates”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 347-368.
Dalton, J.M. and Croft, S. (2003), Managing Corporate Reputation: A Specially Commissioned Report, Thorogood.
Deephouse, D.L. and Carter, S.M. (2005), “An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 329-360.
De Vos, A., De Hauw, S. and Van der Heijden, B.I. (2011), “Competency development and career success: the mediating role of employability”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 438-447.
Fallows, S. and Steven, C. (2000), “Building employability skills into the higher education curriculum: a university-wide initiative”, Education and Training, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 75-82.
Financial Times (2012), “Global MBA ranking 2012”, available at: http://rankings.ft.com/ businessschoolrankings/global-mba-rankings-2012
Finch, D., Nadeau, J. and O’Reilly, N. (2012), “The future of marketing education: a practitioners perspective”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 54-67, available at: http:// jmd.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/11/14/0273475312465091.abstract (accessed 16 December 2012).
Fombrun, C. and Shanley, M. (1990), “What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 233-258.
Gabris, G.T. and Mitchell, K. (1989), “Exploring the relationships between intern job performance, quality of education experience, and career placement”, Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 484-504.
Gardner, C., Milne, M.J., Stringer, C.P. and Whiting, R.H. (2005), “Oral and written communication apprehension in accounting students: curriculum impacts and impacts on academic performance”, Accounting Education, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 313-336.
Gault, J., Leach, E. and Duey, M. (2010), “Effects of business internships on job marketability: the employers’ perspective”, Education and Training, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 76-88.
Gault, J., Redington, J. and Schlager, T. (2000), “The benefits of undergraduate business internships: implications for the student, university, and business community”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 45-53.
Goby, V. and Lewis, J. (2000), “The key role of listening in business: a study of the Singapore insurance industry”, Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 41-51.
Graham, A., Hampton, M. and Willett, C. (2010), “What not to write: an intervention in written communication skills for accounting students”, International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 67-74.
Gray, F. (2010), “Specific oral communication skills desired in new accountancy graduates”, Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 40-67.
Harris, R. (1976), A History of Higher Education in Canada: 1663-1960, University of Toronto Press, Buffalo, NY.
Halpern, D.F. (1998), “Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring”, American Psychologist, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 449-455.
Helgesen, Ø. and Nesset, E. (2007), “Images, satisfaction and antecedents: drivers of student loyalty? A case study of a Norwegian University College”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 38-59.
Hillage, J. and Pollard, E. (1998), “Developing a framework for policy analysis”, No. 85, Institute for Employment Studies, UK Department of Education and Employment.
Hitt, M., Beirman, L., Shimizu, K. and Kochhar, R. (2001), “Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: a resource perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 13-28.
700
ET 55,7
Holden, R. and Hamblett, J. (2007), “The transition from higher education into work: tales of cohesion and fragmentation”, Education and Training, Vol. 49 No. 7, pp. 516-585.
Hopkins, C.D., Raymond, M.A. and Carlson, L. (2011), “Educating students to give them a sustainable competitive advantage”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 337-347.
Huang, Y. and Lin, C. (2011), “Management trainee core competencies in the hospitality industry: differences between managers and scholars”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Jabr, N.H. (2011), “Social networking as a tool for extending academic learning and communication”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 2 No. 12, pp. 93-102.
Judson, K.M., Aurand, T.W., Gorchels, L. and Gordon, G.L. (2008), “Building a university brand from within: university administrators’ perspectives of internal branding”, Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 54-68.
Karakaya, F. and Karakaya, F. (1996), “Employer expectations from a business education”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 9-16.
Kilgour, M. and Koslow, S. (2009), “Why and how do creative thinking techniques work?: trading off originality and appropriateness to make more creative advertising”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 298-309.
Knouse, S.B., Tanner, J.T. and Harris, E.W. (1999), “The relation of college internships, college performance, and subsequent job opportunity”, Journal of Employment Counseling, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 36-45.
Laker, D.R. and Powell, J.L. (2011), “The differences between hard and soft skills and their relative impact on training transfer”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 111-122.
Li, C., Gervais, G. and Duval, A. (2006), “The dynamics of overqualification: Canada’s underemployed university graduates”, Analytical Paper No. 039, Catalogue No. 11-621- MIE, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, available at: www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-621-m/11-621- m2006039-eng.pdf (accessed 16 December 2012).
Lievens, F. and Sackett, P.R. (2012), “The validity of interpersonal skills assessment via situational judgment tests for predicting academic success and job performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 460-468.
Lin, C., Tsai, Y., Joe, S. and Chiu, C. (2012), “Modeling the relationship among perceived corporate citizenship, firms’ attractiveness, and career success expectation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 83-93.
Longest, B.B. Jr (1973), “Criteria for hiring college graduates as management trainees”, Training and Development Journal, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 46-49.
McCorkle, D.E., Alexander, J.F. and Reardon, J. (2001), “Integrating business technology and marketing education: enhancing the diffusion process through technology champions”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 16-24.
McGuinness, S. (2003), “University quality and labour market outcomes”, Applied Economics, Vol. 35 No. 18, pp. 1943-1955.
McKinsey and Company (2012), “The state of human capital 2012: false summit – why the human capital function still has far to go”, Research Report No. R-1501-12-RR, McKinsey and Company.
Mat, N. and Zabidi, Z. (2010), “Professionalism in practices: a preliminary study on Malaysian public universities”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5 No. 8, pp. 138-145.
Moustakas, C. (1994), Phenomenological Research Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Moy, J.W. (2006), “Are employers assessing the right traits in hiring? Evidence from Hong Kong companies”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 734-754.
701
Factors affecting undergraduate employability
National Association of College and Employers (NACE) (2012), “Job outlook 2012”, available at: www.naceweb.org/infographics/employers-rate-candidate-skills-qualities.aspx (1 December 2012).
Nauta, A., Vianen, A., Heijden, B., Dam, K. and Willemsen, M. (2009), “Understanding the factors that promote employability orientation: the impact of employability culture, career satisfaction, and role breadth self-efficacy”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 233-251.
Ng, E.S., Schweitzer, L. and Lyons, S.T. (2010), “New generation, great expectations: a field study of the millennial generation”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 281-292.
Nicholson, A. and Cushman, L. (2000), “Developing successful employees: perceptions of industry leaders and academicians”, Education and Training, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 366-371.
Nickson, D., Warhurst, C., Commander, J., Hurrell, S.A. and Cullen, A.M. (2012), “Soft skills and employability: evidence from UK retail”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 65-84.
Overton, G.K., Kelly, D., McCalister, P., Jones, J. and MacVicar, R. (2009), “The practice-based small group learning approach: making evidence-based practice come alive for learners”, Nurse Education Today, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 671-675.
Pampaloni, A.M. (2010), “The influence of organizational image on college selection: what students seek in institutions of higher education”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 19-48.
Pang, M. and To Ming, H. (2005), “Preparing business students for the challenge ahead: a case study”, Journal of Teaching in International Business, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 45-64.
Paranto, S. and Kelkar, M. (1999), “Employer satisfaction with job skills of business college graduates and its impact on hiring behavior”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 73-85.
Perry, W. (1998), “What software skills do employers want their employees to possess?”, Business Education Forum, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 35-38.
Poropat, A. (2011), “The role of citizenship performance in academic achievement and graduate employability”, Education and Training, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 499-514.
Reid, J.R. and Anderson, P.R. (2012), “Critical thinking in the business classroom”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 52-59.
Rosenberg, S., Heimler, R. and Morote, E.-S. (2012), “Basic employability skills: a triangular design approach”, Education and Training, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 7-20.
Rynes, S.L., Orlitzky, M.O. and Bretz, R.D. Jr (1997), “Experienced hiring versus college recruiting: practicing and emerging trends”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 309-339.
Sauer, P.L. and O’Donnell, J.B. (2006), “The impact of new major offerings on student retention”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 135-155.
Scherbaum, C.A., Goldstein, H.W., Yusko, K.P., Ryan, R. and Hanges, P.J. (2012), “Intelligence 2.0: reestablishing a research program on g in I-O psychology”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 128-148.
Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J. (2004), “General mental ability in the world of work: occupational attainment and job performance”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 162-173.
Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J.E. (1998), “The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 262-274.
Scott, J. (2006), “The mission of the university: medieval to postmodern transformations”, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 1-39.
Shafer, W.E., Park, L.J. and Woody, M.L. (2002), “Professionalism, organizational-professional conflict and work outcomes: a study of certified management accountants”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 46-68.
702
ET 55,7
Shoemaker, M.E. (2003), “What marketing students need to know about enterprise resource planning”, Marketing Education Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 69-77.
Smith, I., Smarkusky, D. and Corrigall, E. (2008), “Defining projects to integrate evolving team fundamentals and project management skills”, Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 99-110.
Statistics Canada (2009), “Education indicators in Canada: fact sheets”, available at: www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-599-x/81-599-x2009003-eng.htm (accessed 13 December 2012).
Stiwne, E.E. and Jungert, T. (2010), “Engineering students’ experiences of transition from study to work”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 417-437.
Sutherland, J. (2008), “Higher education, the graduate and the labour market: from Robbins to Dearing”, Education and Training, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 47-51.
Tas, A. and Ergin, E. (2012), “Key factors for student recruitment: the issue of university branding”, International Business Research, Vol. 5 No. 10, pp. 146-153.
Van Der Heijden, B., Boon, J., Van der Klink, M. and Meijs, E. (2009a), “Employability enhancement through formal and informal learning: an empirical study among Dutch non- academic university staff members”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 19-37.
Van der Heijden, B., de Lange, A., Demerouti, E. and Van der Heijde, C. (2009b), “Age effects on the employability-career success relationship”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 156-164.
Wellman, N. (2010), “The employability attributes required of new marketing graduates”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 908-930.
Wickramasinghe, V. and Perera, L. (2010), “Graduates’, university lecturers’ and employers’ perceptions towards employability skills”, Education and Training, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 236-244.
Wiener, K.K., Oei, T.S. and Creed, P.A. (1999), “Predicting job seeking frequency and psychological well-being in the unemployed”, Journal of Employment Counseling, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 67-81.
Further reading
Amaram, D.I. (2005), “Issues in recruitment and retention for the IT workforce”, Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 49-54.
An Tien, H. and Ying Yu, C. (2011), “The influence of employee referrals on P-O fit”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 327-339.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (2002), “Management education at risk”, report of the Management Education Task Force to the AACSB International Board of Directors, AACSB.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (2006), “Business and business schools: a partnership for the future”, report of the AACSB International Alliance for Management Education Task Force, AACSB.
Boatwright, E.W. and Stamps, M.B. (1988), “Employers’ importance ratings of student characteristics: a conjoint analysis approach”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 74-78.
Cassidy, S. (2006), “Developing employability skills: peer assessment in higher education”, Education and Training, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 508-517.
Duad, S., Abidin, N., Sapuan, N.M. and Rajadurai, J. (2011), “Enhancing university business curriculum using an importance-performance approach”, The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 545-569.
Ghaith, G. (2011), “An exploratory study of the achievement of the twenty-first century skills in higher education”, Education and Training, Vol. 52 No. 67, pp. 489-498.
Griffin, W. (2008), “From performance to mastery”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 95-108.
703
Factors affecting undergraduate employability
Hillard, J. and Pollard, E. (1998), “Developing a framework for policy analysis”, Institute for Employment Studies, UK Department of Education and Employment, No. 85.
Ismall, W., Omar, R. and Bidmeshgipour, M. (2010), “The relation of strategic human resource practices with firm performance: considering the mediating role of resource based view”, Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 395-420.
Knight, P. and Yorke, M. (2002), “Employability through the curriculum”, Tertiary Education and Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 261-276.
Lievens, F. and Lievens, P.R. (2012), “The validity of interpersonal skills assessment via situational judgment tests for predicting academic success and job performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 460-468.
Persons, O. (2012), “Incorporating corporate social responsibility and sustainability into a business course: a shared experience”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 63-72.
Schwartz, R.H., Kassem, S. and Ludwig, D. (1991), “The role of business schools in managing the incongruence between doing what is right and doing what it takes to get ahead”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 465-469.
Sung, M. and Yang, S. (2008), “Toward the model of university image: the influence of brand personality, external prestige, and reputation”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 357-376.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012), “Table a-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment”, 9 March, available at: www.bls.gov/ news.release/empsit.t04.htm (accessed 18 December 2012).
Verhaest, D. and Omey, E. (2012), “Overeducation, undereducation and earnings: further evidence on the importance of ability and measurement error bias”, Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 76-90.
Weible, R. and McClure, R. (2011), “An exploration of the benefits of student internships to marketing departments”, Marketing Education Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 229-240.
Yew Ming, C. (2005), “Job offers of multi-national accounting firms: the effects of emotional intelligence, extra-curricular activities, and academic performance”, Accounting Education, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 75-93.
About the authors
David J. Finch is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Mount Royal University’s Bissett School of Business in Calgary, Alberta. David holds a PhD in management with a research focus on the relationship between attitude formation and behaviour. David has published or presented twenty-one papers in a breadth of peer-reviewed forums in the past four-years. David J. Finch is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Leah K. Hamilton is an Assistant Professor of Organisational Behaviour at Mount Royal University’s Bissett School of Business in Calgary, Alberta. Leah has a PhD in Industrial/ Organisational Psychology from the University of Western Ontario.
Riley Baldwin is a recent graduate from Mount Royal University. Riley holds a Bachelor of Business Administration (Marketing). This study was completed as a component of a senior tutorial course.
Mark Zehner is recent graduate from Mount Royal University. Mark holds a Bachelor of Business Administration (Marketing). This study was completed as a component of a senior tutorial course.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
704
ET 55,7
