Exploring the contribution of universities to labour market requirements in South Africa: An employer’s perspective

Online open-ended questionnaire with employer’s graduates

A non-probability convenience sampling method (Saunders and Lewis, 2012) was used to access the graduates hired by the employer via an online Google questionnaire link sent to the organisation’s human resources officer, who then forwarded the link to the graduates’ email addresses. Non-probability convenience sampling allows for the selection of participants in a process that does not give all individuals in a population an equal chance of selection (Saunders et al, 2012). Convenience sampling proceeded until the required number of participants was reached (Saunders et al., 2012). A total of 35 graduates, employed in different business units within the organisation, received the link. The convenience sampling technique applied facilitated speedy delivery of the questionnaire to participants; cost-effectiveness in collecting data; and availability of the participant sample (Crossman, 2017).

The Google Forms application was used to design the questionnaire, which consisted of three sections: (1) biographical information (9 closed-ended questions); (2) university and qualification selection (a combination of 15 open-ended and closed-ended questions); and (3) skills and knowledge (a combination of 27 open-ended and closed-ended questions). The link was made available online for the month of June 2018 to allow participants sufficient time to complete the questionnaire. Of the 35 graduates who received it, 33 responded. Only 30 returned questionnaires were used for this study because the remaining 3 were not completed in full. Employed graduates from nine different business divisions of the employer completed the questionnaire.

Focus group 1 – Employed graduates

Purposive sampling, as a non-probability method, was used to select 10 of the 30 online participants for one focus group interview session. The inclusion criterion was that participants selected for the group should be representative of the nine business units from which online responses were received. (Graduates from other business units were excluded because they did not respond within the period for which the Google open-ended online questionnaire was available.) The main reason for this focus group interview session was to clarify the online responses of the completed questionnaires in a real setting to increase the validity and reliability of the analysed data.

Confirmation of completion of the online open-ended questionnaire had to be signed by each participant in the focus group session. This was communicated to participants beforehand and the confirmations were signed at the session. Electronic verification was carried out by accessing the Google responses. The focus group process involved electronic and written flipchart recording of participants’ responses. The data collected from the employed graduates informed the themes and questions of the interview schedule and discussion for the focus groups with the management teams.

Focus group 2 – Management teams

Six focus group sessions, categorised as Focus Group 2, were held with management teams representing the business units in which the participant graduates were employed – among others, engineering, water affairs, safety and security, finance, human resources, information and technology. Purposive sampling was applied in the selection of the participants with the assistance of the human resources consultant based on the managers to whom the graduates reported. The focus group sessions were held at three different venues to facilitate the availability and travel of the managers. In all, 24 managers participated, with 4 at each session. There are different opinions about the minimum number of participants required for a focus group session and, therefore, the number of participants is best determined by the purpose of the focus group (Bigby, 2018). In this case, the purpose was that managers should share experiences, opinions and perspectives about the graduates employed in their respective and cross-functioning departments. The small groups allowed for an easier flow of collective conversation (Kamberelis and Dimitriadis, 2011), encouraging honesty and valid feedback which contributed ideas and views to help resolve the employer’s concerns with the research problem.

An interview schedule consisting of guiding questions related to the themes developed from the analysed graduate data informed the semi-structured focus group sessions with the management teams. The primary aim was to reflect on common perspectives of the data collected from employed graduates and the experiences of managers with these graduates in the workplace.

The sessions encouraged a range of responses that provided a broader appreciation of the attitudes, behaviour, opinions and perceptions of the participants concerning the research issues (Hennink, 2007). It was important to appreciate how managers saw their own reality and hence to obtain richer data. The sessions provided the researcher with an opportunity to explore the gap between what managers say and what they do or how they respond in workplace settings to the alleged lack of skills and knowledge of employed graduates. Permission to record the sessions electronically was granted in advance and, in addition, managers were asked to write their responses on a flipchart during the session. The researcher also made written notes of comments when probing for clarification of points made. No challenges were experienced in getting consent for participation and confidentiality from participants. Consent forms were signed before the focus groups started.

One-on-one interviews – Division heads

Purposive sampling was used to select the 3 divisional heads for the one-on-one interviews. The human resources officer was requested to select heads to whom managers participating in the focus group sessions reported. Data collected from the focus groups with the graduates and managers informed the questions scheduled for the semi-structured interviews with the divisional heads. In addition, further discussion with these participants gave them an opportunity to provide their own views and contribute to an understanding of the internal influences on the research issues from a higher level of the organisation.

Qualitative interview formats allow for discussion and open-ended questioning of participants. I simplified the thematic questions to ensure that they were clearly understood by all the participants, but participants were also encouraged to seek clarity in the case of misunderstood questions (Ary et al., 2010). The divisional heads operate at a strategic level of the organisation and provided comparative feedback on the respective business units reporting to them. They were probed about collaboration with universities and the extent to which this was encouraged in order to ensure that degree programmes were responsive to the needs of the labour market. Consent forms were signed and the same processes of note-taking, written flip chart responses and electronic recording were used to gather data.

Degree programme content versus labour market needs

The findings concerning degree programme content are based on the degrees held by the employed graduates. The influence of stakeholders such as professional bodies on degree programme content is considered in the presentation of the findings (Master, 2014), especially in the fields of accounting and engineering. Management participants thought that relevant content and different modes of teaching should be applied to graduate development in classroom settings, noting that studies influenced by professional bodies should encourage continuous professional development and certification beyond university degrees for quality assurance and up-to-date knowledge.

Managers had different views on degree programme content because of the influence of professional bodies and others on accounting and engineering degree programmes compared to more flexible programmes (the regulatory requirements of those two fields prescribe what learning content universities should incorporate). Points made by the participants included:

Workplace accounting utilises software applications; hence there is a need to prepare graduates with these updated skills.

The more flexible degree programmes, such as commerce, sports science, information technology, education, finance and human resources, afford universities a less structured opportunity for content development. In some of these fields of study certain modules, like psychology in human resources and biokinetics in sports science, are compulsory for students to register with professional bodies. In these cases, universities have less flexibility in content development as professional bodies influence and prescribe content levels and alignment. All management teams concurred that, regardless of the influences of professional bodies, all the degree programmes did signal the content their various business units required in the workplace. Managers, however, had strong opinions about the way content was taught. Comments included:

‘Soft skills, such as communication skills, should be taught in line with current workplace needs and tools especially incorporating critical and analytical writing and e-communication tools like Skype and other methods’.

Managers confirmed that their graduate recruitment processes were influenced by workplace experiences with graduates, the signals of degree programme content and, particularly, the learning outcomes of graduate qualifications. The qualifications possessed by graduates inform the job descriptions and vacancies employers are filling and relevant content alignment is an important requirement (Franco et al., 2019). Of particular interest to the employer are the outcomes and levels of learning graduates achieve: these are seen as indicative of the quality of the production of qualifications. Vollgraaff (2015) and the NACE (2017) argue that adequate outcomes and levels of learning are not being achieved by universities’ degree programmes.

Managers were also concerned that graduates did not have an understanding of or regard for workplace communication turnaround times and the relevance of the organisational structure for the completion of operational tasks. They thought that, while a study programme might include reference to organisational structures and organograms, their importance was not sufficiently accentuated. Dominant views included the following:

‘Improve graduate knowledge and understanding of organisational structures for relevance and adherence to reporting lines within the workplace context’.

Employers’ reliance on the learning outcomes and levels of learning afforded by degree programmes constitutes, according to signalling theory, the investment risk taken in graduate recruitment. Spence (1973) argues that employers do not have an opportunity to observe the applicant’s capability of applying skills and knowledge during the recruitment process. This study finds that degree programme content is not adequately taught by universities for graduates to transition effectively into the workplace, thereby making the signals sent by university degree programme descriptions questionable (Kalufya and Mwakajinga, 2018; Vollgraaff, 2015).

Skills and knowledge production by universities

The management teams acknowledged that universities could not develop the skills and knowledge needed by the labour market to the full extent required. They did, however, concur that graduates could be taught in a more holistic manner for workplace readiness. A common of all the management participants was that graduates struggled to convert theory into practice. This lack of practical application ability resulted in a mismatch between graduates’ and employers’ workplace expectations (Franco et al., 2019). Some of the specific concerns of managers in relation to graduates’ lack of ability to transfer theory to practice were:

‘Graduates need better written and verbal skills to address real world issues’.

According to the managers, the above issues affected productivity and graduate motivation, and personal workplace relationships amongst graduate employees, as well as manager–employee relationships. Teamwork, as well as individual contributions, were deemed to be important motivators. A lack of motivation leads to strained relationships that impact productivity negatively. Managers expressed frustration with the graduates’ lack of commitment to their own and their team’s development. Among the management experiences and concerns were:

The work ethic of graduates needed improvement to change their attitudes and behaviour in relation to tasks and instructions from managers or others in the workplace.

The challenges experienced in South Africa in relation to graduates’ readiness for the workplace are, as indicated by the literature reviewed for this study, also prevalent in other countries. Kalufya and Mwakajinga (2018), for example, argue that there is a significant difference in the prioritisation of employability skills between employers’ expectations and universities’ preparation of final-year students in Tanzania. The authors claim that self-awareness, the application of knowledge and teamwork were the top three skills in employers’ ranking of graduate employability shortcomings. These were also among the skills identified by the management participants as lacking in South African graduates.

Universities, it has been argued, need to develop the graduate’s ability to adapt to the world of work through greater self-awareness in the context of the operational requirements of the workplace (Hansen, 2017). Some managers thought that the status of having a degree somehow gave graduates the impression that they did not have much more to learn. This point is echoed by Spence (1973), who argues that degrees are perceived to determine status, and therefore a demand for higher wages. The following issues were highlighted by the managers in this study:

‘There is a need to develop awareness of the risks of not following or disobeying particular instructions and workplace processes’.

The managers acknowledged that theory was an important factor but stressed that universities should teach the conversion of theory into practice and develop that way of thinking and learning progressively during the study years.

Improvement of skills and knowledge development by universities

It is important to note that managers at all levels accepted that the worlds of academia and industry differed their mode of operation. As a stakeholder in university graduate outputs, however, they believed that, for South Africa’s employers and economy to prosper, stakeholders should be afforded input into skills and knowledge development in a participatory manner. Suggestions for collaboration included:

‘Universities should engage with industry specialists/practitioners to maintain a current awareness of workplace requirements’.

The management teams also offered suggestions regarding how universities could assist graduates to transition to the workplace and so reduce the retraining time currently required. Dominant themes in the context of converting theory into practice as suggested by the participants were:

‘Review and adjust curricula based on changing times and labour market requirements’.

The participants thought that university lecturers should have workplace experience in their particular fields or, at minimum, should make an effort to involve themselves in workplaces periodically or include industry experts and/or practitioners in their processes of teaching and learning. They recommended on-the-job training with the help of industry coaches and mentors to enhance the production of skills and knowledge by universities.

The managers stressed that lecturers’ knowledge of industry was an important influence on graduate attitudes. They suggested that lecturers should have continuous professional development as a personal drive so that they could maintain a current and relevant awareness of the requirements of workplaces for which their graduates are destined. The following recommendations were offered for universities to develop graduates more holistically:

‘Develop learners’ attitude from entitlement to continuous learning practices’

Consideration of the experiences and perceptions expressed by the management teams may result in the more holistic development of students who then, as graduates, will be better equipped and prepared for the workplace.

Conclusions and recommendations

The employer’s representatives respected the fact that companies and universities operate in different environments. However, as stakeholders in higher education, employers rely on the production of appropriately skilled graduates from universities and should therefore contribute more meaningfully to the expected outputs of degree programmes. From the research reported in this paper, it is evident that managers are willing to contribute to and collaborate with universities in order to enhance the processes of teaching and learning. The participants accepted the possibility of power-play in such collaboration that might cause challenges, but were convinced that students would benefit from greater cooperation. Franco et al. (2019) argue that students are eager to work in a practical environment and want to acquire new knowledge. For this reason, the implementation in South African degree programmes of the use of industry mentors and coaches for graduate development is offered as a recommendation.

The formulation of Career Advisory Services for the creation of short-term employability programmes at universities as suggested by Kalufya and Mwakajinga (2018), could, with the collaboration of government and industry, make a useful contribution. Stakeholders might contemplate the development of a database of industry mentors and coaches, initially for particular degree programmes: this could include retired industry experts, thereby avoiding productivity challenges for employers.

The continuing challenges experienced in relation to graduates’ skills and knowledge result in efficiency obstacles for business units, whose productivity levels and targets are compromised. Instead of focusing on their organisational operations and outputs, managers have to retrain graduates, investing money and time that could be better spent elsewhere: 1 to 2 years of retraining involves the use of costly external service providers and/or existing employees. Sometimes, there is resistance among employees to involvement in on-the-job training for graduate recruits because some have years of work experience but no degree, and may have to report to these same graduates in the future. This dilemma may lead to a debate on the relevance of a degree to job performance.

Some managers were of the opinion that degrees should be offered by universities for 1 or 2 years only. Some also suggested that the government should subsidise the employer or the industry instead of universities for further graduate training with greater relevance to the economy. Government skills development and related policies are embedded in the organisational staffing policies and practices that inform the graduate recruitment process: many job specifications require not only experience but also a university degree. These specifications are aligned with what graduates with that level of qualification should have learned, as signalled by the NQF and universities’ descriptions of degree programmes. As a result, it is difficult for employers to avoid the employment of graduates, even if they question the quality of graduate qualifications. It seems, therefore, difficult to disagree with the contention that the processes of teaching and learning should include employer and industry representatives.

The autonomy of universities might be questioned in the context of partnerships between universities and industry (Franco et al., 2019). If government is committed to investment in university education for the good of the economy, the sovereignty of universities should not take preference over the appropriate development of students for industry. Franco et al. (2019) argue that such partnerships could include student internships as part of the curriculum, leading to a mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and innovation. Universities are encouraged to incorporate the requirements of the Fourth Industrial Revolution into their teaching and learning practices to improve their capacity to meet labour market needs (Schwab, 2015). Nonetheless, most universities continue to lack the ability to meet labour market requirements (Hansen, 2017, Vollgraaff, 2015).

The literature reviewed in this study, together with the employer perspectives and experiences reported, indicate that fundamental aspects of teaching and learning in South Africa’s universities are in need of adjustment. The fact that employers are willing to participate in universities’ teaching and learning processes offers an opportunity to enhance the global competitiveness of the South African economy. Ultimately, this will reduce the expensive practice of importing labour at a variety of skills levels.