Abstract
This paper offers (a) a multidimensional Employability Skill Scale development method, and (b) one 30-item, seven-dimensional, and another 26-item six-dimensional employability skill requirement scale for use with entry-level human resources management positions, as perceived by employers and students, respectively, in Bangladesh. The study is based on samples of 174 and 446 survey responses collected from corporate managers and university students, respectively. There were significant variations in opinions between employers and students on employability skill requirements in entry-level human resources management positions. Employers prioritized skills such as subject knowledge, applying knowledge, listening effectively, breadth of knowledge, working safely, and self-management. On the other hand, students preferred skills such as team leading ability, complex problem-solving ability, judgment ability, proactivity, negotiation ability, strength of reference, type of university, and image of the university.
Keywords
Introduction and rationale for the study
Students enroll in universities not only to acquire academic skills but also to develop those skills that are demanded by employers. There is evidence to suggest that employers' greatest interest is in basic employability skills and not solely in academic qualifications (Rosenbaum & Person, 2003). This finding means that companies do have expectations of students as well as for universities (Bok, 2006). However, some studies (e.g. Nguen, Yoshinari, & Shigeji, 2005; Rosenberg, Heimler, & Morote, 2012; Saunders & Zuzel, 2010) have claimed that there is a gap between the expectations of the employers and the perceptions of the students regarding basic employability skills. Raihan's (2014) study on technical and vocational institutions argued that this gap is widening in Bangladesh and is probably one of the prime reasons why the country has the second highest rate of graduate unemployment (47%) in the South Asia region (The Economist, 2014). The National Skill Development Council of Bangladesh (NSDC, 2011) also stated that educational institutions should know the skill needs of the industry and must understand the latest employment and technology trends. Thus, we argue that universities can become student and industry driven if they can design (or revise) their curriculum based on the requirements of the stakeholders. Di Fabio and Kenny (2012) proposed that emotional intelligence was relevant for career decision making, and individual skills are necessary in preparing for career-related uncertainty and change in today's world. Surprisingly, no study has been conducted in Bangladesh to explore and list basic employability skills based on the opinions of the employers as well of the prospective employees—the students.
In the existing literature, there is a predominance of exploring employability skills based on the judgment of employers (see, for instance, The Economist, 2014; Institute of Technologists, 2011; Lauder & Bliip Global Employability, 2013; Wellman, 2010; Wilton, 2011). However, there is still a lacuna in understanding the perceptions of the students regarding basic employability skills. Rosenbaum (2002) argued that if students do not know and learn the necessary skills during their training, they might not learn them on the job as employers might be uninterested in investing in those training programs. Thus, student ignorance about employability skills might reduce their likelihood of getting jobs. Similarly, Di Fabio and Kenny (2015) argued that self-perceived employability is an important aspect for students to understand the future career path, life design, and career construction. According to that study, self-perceived employability entails internal attributes or beliefs of the individual (in our case, students) related to the employment context, which they might develop if they are aware of them. Few studies have so far yet to examine this important aspect.
Rosenberg et al. (2012) found that students rated leadership skills, work ethic, and interpersonal skills as the most valuable skills in the job field. However, these findings are based on data collected from students of one university in the USA. Nguyen et al. (2005), working with Japanese students, reported that communication skills, desire for challenge, creative thinking, sensitivity, curiosity, entrepreneurial mind, and optimism were the essential skills suggested by the graduates. Saunders and Zuzel (2010) identified that enthusiasm, dependability, teamwork, subject knowledge, commercial awareness, negotiation, and networking ability were critical employability skills, as suggested by science students in the UK. Nilsson (2010) reported that soft skills, generic competencies, ability to find and sort information, analytical thinking, critical thinking ability, flexibility, and adaptation skills were mostly cited by the engineering graduates in Sweden.
One common limitation of the existing studies on student perceptions of core skills is that researchers either first developed an employability skill list based on the opinions of the employers or used a predefined skill list suggested in an earlier study and then captured the views of students on those prespecified skills. For instance, Rosenberg et al. (2012) used the skill list offered by the USA Secretary of Labor (known as SCANS, 1991) and found that students emphasized only four out of the 47 listed skills. Similarly, the work of Nguyen et al. (2005) indicated that students favored only seven items from the skill list offered by Kajihara (1997). Thus, we argue that if students and employers have differences in opinions regarding the importance of employability skills, then why not develop separate skill lists as perceived by each group and then compare similarities and dissimilarities between the skill items? No study has so far developed different skill lists suggested by students. Our study intends to fill that gap.
There is a preponderance of studies identifying employability competencies in developed countries. Notable studies in the USA are Carnevale, Gainer, and Meltzer (1990), SCANS (1991), and the Skills Gap Report by the National Association of Manufacturers (2005); in the UK are AGR (1995) and the City and Guilds' report (Humphries, 2006); in Australia the report by DEEWR (2012); in Japan reports by Kajihara (1997), Chino (2003), and the Institute of Technologists (2011). In different countries, government agencies and employer associations have developed skill lists based on the opinion of managers, which have been used as benchmarks in other studies. However, there has been neglect in developing skill lists for developing countries, especially in the South Asia region. In Bangladesh, no such study has been done even though NSDC, Bangladesh (2011, p. 25) noted that “If the demand for skills is not understood then government, employers, workers, and other stakeholders cannot make informed decisions about what skills are required, what programs should be delivered and where.”
There are two notable studies on employability skills in South Asia. Srivastava and Khare (2012) reported that diligence, interpersonal skills, behavioral skills, adaptability, time management, the dignity of labor, language, safety, accounting skills, secretarial skills, business acumen, negotiation skills, commitment, and sincerity were priorities in Bangladesh. The Economist (2014) suggested that soft skills and English communication skills were the “new crazes” in Bangladesh. However, both studies were qualitative and based on interviews conducted with corporate managers. Thus, the results are less convincing. Chisty, Uddin, and Ghosh (2007) in their study in Bangladesh proposed that presentation, communication and problem solving, and analytical skills were critical in Bangladesh for employability. However, these authors did not mention the reasons for suggesting these skills, which question the credibility of the study. By considering the gaps in the relevant literature, our study aims to: (a) propose a quantitative and statistically valid method of identifying skills, and (b) offer two skill lists based on the opinions of students and employers, in order to explore the differences in perceptions of the two groups with respect to employability skill requirements in Bangladesh.
Conceptualizing employability skills
Several definitions of employability skills are available in the literature (e.g. Biggs & Tang, 2007; DEEWR, 2012; Pool & Sewell, 2007; Skills USA & NOCTI, 2004). For this paper, we conceptualize employability skills as a “set of attributes that makes graduates more likely to gain employment and be successful in their chosen occupations,” as proposed by Yorke and Knight (2006).
Literature review on employability skill items
To generate an initial pool of items, an extensive literature review is required to sort available employability skills irrespective of the country of analysis and job categories. This initial list then can be customized to a particular job type (in our case HR positions). The Pedagogy for Employability Group (2012) has recorded a large set of skills that have been demanded by employers for the last 30 years. The list includes skills such as creativity, flexibility, willingness to learn, independence, ability to manage others, teamwork, ability to work under pressure, oral and written communications, numeracy, attention to details, planning ability, and so on. Moynagh and Worsley (2006, cited in Pool and Sewell (2007)) added time management, soft skills, and emotional intelligence in their study. Watts (2006) argued that most of the studies did not add career development, and, thus, proposed skills such as the ability to decide about one's future, ability to research the job market, identify interests, self-awareness, and self-motivation. Foley, Frew, McGillivray, McIntosh, and McPherson (2004) argued that individual subject-relevant knowledge might not meet the requirements of the employers. They suggested that alternate skills, such as critical and analytical thinking ability, generic skills, written communication skills, and design and development ability, were important.
Carnevale et al. (1990), with the support of the American Society for Training and Development, published “Workplace basics: The essential skills employers want,” and proposed many basic skill dimensions, including basic competency skills (reading, writing, and computation), communication skills (speaking and listening), adaptability skills (such as problem solving and creativity), personal development skills (self-esteem, motivation, goal setting), group useful skills (e.g. interpersonal, negotiation, teamwork skills), and influencing skills (understanding organizational culture, leadership). In 1991, the USA Secretary of Labor updated the Carnevale et al. (1990) report and proposed a revised set of skills, called the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS). SCANS (1991) included an eight-dimension, 47-item skill list, which included attributes such as basic literacy and numeracy; ability to read, write, speak, and listen; mathematical skill; critical thinking ability; creativity; decision making and problem-solving ability; self-esteem; ethics; organizing ability; leadership; negotiation ability; customer services; resolving differences; and ability to perform in a multicultural environment. In 2005, the National Association of Manufacturers published the Skills Gap Report and suggested that the basic employability skills that graduates lacked were necessary literacy, numeracy skills, and communication skills.
Fugate and Kinicki (2008) suggested that the ability to accept and adapt to change, work under pressure, knowledge of the recent developments in the company and industry, ability to achieve career goals, future goal orientation, optimism, experience, positive attitude toward work, dedication, and ability to be involved in the process of developing employability competencies are essential employability skills in USA. Heckman (2006) pointed out that goal orientation, confidentiality, communicating innovation, and better communication were essential for entry-level positions in USA and Canada. Latendresse and Cortoni (2005) found that physical aspects are important in the Canadian job market. An extensive study by Murray and Robinson (2001) reported that academic skills, such as ability to use numerical data, computer competencies at the core level, spoken communication, logical thinking ability, specialist knowledge in the relevant field, ability to apply knowledge, desire to learn, team management, and ability to priorities tasks, were important attributes for entry-level jobs.
In the UK, the Association of Graduates Recruiters (AGR, 1995) suggested a skill list that included necessary skills such as self-awareness, self-promotion, exploring and creating opportunities, action planning, networking, decision making, political awareness, and self-confidence. Humphries (2006), along with City and Guilds' UK, added leadership ability and management skills to the AGR list. Lees (2002), in a study of UK and European countries proposed and ranked 25 skills that employers mostly look for, including the willingness to learn, commitment to the job, reliability, self-motivation, teamwork, oral and written communication, self-management, motivation, problem solving and analytical ability, flexibility, and research skills. Action planning, applications of knowledge, drive, global skills, and research skills were additional requirements of UK employers (Wellman, 2010; Wilton, 2011). Bracey (2007) observed that work habits were more important for organizations, and the study proposed expertise such as leadership, and IT knowledge and skills.
DEEWR (2012) and Nunan (1999) reported that worker flexibility, communication skills, enthusiasm, respect of diversity, subject knowledge, planning, problem-solving skills, and sense of humor were highly demanded in the Australian job market. In Japan, Kajihara (1997), with the support of Ministry of Labor, suggested 22 employability qualities, such as vitality, responsibility, goal-setting skills, ambition, initiative, creativity, individuality, visionary thinking, and knowledge of personality. Takachiho (2000) proposed that cooperative personality, excellent communication skills, leadership ability, entrepreneurial mind, problem-solving ability, and considering the environment were essential competencies for the Japanese job market. After that, Chino (2003) reported 20 employability attributes in Japan, with new items added, such as good health, cooperation, fitting in with the corporate culture, understanding social (Japanese) ways, understanding corporate culture, IT and computer skills, and status of the university. The Institute of Technologists (2011) added independence, positive attitude, heartiness, and responsible as additional skills for employment in Japan.
Wakabayashi, Chen, and Huang (1999) considered that strategic thinking, decision-making ability, motivation, teamwork, and technical expertise were essential requirements in Japan; whereas, delegation, quality control, and problem identification skills were more in demand in Taiwan. Duoc and Metzger (2007) suggested logical thinking, computer proficiency, critical analysis, ability to handle pressure, leadership skills, organizing ability, time management, creativity, maturity, and willingness to learn were demanded by Vietnamese employers. Quek (2005) found that in addition to standard employability skills as mentioned above, reporting skills, learning ability, valuing skill improvement, innovation, resourcefulness, diligence, numerical skill, honesty, and an understanding of diversity were priorities in Malaysia. To this list, Yassin, Hasan, Amin, and Amiruddin (2008) added ability as team evaluator and encourager, and academic degrees for Malaysia.
Srivastava and Khare (2012) in their qualitative study reported that aptitude, willingness to learn, appearance and personality, hardworking, influential, multitasking ability, and problem-solving abilities were critical skills in India; whereas, volunteerism, leadership, career planning, entrepreneurial ability, conceptual understanding, hands-on experience, loyalty, and respect for seniors were more in demand in Pakistan. The Economist (2014) pointed out that computer-based English communication, quantitative skills, advanced level computer skills, and problem-solving skills were important in India. The Economist also suggested that in Sri Lanka, working hard, work knowledge, selling skills, and flexibility were essentials. Warraich and Ameen (2010) found that task orientation, professional goal achievement, friendly attitude, excellent interview skills, and online searching skills were demanded by the Pakistani employers. Chisty et al. (2007) suggested that achieving specific degrees, presentation skills, analytical skills, taking relevant courses, academic results, the reputation of the educational institution, and orientation to corporate culture were required employability skills in Bangladesh.
The Institute for the Future (2011) suggested 10 critical skills, including sense-making, social intelligence, adaptive thinking, cross-cultural competency, new media literacy, transdisciplinary, design mind-set, cognitive management, and virtual collaboration that were universally required by employers. Lauder and Bliip Global Employability (2013), in their extensive study, proposed a five-dimensional (personal attributes, working with others, achieving at work, future skills, and learning), 39-item global employability skill model. Notable skills recommended were social responsibility, motivation, reliability, autonomy, resilience, personal presentation, influencing others, team outcome, engaging networks, conflict resolution, work ethic, customer services, understanding context of work, working safely, managing information, delivering results, global citizenship, sense making, tech savvy, career planning, connection, lifelong learning, and adaptability. The study also suggested that the list needs to be customized to local priorities, and employers should educate candidates by informing them of their employability skill requirements—something our study intends to offer. In addition to this, we also feel that an employability skill list should be customized to a particular job category, as the nature of the job varies among groups. This study will address this issue by developing a skill list for entry-level HR positions.
Method
Participants
To develop the skill list based on the opinions of students, the first set of data was collected from human resources management (HRM)-major students from five private universities located in two major cities in Bangladesh. There were 266 usable data (37% female students). The second set of data was collected to identify the skill requirements of employers. We collected data from 174 HR managers at 12 multinational and eight local companies (51% from local companies).
Measure
By considering the indicators mentioned in the earlier section and reviewing additional literature, at the initial stage, 97 employability skills (criteria) were sorted. A five-person expert panel, consisting of academics who have experience in teaching HRM courses was utilized to refine the initial 97 items (Shimp & Sharma, 1987). The expert panel advised dropping eight items, adding three items, and rephrasing 11 items. For example, the panel suggested that the skill “operations and systems analysis” is mostly an engineering task, and HR managers have nothing to do with that. The panel also suggested that “teamwork” should be split into individual and team-position skills, such as encourager, leader, evaluator, etc. Experts rated “attention to detail” and “listening to others” to be similar, and, thus, one should be dropped. Finally, the experts recommended using a 5-point Likert-like scale to capture the opinions of respondents. At this stage, we had 93 skill items.
In the second stage, we discussed the refined 93 items with an HR manager of a multinational company. The manager recommended rephrasing 10 items to make them more customized to the objective of the study, and then advised to drop two items from the list (mostly because of repetition). For instance, the manager suggested dropping one of “global degree” and “global exposure” as they were similar. After these refinements, we had 91 items. These 91 items, along with the cover page of the questionnaire, were sent to an English expert to check the grammatical accuracy of the instrument.
Finally, we conducted a pilot study among 15 managers of two private companies (one local and one multinational) to pretest the contents and language of the questionnaire. Many of these suggested dropping “commercial awareness” and “investigation skills,” because commercial ideas were more relevant to marketing and entry-level managers were not usually given investigatory tasks.
Questionnaire
The first section of the questionnaire included demographic questions (gender, type of company, university, industry type, and company size), and the second section asked about the final 89 skill-relevant questions. A 5-point Likert-like scale was used to capture the opinions of the managers and the students regarding the extent to which the employability skill was important for entry-level HR positions, where 1 = not at all important and 5 = most important.
Results
Employability skills scale development
We developed two separate, multidimensional Employability Skill Scales for entry-level HR positions based on opinions of students and employers. To avoid repetition, we will only describe the scale development process that builds on the perceptions of the students.
Stage 1: Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value was 0.68, which was satisfactory for the data to be factor analyzed. The first stage EFA results indicated that the 89 items were grouped under 27 factors with a total variance explained of 71.69%. As our primary intention was to reduce the number of skills to more usable and relevant ones, we used strict decision rules to remove items: factor loadings < 0.50, cross loading, low critical ratio (CR < 1.96), and extraction values < 0.50 (cf. MacCallum & Austin, 2000; Shimp & Sharma, 1987). By considering the stated rules, 32 items were dropped: eight items cross-loaded (e.g. knowledge of basic numeracy, self-monitoring, drive oriented, global skills, lifelong learning, stress tolerance) and 24 had loadings < 0.50 (e.g. written and verbal communication skills had loadings of 0.42 and 0.39, respectively).
We reran an EFA (second stage) with the remaining 57 items and found 17 factors accounting for 65.73% of the variance. This time, 11 items (e.g. active listening to others, self-motivation, knowledge about operations, integrity, planning ability, experiences, questioning ability, activity based internship) had loadings < 0.50, and four items (knowledge of counseling, professionalism, ability to work in cross-cultural environment, and work ethic) were cross-loaded. This process continued until we got all remaining skills satisfying the decision rules stated earlier. Finally, after conducting a fourth stage EFA, a total of 37 skill items, which were grouped under 12 dimensions, were retained.
At this stage, four dimensions had only one item each, and another dimension had only two items. As confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) requires that there should be at least three items under each dimension (Byrne, 2009; Hair et al., 2010), we thus, dropped these five dimensions and their corresponding six items (computer literacy at the core level, research on a subject, new media communication, foreign language skills, negotiation ability, and independence). The remaining 31 items and seven dimensions were retained for the CFA.
Stage 2: CFA
In order to run a CFA, 180 new data (cf. Malhotra & Dash, 2011) were collected from students (with HRM major) from three public universities (43.3% female). For CFA, items were retained if they were statistically significant and had loadings >0.40. Fit was considered acceptable with Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) < 0.04, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > 0.90, Confirmatory Fit Index (CFI) >0.90, Normed Fit Index (NFI) > 0.85, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < 0.05, Pclose > 0.05, Hoelter's Critical N (CN) > 200, and low Modification Indices (MI), as suggested by Hair et al. (2010).
We found all items statistically significant; however, one competency item (interpersonal sensitivity) had a loading < 0.40. Values for RMR, GFI, CFI, NFI, RMSEA, Pclose, and Hoelter's CN were 0.07, 0.92, 0.80, 0.75, 0.13, 0.00, and 76/93, respectively, which was a moderate fit only. Also, there were large MIs. The correlations were between (a) “goal-oriented” and “proactive behavior,” (b) “team building” and “self-awareness,” and (c) “self-awareness” and “interpersonal communication skill.” After dropping “interpersonal sensitivity” from that pair of items, the RMR, GFI, CFI, NFI, RMSEA, Pclose, and Hoelter's CN for that dimension with its six items were 0.02, 0.97, 0.94, 0.99, 0.03, 0.92, and 729/974, respectively, which is satisfactory. We followed the same procedure for the remaining dimensions and their corresponding items. The CFA results showed that the remaining six dimensions and their underlying 25 items had satisfactory fit values when considered independently. Next, we tested the extent to which all dimensions and their items fitted together in a single model.
Stage 3: Assessing the Employability Skill Scale for HRM positions
The remaining 30 items (seven dimensions) were tested in a structural equation model. We found that one competency item (commitment to the job) had a loading 0.31, which was lower than our cutoff value. Also, one dimension and its corresponding three items (basic knowledge of selling, concentration on general education, and application of knowledge) were incompatible with this model (results were inadmissible). We removed these four items and reran the model. This time, all items had loadings > 0.40, with RMR, GFI, CFI, NFI, RMSEA, Pclose, and Hoelter's CN values of 0.05, 0.87, 0.92, 0.82, 0.04, 0.91, and 259/268, respectively. The final 26-item, six-dimensional “Employability Skill Scale,” as perceived by students, is shown in Figure 1 and reported in Table 2.
Employability Skill Scale for HRM positions as perceived by students.
The cluster of skill items of proactive, self-awareness, interpersonal communication, team building capacity, goal orientation, and willingness to learn reflect characteristics of the individual that can enriched by training and other environmental forces. We named this dimension as “Personality Skills” (similar to that suggested by Whetten and Cameron (2007)). The competency items of responsibility, honesty, work attitude, and commitment to the organization reflected the reliability of a candidate. Thus, we called this dimension “Integrity Skills.” Using the same procedure, we named the other dimensions as “Academic Skills,” “Team-based Skills,” “Generic Skills,” and “Influential Criteria” (cf. Whetten & Cameron, 2007; refer to Figure 1). The coefficient alpha value for this scale was 0.89, which reflects high internal consistency.
Convergent and discriminant validity of the scale
Evidences of convergent and discriminant validity for the Employability Skill Scale as perceived by students.
Note: Pearson correlations are significant at p < 0.01. I1–I26 are the skill items shown in Figure 1.
Constructing the Employability Skill Scale based on the opinions of the employers
The KMO for the initial EFA for managers was 0.62. For this EFA, 89 items were grouped under 20 dimensions, accounting for 92.65% of the variance. Using the same item acceptance rules as for the earlier scale, 26 skill items were dropped (six items cross-loaded: global skills, independence, dynamic attitude, goal oriented, reading effectiveness, and investigation ability; 20 items had loadings< 0.50, e.g. “creativity” and “ability to work in cross-cultural team”). In the second stage EFA, the remaining 63 items grouped under 18 dimensions. Three items (active listening to others, self-monitoring, and knowledge of counseling) had loadings < 0.50, and one (“goal oriented”) was cross-loaded. These items were dropped. Finally, after conducting the seventh stage EFA, 47 items grouped under 14 dimensions were retained. As two of the dimensions had only one item and four had only two items, these 10 items were deleted. The remaining 37 items and eight dimensions were retained for CFA.
For the CFA, we used data collected from HR managers from 12 multinational companies. All items were statistically significant in the CFA for the first dimension and its 11 items, although two items (planning ability and complex problem-solving ability) had loadings < 0.40. The values for RMR, GFI, CFI, NFI, RMSEA, Pclose, and Hoelter's CN were 0.08, 0.82, 0.92, 0.86, 0.05, 0.03, and 108/126, respectively, indicating a moderate fit. Also, several error terms had large correlations. By revising those relationships and dropping two nonsignificant items, the RMR, GFI, CFI, NFI, RMSEA, Pclose, and Hoelter's CN were 0.04, 0.93, 0.99, 0.91, 0.02, 0.57, and 277/292, respectively, which were satisfactory. We followed the same procedure for the remaining dimensions and their corresponding items. Through this process, three other items (leadership ability, work as a compromiser, and foreign language skills) were dropped.
The remaining seven dimensions and corresponding 32 items were tested in a structural model. Two skills (willingness to learn and commitment to job area) had loadings < 0.40, the fit indices were moderate, and there were several correlated error terms. We dropped problematic items and reran the model. This time, all items had loadings > 0.40, with RMR, GFI, CFI, NFI, RMSEA, Pclose, and Hoelter's CN values as 0.05, 0.84, 0.92, 0.83, 0.05, 0.28, and 273/277, respectively. The final 30-item, seven-dimensional Employability Skill Scale as perceived by employers is shown in Figure 2. In this scale, dimensions are named as “Personal Skill,” “Specific Communication Skill,” “Academic Skill,” “Integrity Skill,” “Generic Skill,” “Interpersonal Skill,” and “Adaptability Skill.” Coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.91. Evidence of convergent and discriminant validities is shown in Table 3 in Appendix 1.
Employability Skill Scale for HRM positions as perceived by employers.
Discussions on findings
Comparing perceptions of students and employers on employability skills for HRM positions.
Both students and employers felt that “honesty” and “commitment to the organization” were essential issues in the job market, which is consistent with Quek (2005). This finding is an important message to students that employers do not like candidates with frequent job switching history. Even though there is no formal way of testing honesty of the candidates, we believe that the strength of their reference can help in this respect. Thus, our recommendation to students would be to use proper references (preferably from renowned persons or academic) and include information about their previous workplace in their CVs. Employers, on the other hand, must check references before they short list candidates. As expected both students and employers stressed the need for “teamwork,” which is in line with the findings of Carnevale et al. (1990), Murray and Robinson (2001), and Saunders and Zuzel (2010). Interestingly, students rated “evaluation ability” as their second priority (loading 0.69). However, this is an important signal to students that to become a good evaluator, one needs to have better subject knowledge. This argument is also reflected in the priorities of the employers who prefer more “knowledgeable” candidates, as three knowledge-relevant skill items (applying the knowledge, breadth of knowledge, and subject knowledge) were on their priority list (loadings 0.79, 0.78, and 0.57, respectively). This finding is contradictory to Foley et al. (2004), but supports the results of Humphries (2006) and Kajihara (1997). Students also prioritized items such as “critical thinking ability” (0.71) and “complex problem-solving skills” (0.64). These results support why many companies have introduced case competition into their recruitment tests so as to judge knowledge, critical thinking, and problem-solving abilities of the candidates. We feel that faculty members should teach how to solve academic cases. A similar argument was made by Di Fabio and Kenny (2015), who showed that teachers have a lot to contribute to the career building of students. Also, universities and the corporate world should jointly organize case competition to embed this positive culture in the local education system. The case competition arranged by HSBC and IBA, Dhaka University is worth mentioning in this aspect.
Again, both students and employers suggested “internship in the relevant fields” (loading 0.50 and 0.63 for students and employers, respectively). This is an expected finding because most of our fresh graduates do not have work experience, and, thus, internships in relevant fields can be considered as an experience by the employers, which can be value adding for the students. However, there is a common practice that students do the internship in irrelevant fields just to complete the degree requirements in time. We feel it is the responsibility of both the employers and the universities to ensure that students do the internship in their major fields.
“Self-management skill” was in high demand (loading 0.88) among the companies, which was also suggested by AGR (1995) and Watts (2006). Di Fabio, Kenny, and Minor (2014) also suggested that acquiring this skill can result in the positive outcome of getting employed. As a result, “organizing ability” was found to be on the priority list also (loading 0.67). We believe, to be a better self-manager, applicants need to have “soft skills” and should be punctual. Universities, in addition to regular courses, can offer training in soft skills development such as how to talk, how to approach, how to write a business letter, etc. This argument is further supported by the fact that companies also prioritized “information management skill” (loading 0.75). Potential applicants should know how to get, summarize, and present information to others. A similar finding was reported by Lauder and Bliip Global Employability (2013) and Nilsson (2010).
Among the dissimilar skills, the students' highest priority (loading 0.82) was the ability to work as a “team leader.” As a result, they also prioritized skills such as “goal orientation” (0.71), “critical thinking ability” (0.71), and “responsible” (0.62), which is consistent with Di Fabio and Kenny (2015) and Nguyen et al. (2005). However, employers do not have these items on their priority list; rather, they prioritized “stress tolerance” (0.75) and “listen effectively” skills (0.74). It is evident that, as an entry-level executive, no one will get a leading position immediately; rather s/he has to “listen more” to be able to implement plans properly. Students should remember that as an entry-level executive they need to work in any corner of the country and thus stress tolerance ability and enjoying challenges (0.78) are important attributes for employers. We believe the field-level experience is priceless, and every entry-level job seeker should have experience working in different areas of the country. Potential job seekers should point out their participation in student club activities (such as fundraising and blood donation) to show the degree of which they love taking challenges.
Our results also indicate that another important skill on the list for employers is “concentration to general education” (GED; loading 0.82). This finding suggests that employers want to see applicants who have knowledge of history, politics, culture, music, and arts, in addition to their major courses. This is a new finding for the Bangladeshi job market and an important message to the universities. Currently, most of the universities in Bangladesh have significantly less contribution of GED courses in their degree requirements. This practice needs to be revised.
Students thought that “strength of reference” (0.62) was vital for getting jobs, but employers disagreed. During the interview session, many managers said that they valued knowledge of the candidate and not the strength of the reference. However, the common myth that “reference” is the single most influential criterion in the Bangladeshi job market cannot be ignored as well. In reply to this, many top-level managers argued that this myth might be true for blue collar jobs. While discussing references, students also indicated that “type of university” (0.57) and “image of the university” (0.48) were relevant. These findings are consistent with Chino (2003). However, employers did not consider the stated items as important ones, which can be disappointing to many students who have been through competitive admission procedures and had the chance to study at top ranking universities. We believe, even though employers disagreed, that claims by the students in this respects are more practical, as many Bangladeshi private companies list the names of their preferred academic institutions in their job advertisements.
Students also believed that to get and do better on the job, one needs to have “willingness to learn” (0.56) and “creativity” (0.52). Di Fabio and Kenny (2015) also argued that these internal resources of a student always contribute to their positive career development. These findings are in line with earlier findings where students prioritized critical thinking ability and judgment ability (Pedagogy for Employability Group, 2012). “Working safely” was important to employers (loading 0.76), and many managers said that they would like to see their employees at all levels working according to the rules and regulations of the company. Even though students didn't prioritize this item on their list, their concern about “positive work attitude” (loading is 0.51) is consistent with the requirement of the employers. Many managers mentioned that working against company policies created a negative image about the business in the market. Thus, companies have strict monitoring in the workplace. The safe working skill and positive work attitude also include harassment-free behavior and equal opportunity for everyone irrespective of gender and caste. Some managers even mentioned that due to the regulations of government, smoking is prohibited in the office premises, and violation of that rule can be unsafe for the employees. Interestingly, in many job advertisements, it can be seen that smokers and people with aggressive behavior are discouraged to apply.
Even though few items (such as new media communication, professionalism, basic knowledge of selling, etc.) have comparatively low loading values, they are also in the employability skill list of the employers, and, thus, should be taken seriously by the candidates. “Written communication skill” was important (loading 0.47), and, thus, faculty members should assign group reports to the students to enhance both communication and “teamwork abilities.” Support from friends through teamwork has been found to have an association with positive career outcome in many studies (e.g. Ali, McWhirter, & Chronister, 2005). However, Di Fabio et al. (2014) concluded that friends might be the source of both positive and negative influence. “Professionalism” (loading 0.47), which usually includes appearance, approachability, physical gesture, and mannerism, has always been a dominant skill in the corporate sector. Again, faculty members have significant roles to play in developing professionalism in the students. For example, regular monitoring of dress codes in the class and training the way students should talk and approach others can be helpful. We recommend training in “soft skills” to equip better the candidates with professionalism, media communication, and written and oral communication skills for the job market.
A look at the common items and their rankings by students and employers can reveal that both groups gave priority to the “Academic Skill” dimension (items such as major courses taken, subject relevant courses, internship relevancy, etc.). However, while browsing the dissimilar items, it is clear that the skill priority list (applying knowledge, breadth of knowledge, subject knowledge, working safely, etc.) of employers focused more on the “Specific Communication Skill” dimension (see Figure 2). Even though the priority skills of students were scattered over all dimensions, they have shown a preference for the “Generic Skill” dimension.
Limitations of the study and future perspectives
This study is limited to developing an employability skill list for HRM positions in Bangladesh. A similar method can be applied to develop skill lists for other professions, such as marketing and sales, engineering, supply chain management, etc. A national skill index could also be generated by using the methods applied in this study. A comparative study of the perceptions of the students and opinions of the employers about the employability skill items in sales and marketing, and accounting and finance jobs could be of high interest to policy makers. As the significance of the scale has been tested and is reliable, the applicability of the proposed instrument can be tested in other developing and developed countries. A cross-country study of similar nature could help researchers examine the differences in skill requirements in different countries of the world.
Conclusion
To fill gaps in the existing literature, this paper offers a 30-item, seven-dimension and a 26-item, six-dimension Employability Skill Scales for entry-level jobs in HRM positions, as perceived by employers and students, respectively. The developed scales have demonstrated initial validity and sound reliability. The results of the study revealed that eight skill items (e.g. type of major courses taken, subject relevant courses taken, honesty, commitment to the organization, team building capacity, self-awareness, etc.) were common between the two Employability Skill Scales. Both students and employers showed preferences for “major courses taken” and “subject relevant courses taken.” However, significant variations were also observed between students and employers. For instance, on the one hand, managers prioritized skills such as “subject knowledge,” “applying knowledge,” “listening effectively,” “breadth of knowledge,” “working safely,” “enjoys challenges,” “self-management,” and “being well-groomed”; on the other hand, students preferred skills like “ability to work as a team leader,” “critical thinking ability,” “judgment ability,” “complex problem-solving skills,” “negotiation ability,” “strength of reference,” “type of university,” and “image of the university.” The study also found that employers valued the “Specific Communication Skill” dimension of the scale most; whereas, students had a preference for the “Generic Skill” dimension. Results also revealed that “professionalism,” “written communication skill,” “ethics in work,” “flexibility in working environment,” “creativity,” and “proactive behavior” were other important skills indicated by the groups. Interestingly, it was observed that managers want to see that the candidates have some basic knowledge of selling even though they have applied for a HRM position.
In view of the findings, we recommend forming and using a “business advisory board” for course curricula redesigning, use of local examples by faculty members to allow better understanding of course content, academic case analysis and organizing case competitions to enhance critical thinking ability of the candidates, inclusion of more general education courses in the syllabi, incorporating more challenging major subjects in the curricula, and providing training in “soft skills” for communication and personal skill development.
Footnotes
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Professor Peter Creed, editor of the journal, and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments, which enhanced the quality of the paper significantly.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.