Ranking workplace competencies: Student and graduate perceptions

stu den t ca edu tor Co-op Education employer Research Report AsiaPacific Journal of Cooperative Education Ranking Workplace Competencies: Student and Graduate Perceptions Elizabeth Rainsbury, Dave Hodges*, Noel Burchell Faculty of Business, UNITEC Institute of Technology, Private Bag 92025, Auckland, New Zealand and Mark Lay School of Science and Technology, The University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand Received 15 October 2001; accepted 29 January 2002 Students and graduates from a variety of business studies programs at a New Zealand tertiary institution completed a questionnaire in which they ranked the relative importance of a list of 24 competencies for graduates entering the workforce using a 7-point Likert scale. These competencies were identified from literature reports of the characteristics of superior performers in the workplace. The results show a close similarity between students and graduates’ ranking of competencies with computer literacy, customer service orientation, teamwork and co-operation, self-confidence, and willingness to learn ranked most important. There was little difference between the two groups in their rankings of cognitive or ‘hard’ skills and behavioral or ‘soft’ skills. However, the graduates placed greater importance on most of the competencies, resulting in a statistically significant difference between the graduates and students’ ranking of both hard and soft skills. The findings from this study suggest that cooperative education programs may help develop business students’ awareness of the importance of graduate competencies in the workplace (Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2002, 3(2), 8-18). Keywords: competency; perception; quantitative survey; student; employer C ooperative Education programs aim to prepare students for the workplace by developing generic and specific competencies useful to the student and employer. At the UNITEC Faculty of Business, based in Auckland New Zealand, an industry-based course is offered to students enrolled in the Bachelor of Business Studies (BBS) degree. The industry course is a compulsory component of the degree and students undertake business projects in the workplace and gain credit for the work component by assessment of their performance in relation to key workplace competencies. In developing the assessment for the industry-based learning component of the degree, a comprehensive study was undertaken seeking to ascertain perceptions of graduate competencies by key stakeholders. This paper reports on student and graduate perceptions of the relative importance of a list of 24 competencies identified from the literature. Competency There are numerous definitions of competency reported in the literature. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) (1997), for example, defines competency as the ability of individuals to apply knowledge, skills, attitudes and values to standards of perfection required in specific contexts. This definition is relevant for education and training purposes with particular reference to the use of Unit Standards (a New Zealand Government set of educational standards) in assessing the development of student skills or competencies in specific areas. Boyatzis (1982) and Spencer & Spencer (1993) define competency from an industry perspective seeing competency as an underlying personal characteristic of an individual that facilitates superior performance in a given situation. According to Boam and Sparrow (1992) competency is an input measure where competency is seen as any aspect of the inner person, normally displayed as behaviors, which allows them to perform competently, in other words, competency is an output or outcome measure. Birkett (1993) sees competency in a similar manner, in which competency is related to the manner in which individual attributes, such as knowledge, skills and attitudes, are drawn on in performing tasks in specific work contexts - resulting in overall job performance. However, Birkett believes “neither contextual task performance or individual attributes constitute *Author for correspondence: Dave Hodges, email: dhodges@unitec.ac.nz 8 Rainsbury, Hodges, Burchell and Lay - Ranking Workplace Competencies: Graduate and Student Perceptions competence; [rather] it is the relation between the two that does” (p. 4). Achieving a definition or understanding of competency is compounded by the interchange of, and contrasting views of, the terms competency and capability. For example, Stephenson (1997) in contrast to Birkett (1993), sees capability rather than competency as the integration of knowledge, skills, personal qualities and the ability to learn to deal effectively with unfamiliar and familiar situations or tasks. As Stephenson (1997, p. 9-10) sees it: Competence delivers the present based on the past, while capability imagines the future and helps to bring it about...Competence is about dealing with familiar problems in familiar situations…Capability is a holistic concept, an integration of knowledge, skills and personal qualities used effectively and appropriately in unfamiliar as well as familiar situations...Taking action where outcomes are uncertain requires courage, initiative, intuition, creativity, emotional stability and a belief in one’s power to perform...Staying capable in a world of change requires confidence in one’s ability to manage one’s own learning...The development of capability is best achieved, we argue, by improving the processes by which people learn. In contrast to Stephenson (1997), Rudman (1995) sees capability as a precursor to competency, where an individual has the capability to perform a specific task because they have the necessary knowledge and skills, but individuals do not become fully competent in the task until they have had some experience. In a similar fashion, Bowden and Marton (1998) see a straight competency approach as somewhat lacking through its emphasis on having a prescriptive workplace list rather than being based on individual learning capability - developed through the application of a range of competencies in a variety of contexts. Such a view does not negate the competency approach, but rather competencies are seen as building blocks that must be employed in a holistic and integrative manner within a variety of contextual situations. Whatever the definition of competency, individuals hold and seek to enhance their individual attributes via education, particularly cooperative education. Individual attributes fall into two categories, cognitive and behavioral. Attributes which are drawn on to perform tasks competently consist of cognitive skills, such as technical knowledge, skills and abilities - such skills being a function of the job requirements. Behavioral skills, on the other hand, are built up from personal characteristics such as principles, attitudes, values and motives. These skills, in contrast to cognitive skills, are a function of an individual’s personality (Birkett, 1993). Birkett (1993) developed a taxonomy of cognitive skills and behavioral skills. According to Birkett cognitive skills include technical skills - the application of technical knowledge with some expertise; analytical/constructive skills - problem identification and the development of solutions; and appreciative skills - evaluating complicated situations and making creative and complex judgements. Behavioral skills include: personal skills - how one responds and handles various situations; interpersonal skills - securing outcomes through interpersonal relationships; and organizational skills - securing outcomes through organizational networks. Soft Skills versus Hard Skills There is growing emphasis in the literature on the importance of ‘soft’ skills which are now seen as complementary to ‘hard’ skills and required for successful workplace performance (Ashton, 1994; Caudron, 1999; Georges, 1996; Mullen, 1997; Strebler, 1997). The literature also suggests that there is a lack of emphasis placed on the development of soft skills by many tertiary education providers. Hard skills are skills associated with technical aspects of performing a job and usually include the acquisition of knowledge (Page, Wilson, & Kolb, 1993). Hard skills thus are primarily cognitive in nature, and are influenced by an individual’s Intelligence Quotient (IQ). Spencer & Spencer (1993) described technical skills and knowledge as being a threshold in that they represent a minimum level necessary to be able to perform a job with basic competence. Hard skills are essentially equivalent to cognitive skills as categorized by Birkett (1993). Soft skills are skills often referred to as interpersonal, human, people, or behavioral skills, and place emphasis on personal behavior and managing relationships between people. Soft skills are primarily affective or behavioral in nature, and have recently been associated with the so-called Emotional Quotient (EQ) popularized by Daniel Goleman (Caudron, 1999; Kemper, 1999; McMurchie, 1998). EQ is regarded as a blend of innate characteristics and human/personal/interpersonal skills (Kemper, 1999). Hard and soft skills are now regarded by many authors as being complementary, with successful individual performance in the workplace seen to require both types of skills, and superior performers having high EQ as well as high IQ ratings (Kemper, 1999; McMurchie, 1998). For example, research by Spencer & Spencer (1993) suggests that that superior performers are not distinguished solely by the technical skills, but by the demonstration of certain motives, values, traits and attitudes, in other words, by manifestation of good behavioral skills in addition to their technical ability. According to some authors, it is common for commercial organizations to neglect the development of soft skills because of the difficulty in their measurement (e.g., Georges, 1996). Likewise, compared with hard skills, it is seen to be problematic to demonstrate a link between soft skills and desired work outcomes (Arnold, & Davey, 1994; Mullen, 1997). One reason businesses may be reluctant to place emphasis on the development of soft skills, is such skills are seen to be more difficult to develop than hard or technical skills (Caudron, 1999). However, career pursuits require more than the specialized knowledge and the technical skills of one’s trade (Bandura, 1986). Consequently, success in the workplace may also depend on the self-efficacy (i.e., an individual’s perception of their Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2002, 3(2), 8-18 9 Rainsbury, Hodges, Burchell and Lay - Ranking Workplace Competencies: Graduate and Student Perceptions ability to perform specific tasks) of the individual in dealing with the social realities of work situations. Hackett, Betz and Doty (1985) identified a number of skills that subserve this broader function. These include the ability to communicate well, to relate effectively to others, to plan and manage the demands of one’s job, to exercise leadership and to cope with stress effectively. From a graduate perspective, soft skills are seen as being deficient in graduates relative to hard skills (Arnold & Davey, 1994; Mullen, 1997) although Strebler (1997) notes that technical/hard skills are perceived by graduates as being relatively more critical for getting a job. Similarly, soft skills are generally viewed as less important by academics in comparison with workplace professionals (Page, Wilson, & Kolb, 1993). Interestingly, Arnold and Davey (1994) note that as graduates spend longer in industry, they rate themselves as more competent in their hard skills but not soft skills. However, Arnolf and Davey note that workplace manager’s rate graduates poorly with regard to their soft skills. This suggests that there may be deficiencies in the development of soft skill of graduates during their tertiary studies. Spencer & Spencer (1993) identified a number of generic competency categories that they claim account for 80-95% of the distinguishing features of superior performers in technical and managerial positions. These competencies, listed in Appendix A, form the basis for this study. Research Objectives The literature suggests that students and new graduates perceive hard skills as more important than soft skills. It seems likely that this will influence students study habits and attempts at skill development. Such a practice may lead to students focusing on the more technical or content aspects of their studies, rather than developing their soft skills such as their personal and interpersonal skills, and process-type competencies (Burchell, Hodges, & Rainsbury, 1999; Sweeney & Twomey, 1997). Another key issue is whether graduates, through the benefit of their work experience, hold different perceptions of the importance of workplace competencies than students. Identification of any such differences would enable tertiary educators to identify competencies requiring greater emphasis in the curriculum, and the extent to which cooperative education programs might assist in the development of specific competencies. The objectives for this study were to identify which competencies students and graduates perceived to be important for business graduates entering the workplace; to identify differences in ranking of competencies between students and graduates; and, to ascertain whether students and graduates perceive hard skills to be more important than soft skills. Research Methodology Sample Description Participants in the study comprised 257 students out of a total population of 693 students (ca. 37% of the roll) enrolled in the Bachelor of Business Studies (BBS) degree at UNITEC. Students were approached during normal classes, and asked to complete a questionnaire. In addition, 125 graduates who had completed the BBS degree at the time of the study were sent the same questionnaire by mail. It should be noted that the degree has been in operation since 1992, with a large number of students studying parttime, so the population of graduates was relatively small in comparison with the number of student enrolments. The students and graduates surveyed represented a broad range of subject majors including management, marketing, information systems and accounting. Questionnaire Used in the Study The students and graduates were asked to rate the importance of a list of 24 competencies using a questionnaire. The competencies listed on the questionnaire were those identified by Spencer & Spencer (1993) (see Appendix A) along with four others, namely: ability and willingness to learn; written communication; personal planning and organizational skills; and computer literacy. These latter competencies were identified from the literature (Meade & Andrews, 1994; Sweeney & Twomey, 1997) and were deemed necessary in order to gain a more complete perspective of graduate competencies. The competencies were listed in random order on the questionnaire and provision was made for respondents to add additional competencies they felt were relevant. Student and graduates were asked to rate the importance of each competency through the use of a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 indicated the competency was not important and 7 indicated the competency was important. The full questionnaire used in the study is provided in Appendix B. Oral communication was not included as a separate competency because the authors regarded it as a key component within a number of other competencies, for example, teamwork and cooperation, relationship building, customer service orientation, interpersonal understanding, and developing others. Data Analysis The ranking given to each competency by the students and graduates (based on comparisons of mean values) is provided in Table 1. These means also are ranked from highest to lowest importance, for both groups. Two sets of ranking are provided one for each of hard and soft skills, along with an overall ranking. The ranking for each competency listed was determined by taking the sum of the ratings for that competency by each respondent and dividing this by the number of respondents. The competencies were then categorized by the authors into hard and soft skills. The mean importance for each category was determined by summing the mean importance of each competency within that category and dividing this by the number of competencies for each category. Differences in means were tested for statistical significance using one-tailed t-tests (at p <.05 & .01). To assist in the interpretation of the results the mean importance attributed by students and graduates for Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2002, 3(2), 8-18 10 Rainsbury, Hodges, Burchell and Lay - Ranking Workplace Competencies: Graduate and Student Perceptions Table 1 Comparison of student (n=253) and graduate (n=35) ranking of competencies Competency Student Graduate t-test Mean importance Ranking within category Ranking overall Mean importance Ranking within category Ranking overall p Computer literacy 5.95 1 1 6.17 1 3 0.11 Technical expertise 5.56 4 12 5.71 5 17 0.21 Organisational awareness 5.22 7 22 5.29 7 21 0.36 Analytical thinking Personal planning and organisational skills Written communication 5.64 3 10 5.71 4 16 0.36 5.76 2 6 5.94 2 8 0.17 5.55 5 13 5.94 3 8 0.017* Conceptual thinking 5.43 6 19 5.56 6 18 0.25 Overall 5.59 Soft Skills Teamwork and co-operation 5.85 2 3 6.03 4 Flexibility 5.62 8 11 5.97 Relationship building 5.71 5 7 5.91 Impact and influence on others 5.12 17 24 Initiative 5.65 7 9 Customer service orientation 5.92 1 Developing others 5.23 Directiveness 5.15 Team leadership Self control Hard skills 5.76 0.0077* 5 0.16 6 7 0.026 8 11 0.14 5.17 15 22 0.41 6.03 4 5 0.026 2 6.23 2 2 0.025 14 20 5.06 16 23 0.25 16 23 5.03 17 24 0.29 5.50 11 16 5.32 14 20 0.24 5.49 12 17 5.89 9 12 0.022* Willingness to learn 5.78 4 5 6.34 1 1 0.0007† Organisational commitment 5.23 14 20 5.40 13 19 0.22 Interpersonal understanding 5.43 13 18 5.74 12 15 0.066 Self confidence 5.83 3 4 6.09 3 4 0.073 Information seeking 5.52 10 15 5.94 7 8 0.32 Achievement orientation 5.69 6 8 5.80 11 14 0.032 Order & quality 5.53 9 14 5.83 10 13 Overall 5.54 5.74 0.0000† * statistically significant at p<.05; † statistically significant at p<.01 1 each competency are presented graphically in Figure 1, and Figure 2 shows the differences in the ranking of competencies by the two groups. Research Findings Response Rate and Respondent Profile Of the 257 student questionnaires completed, only four were not usable. However, of the 125 graduates surveyed by mail only 41 returned questionnaires and of these 35 were usable. Of the usable responses obtained, 61% of the students were female, and 39% were male, with an average age of 25.7 years; 68% of the graduates who responded were female and 32% male, with an average age of 29.6 years. The relatively low response rate (28%) from the graduates highlights the difficulties inherent in the use of mail-out self-completion questionnaires and suggests that these data need to be interpreted with some caution. I n Figure 1 it can be seen that the mean rating of the competencies was between 5.0 and 6.5. A mean of less than 4.0 was interpreted by the authors as being unimportant and on this basis overall both the students and graduates felt that all of the competencies were important. An interesting feature of the data is that the graduates rated most competencies (21 out of 24 competencies) higher than the students. Although the rank order varied, the students and graduates were in agreement of what Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2002, 3(2), 8-18 11 Rainsbury, Hodges, Burchell and Lay - Ranking Workplace Competencies: Graduate and Student Perceptions 6.5 Student mean importance Graduate mean importance Mean importance 6 5.5 5 Cu sto m C Te er s omp am erv ute Pe wo ice r li rso rk ori tera na an en cy lp d c tat lan o-o ion nin pe ga Se ratio nd l W f org il co n an ling nfid isa ne en tio ss ce n Re al sk to le Ac latio ills arn hie nsh ve ip b me ui nt ldin ori g en tat ion Ini ti A W naly F ative ritt tic lex en al ibil co thin ity m k Te mu ing ch nic n a Inf ical tion orm exp e ati rtis on e Or see de kin r& g Int qu erp a ers T Self lity on eam co al u le ntro Or C nder ader l ga on stan ship nis ce d at p in Or ional tual th g ga co in nis m kin ati mi g on tm al en De awar t Im ve en pa lop ess ct a ing nd inf o lue Dir ther nc ect s e o ive n o ne the ss rs 4.5 Competencies Figure 1 Student (n=253) and graduate (n=35) ranking of workplace competencies constituted the five most important competencies; namely, computer literacy, customer service orientation, teamwork and cooperation, self-confidence, and willingness to learn. In terms of least importance competencies, students and graduates again were in agreement, rating directiveness, organizational awareness, developing others, and impact and influence on others, as least important. Differences in ranking of competencies between students and graduates are shown in Figure 2. Competencies which the students favored more highly than the graduates included relationship building, team leadership, technical expertise, achievement orientation, and analytical thinking. Graduates favored flexibility, willingness to learn, written communication, information seeking, and self control as more important than the students. Table 2 Student (n=253) and graduate (n=35) ranking of hard and soft skills Comparison of Hard Skills and Soft Skills The results show that the graduates perceive willingness to learn to be the most important competency, whereas the students ranked it fourth most important and the difference in student and graduate perceptions of the importance of willingness to learn is statistically significant (p<.01). Interestingly, in a recent study of New Zealand employers’ ranking of workplace competencies, willingness to learn was rated the most important by industry professionals (Burchell, Hodges, & Rainsbury, 1999). This is in The graduates rated both hard and soft skills more highly than students and differences in rating is statistically significant (p<.05, Table 1). However, tests of significance for the hypothesis that graduates perceive hard skills to be more important than soft skills show that the differences were not statistically significant, thus confirming the null hypothesis that students and graduates perceive hard skills to be equally important as soft skills (Table 2). Skill Mean Hard Soft t-test (p) Student Graduate 5.59 5.76 5.54 5.74 0.089 0.419 Discussion Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2002, 3(2), 8-18 12 Rainsbury, Hodges, Burchell and Lay - Ranking Workplace Competencies: Graduate and Student Perceptions 8 Disparity in rank 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 Cu Se Co Di Or Or Co Im Or Pe Te De Ini Int Fle Re Te W W Inf Se Te Ac An sto lf c nce rec der gan mp pac gan rson am vel tiat erp xib lati am illin ritte orm lf c chn hie aly me onf ptu tive & isa ut t a isa al wo op ive ers ilit ons lea gn n c at ont ica ve tic on y hip de es om ion ro l e me al t r se ide al nes qu tion er l nd tion pla rk ing al u rvi nce thin s alit al itera infl al nni and oth bu rshi s to l mu see l xper nt o hink nd y aw cy uen com ng co ers ce kin ildi p ea nic kin tise rien ing ers ori a rn ati g ng g ce m and op ren tati t ent a o e o n i on n t r e o n m d a ss atio ing oth en rgan tion n ers t isa tion al s kill s Competency Figure 2 Differences in student (n=257) and graduate (n=125) ranking of workplace competencies agreement with Stephenson’s (1997) assertion that staying capable in a world of change requires confidence in one’s ability to manage one’s own learning. That is, in order to continue to be a valuable employee, an individual must be willing to learn new skills to keep pace with the rapidly changing world. This emphasis on life-long learning revealed in the survey supports Bowden and Marton’s (1998) contention that applying a range of competencies in various contextual uncertainties provides individuals with a learning capability that integrates disciplinary and professional requirements. Other competencies in which the differences in perceptions of students and graduates were statistically significant include written communication and self-control. The greater importance attributed by graduates to selfcontrol may be a reflection of differing expectations between the workplace and educational environment. However, reasons for differences in perceptions of written communication skills are less obvious. Nonetheless, these differences in perceptions point to important competencies that cooperative education programs can attempt to help students to become aware of. The students and graduates clearly favored soft skills, with soft skills featuring strongly in the top five rankings. This suggests that students and graduates agree with Kemper (1999), McMurchie, (1998) and Spencer and Spencer (1993), that superior performers require competence in both soft and hard skills. It is interesting to compare the views of students and graduates with the work of Hackett et al. (1985) who identified skills required to cope with the ‘social realities’ of work. Skills Hackett et al. mentioned include the ability to communicate well, to relate effectively to others, to plan and manage the demands of one’s job, to exercise leadership, and to cope with stress effectively. These skills are clearly related to some soft skills evaluated by the participants in this work; namely, interpersonal understanding, personal planning and organizational skills, team leadership, directiveness, and self-control. Remarkably, none of these latter skills were ranked highly in this study, with the exception of personal planning and organizational skills, which was ranked in the top 10 by both the students and graduates Conclusions This study has found that New Zealand business students and graduates strongly adhere to the perception that staying capable in a world of change requires a willingness to learn. Overall, the students and graduates perceptions of workplace competencies were similar. However, when the competencies were classified into hard skill and soft skill categories, the graduates perceived both hard skills and soft skills to be more important than did their student counterparts. Much of the literature emphasizes the critical importance of ensuring competency development is seen holistically and within context (Boam & Sparrow, 1992, Boyatzis, 1982; Bowden & Martin, 1998, Birkett, 1993, Spencer & Spencer, 1993). This is supported by the views of the cohort of students and graduates in this work, who placed equal importance on hard and soft skills in the workplace although, as stated above, graduates did perceive soft skills to be more important than students did. An individual’s perception of the importance of competencies is not static; rather it changes as the individual progresses from tertiary studies into the workplace. This study suggests that, in the minds of these participants at least, competencies take on Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2002, 3(2), 8-18 13 Rainsbury, Hodges, Burchell and Lay - Ranking Workplace Competencies: Graduate and Student Perceptions greater importance with the advent of work experience. This then suggests that cooperative education programs have an important role to play in providing students with relevant work experience so that their perceptions of the importance of a variety of competencies, most notably soft skills, more closely mirror the views of workplace professionals. Education professionals involved in cooperative education programs are thus encouraged to tailor their courses to meet the needs of employers, so that students develop a better understanding of the requirements of workplace with respect to development of skills. References Arnold, J., Davey, K.M. (1994). Evaluating graduate development: Key findings from the graduate development project. Leadership and Development Journal, 15(8), 9-15 Ashton, F. (1994). The other managers competencies. Training Officer, 30(1), 15-16. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Boam, R., & Sparrow, P. (1992). Designing and achieving competency. London: McGraw-Hill. Birkett, W.P. (1993). Competency based standards for professional accountants in Australia and New Zealand discussion paper. Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants. Bowden, J. & Marton, F. (1998). The university of learning: Beyond quality and competence in higher education. London: Kogan Page. Boyatzis, R.E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. New York: Wiley. Burchell, N., Hodges, D., & Rainsbury, L. (1999). What competencies does the workplace expect from business graduates? Some perspectives of the top 500 companies. In C. Eames & D. Hodges (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the New Zealand Association for Cooperative Education (pp. 1-12). Rotorua, New Zealand. Caudron, S. (1999). The hard case for soft skills. Workforce, 78(7), 60-64. Georges, J.C. (1996). The myth of soft skills training. Training, 33(1), 48. Hackett, G., Betz, N.E., & Doty, M.S. (1985). The development of a taxonomy of career competencies for professional women. Sex Roles, 12, 393-409. Kemper, C.L. (1999). EQ vs. IQ. Communication World, 16(9), 15-19. McMurchie, L.L. (1998). Careers can rise or fall with EQ. Computing Canada, 1(9), 18-21. Meade, P., & Andrews, R. (1995). Measuring employer satisfaction in higher education. The Quality Magazine, April, 52-53. Mullen, J. (1997). Graduates deficient in soft skills. People Management, November 6, 18. New Zealand Qualifications Authority (1997). Wellington, New Zealand: Government Printer. Page, C., Wilson, M., & Kolb, D. (1993). Managerial competencies and New Zealand managers: On the inside, looking in. Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland. Rudman, R. (1995, July). Competencies and capabilities for effective human resource management. Paper presented at the 22nd annual conference of the Asian Regional Training and Development Organization. Melbourne, Australia. Spencer, L.M., & Spencer, S.M. (1993). Competence at work. New York: Wiley. Stephenson, J. (1997). Capability: Educating for life and work. Wellington, New Zealand: Education and Training Support Agency. Strebler, M. (1997). Soft skills and hard questions. People Management, 3(11), 20-24. Sweeney, M., & Twomey, P. (1997, August). Preparing graduates for 2020: The role of cooperative education. Paper presented at the 10th World Conference on Cooperative Education. Cape Town, South Africa. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2002, 3(2), 8-18 14 Rainsbury, Hodges, Burchell and Lay - Ranking Workplace Competencies: Graduate and Student Perceptions Appendix A Generic competencies that account for 80-95% of the distinguishing features of superior performers (Spencer & Spencer, 1993) Competency Description Achievement and action Achievement orientation Concern for order, quality and accuracy Initiative Information seeking Interpersonal understanding Customer service orientation Impact and influence Impact and influence on others Organisational awareness Relationship building Managerial Developing others Directiveness Teamwork and co-operation Team leadership Cognitive Analytical thinking Conceptual thinking Technical expertise Task accomplishment, seeks results, innovation, competitiveness, impact, standards, efficiency Monitoring, concern for clarity, reduce uncertainty, keeping track Bias for action, decisiveness, strategic orientation, proactive, seizes opportunities, self motivation, persistence Soft Problem definition, diagnostic focus, looking deeper, contextual sensitivity Empathy, listening, sensitivity to others, diagnostic understanding, awareness of others feelings Helping and service orientation, focus on client needs, actively solves client problems Soft Strategic influence, impression management, showmanship, persuasion, collaborative influence Soft Understands organisation, knows constraints, power and political astuteness, cultural knowledge Networking, establish rapport, concern for stakeholders e.g. clients, use of resources, contacts use Soft Training, developing others, coaching, mentoring, providing support, positive regard Assertiveness, decisiveness, use of power, taking charge, firmness of standards, group control and discipline Soft Fosters group facilitation and management, conflict resolution, motivating others, good climate Being in charge, vision, concern for subordinates, build sense of group purpose, group motivation Soft Thinking for yourself, reasoning, practical intelligence, planning skills, problem analysing, systematic Pattern recognition, insight, critical thinking, problem definition, can generate hypotheses, linking Hard Job related technical knowledge and skills, depth and breadth, acquires expertise, donates expertise Hard Stamina, resistance to stress, staying calm, high EQ, resists temptation, not impulsive, can calm others Strong self concept, internal locus of control, independence, ego strength, decisive, accepts responsibility Adaptability, ability to change, perceptual objectivity, staying objective, resilience, behaviour is contingent Soft Align self and others to organisational needs, businessmindedness, self sacrifice Soft Soft Soft Soft Soft Soft Soft Soft Hard Personal effectiveness Self control Self confidence Flexibility Organisational commitment Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2002, 3(2), 8-18 Soft Soft 15 Rainsbury, Hodges, Burchell and Lay - Ranking Workplace Competencies: Graduate and Student Perceptions Appendix B The Survey Instrument Used in the Study CURRENT AND FUTURE BUSINESS GRADUATE COMPETENCIES BBS Student Questionnaire SECTION A A.1 Please indicate your intended specialisation in the BBS degree (Note: if completing a double major please indicate your preferred major ) (ü): q Marketing q Accounting A.2 q Management - HRM q Information Systems You enrolled in the BBS degree with the intention to complete? (ü): q BBS Single Major q Certificate – exit qual A.3 q BBS Double Major q Diploma – exit qual Please indicate your age (ü): q Under 20 q 26 – 30 A.4 q Management - Ops q Sales q 20 - 25 q Over 30 Please indicate your gender (ü): q Male q Female All information provided by you will be confidential; your responses will be aggregated with others for the purposes of analysing and reporting results. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2002, 3(2), 8-18 16 Rainsbury, Hodges, Burchell and Lay - Ranking Workplace Competencies: Graduate and Student Perceptions Appendix B Continued SECTION B COMPETENCY DESCRIPTIONS Please read the following descriptions of each competency before completing question B.1. Teamwork & cooperation (fosters group facilitation and management, conflict resolution, motivation of others, creating a good workplace climate) Flexibility (adaptability, perceptual objectivity, staying objective, resilience, behaviour is contingent on the situation) Relationship building (networking, establish rapport, use of contacts, concern for stakeholders eg clients) Computer literacy (able to operate a number of packages and has information management awareness) Conceptual thinking (pattern recognition, insight, critical thinking, problem definition, can generate hypotheses, linking) Technical expertise ( job related technical knowledge and skills, depth and breadth, acquires expertise, donates expertise) Organisational awareness (understands organisation, knows constraints, power and political astuteness, cultural knowledge) Concern for order, quality & accuracy (monitoring, concern for clarity, reduces uncertainty, keeping track of events and issues) Impact & influence on others (strategic influence, impression management, showmanship, persuasion, collaborative influence) Initiative (bias for action, decisiveness, strategic orientation, proactive, seizes opportunities, self motivation, persistence) Customer service orientation (helping and service orientation, focus on client needs, actively solves client problems) Developing others (training, developing others, coaching, mentoring, providing support, positive regard) Directiveness (assertiveness, decisiveness, use of power, taking charge, firmness of standards, group control and discipline) Team leadership (being in charge, vision, concern for subordinates, builds a sense of group purpose) Analytical thinking (thinking for self, reasoning, practical intelligence, planning skills, problem analysing, systematic) Self control (stamina, resistance to stress, staying calm, high Emotional Quotient, resists temptation, not impulsive, can calm others) Organisational commitment (align self and others to organisational needs, businessmindedness, self sacrifice) Ability and willingness to learn (desire and aptitude for learning, learning as a basis for action) Interpersonal understanding (empathy, listening, sensitivity to others, diagnostic understanding, awareness of others’ feelings) Self confidence (strong self concept, internal locus of control, independence, positive ego strength, decisive, accepts responsibility) Personal planning and organisational skills Written communication Information seeking (problem definition, diagnostic focus, looking deeper, contextual sensitivity) Achievement orientation (task accomplishment, seeks results, employs innovation, has competitiveness, seeks impact, aims for standards and efficiency) Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2002, 3(2), 8-18 17 Rainsbury, Hodges, Burchell and Lay - Ranking Workplace Competencies: Graduate and Student Perceptions Appendix B Continued B.1 Please complete the table below, indicating from your perspective the importance for business graduates entering the workforce, of each of the competencies listed. Please circle the number of your choice. (Refer attached description of each competency.) COMPETENCY IMPORTANCE TODAY Unimportant Important 1 7 Teamwork & cooperation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Flexibility 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Relationship building 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Computer literacy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Conceptual thinking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Technical expertise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Organisational awareness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Concern for order, quality and accuracy Impact and influence on others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Initiative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Customer service orientation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Developing others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Directiveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Team leadership 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Analytical thinking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Self control 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Organisational commitment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ability and willingness to learn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interpersonal understanding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Self confidence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Personal planning and organisational skills Written communication 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Information seeking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Achievement orientation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Please add others, if required: Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2002, 3(2), 8-18 18