2012 - Azevedo Et Al. - Competency Development in Business Graduates PDF

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.
The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
The International Journal of Management Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijme
Competency development in business graduates: An industry-driven

approach for examining the alignment of undergraduate business
education with industry requirements
Ana Azevedo a, *, Gerhard Apfelthaler b,1, Deborah Hurst a, 2
a
Athabasca University, Faculty of Business 301, 22 Sir Winston Churchill Avenue, St. Albert, AB T8N 1B4, Canada
b
California Lutheran University, School of Business, 60 West Olsen #3500, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360, USA
a b s t r a c t
Keywords:
Competency assessment The paper proposes a conceptual framework and industry-driven approach to measure
Undergraduate business education required competencies of business graduates. The suggested approach was designed and
Industry requirements tested within a project implemented in Austria, the UK, Slovenia and Romania. Evidence
Leadership development
from this multi-country study of employers and business graduates suggests that it is
possible to investigate industry requirements with a cluster of eight key generic compe-
tencies. Competencies were selected following a detailed analysis of academic literature
and 39 semi-structured qualitative interviews. A survey was conducted with 900 business
graduates and employers in four European countries. The survey conrmed that the eight
key competencies selected were both valuable for business graduates current job perfor-
mance as well as relevant for future career development. Survey results showed that
employers were not very condent in the level of capability of business graduates in the
eight competencies investigated in this study. Results are consistent with other empirical
evidence concerned with graduates level of key generic skills and highlight the need to
strengthen competency development within undergraduate business education. Implica-
tions for future research and curriculum improvement are discussed.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The topic of Quality in Higher Education has received signicant attention over the past two decades, with many
contributions suggesting how quality should be dened and measured within an educational, service-oriented context
(Finnie & Usher, 2005; Garvin, 1984; Harvey & Green, 1993; Van Kemenade, Pupius, & Hardjono, 2008). Regardless of progress
made, questions remain as to how well institutions of Higher Education prepare graduates to meet the challenges, in
constantly evolving and demanding work environments (Hills, Robertson, Walker, Adey, & Nixon, 2003; Rubin & Dierdorff,
2009). Some suggest that undergraduate business education is failing to adequately prepare graduates for todays work-
places (e.g., Andrews & Higson, 2008; Jackson, 2009b; Washer, 2007).
Many societies, since the 1980s have embraced the notion of graduates work-readiness (i.e., graduate employability) as
a means to promote national competitiveness in the global economy. However, concerns remain that undergraduate
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 780 418 7540.

E-mail addresses: ana.azevedo@mba.athabascau.ca (A. Azevedo), apfelthaler@callutheran.edu (G. Apfelthaler), deborah.hurst@mba.athabascau.ca
(D. Hurst).
1
Tel.: 1 805 493 3352.
2
Tel.: 1 780 418 7566.
1472-8117/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2012.02.002
A. Azevedo et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228 13
programmes may not be equipping students with the key skills needed to gain and maintain employment (Cranmer, 2006; De
La Harpe, Radloff, & Wyber, 2000). One reason for the perceived lack of graduate employability appears rooted in the degree of
mismatch between skills acquired in higher education versus those required for employment (Mason, Williams, Cranmer, &
Guile, 2003; Wilton, 2008).
We intend to provide insights into the important and growing concern of graduate employability. While there is signicant
debate as to the exact nature and extent of graduates skills gaps, empirical evidence suggests that employers around the
world continue to be concerned about new graduates ability to meet current and future workplace requirements (McQuaid &
Lindsay, 2005; Jackson, 2009b).
This empirical paper addresses the lack of alignment between the competencies developed in business education pro-
grammes versus those needed in early industry jobs. Graduates and their employers were asked to provide insights on the
required competencies identied for industry jobs within a large EU-funded project (Azevedo, Gomezelj, Andrews, Higson, &
Caballero, 2008).
The initial list of competencies was created through literature review and then rened through qualitative interviews with
a small sample of graduates and employers. A larger sample of employers and recent business graduates were then surveyed
(i.e., those who completed an undergraduate business management programme or a vocational training/further education
programme within the past ve years) in order to validate the key competency cluster. The survey asked undergraduate
business alumni and their employers to comment on what they believed to be the most important competency requirements
for effective work performance at early career stages (i.e., competency proling a process through which the competencies
needed to perform a job or career effectively are identied; Armstrong, 2000; Kagaari & Munene, 2007). Respondents were
asked to comment on how valuable or useful they found the cluster of key generic competencies to be for predicting recent
graduates performance in early career job activities, as well as how relevant such competencies were for future career
development.
Study results offer some interesting insights at the juncture of two sets of ideas not well addressed in literature, i.e.,
competency assessment of alumni who have recently completed undergraduate business management programmes and
investigation of industry requirements related to entry-level positions for the management profession (Jackson, 2009a). It is
our contention that information regarding how capable business graduates are perceived to be in each of the competencies
identied, if studied systematically (every two to three years), could signicantly assist Higher Education institutions in
identifying issues, adjusting and aligning curriculum to address existing competency gaps in early stages of employment. The
conceptual framework of value, relevance and capability proposed herein promises both theoretical and practical benets on
the topic of graduate employability (Azevedo, Gomezelj et al., 2008). Further, subsequent research on competency devel-
opment using this conceptual model with a longitudinal design will enhance our insights on where and how individuals
develop competencies that align with industry expectations and in doing so, close the value, relevancy and capability gap.
We present our ideas in the following four sections. We begin with background literature to identify the research problem.
Second, we provide a detailed overview of the study methodology including design and implementation within the context of
a larger 2-year, EU-funded project with nine partner institutions in four European Countries (Austria, England, Slovenia and
Romania). Third, we discuss key study ndings and interpretations in the Analysis section. We conclude the paper with
important recommendations for future research and curriculum improvement.
2. Background
2.1. Graduate employability
Institutions of Higher Education continue to face growing demands for accountability, transparency and comparability,
due in part to external factors (e.g., tougher global competition, changing customer needs) and internal factors (e.g., quality
management initiatives, internationalization efforts). Over the past two decades, these pressures have contributed to a major
paradigm shift in quality assessment efforts in many OECD countries putting more emphasis on outputs and learning
outcomes, such as knowledge and competencies (Moskal, Taylor, & Keon, 2008; Thompson, 2004). According to the European
Qualications framework (EQF), learning outcomes are dened as statements of what a learner knows, understands and is
able to do on completion of a learning process (European Commission, 2006; as cited in Cedefop, 2008, p. 15).
The greater emphasis on learning outcomes reects a broader, ideological shift regarding the role of universities,
increasingly perceived as serving market or knowledge-based economy needs (Boden & Nevada, 2010; Prokou, 2008).
Notably since the 1980s, the growing number of initiatives designed to support specic learning outcomes and graduate
employability within educational programmes t into this larger political and social movement redening the role of higher
education institutions, away from the traditional notion of autonomous entities and towards a market-oriented model.
Early denitions of graduate employability in the academic literature focused on employment outcomes, i.e., getting a job
after the completion of higher education, but also maintaining or obtaining new employment (Aamodt & Havnes, 2008;
Hillage & Pollard, 1998). While this is no longer the dominant view of employability, graduates rst-destination statistics (i.e.,
employment status a few months after graduation) are still used in countries such as the UK and Australia as performance
indicators of graduate employability (Bridgstock, 2009).
Considering that employment outcomes can be affected by a number of external factors (e.g., economic cycles and related
changes in labour market conditions) recent research has re-dened the concept of graduate employability as a characteristic
14 A. Azevedo et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228
of the individual (Harvey, 2001; Yorke & Knight, 2007). Yorke (2006) for example, perceived employability as a multi-faceted
characteristic of the individual, dening it as a set of achievements skills, understanding, and personal attributes that
makes graduates more likely to gain employment and be successful in their chosen occupations, which benets themselves,
the workforce, the community and the economy (Yorke, 2006; as cited in Aamodt & Havnes, 2008 pp. 235236). While there
are also a number of problems associated with this re-conceptualization (see discussion below), it offers a more direct link
between specic gains achieved in higher education (i.e., learning outcomes from undergraduate study programmes) and an
individuals ability or potential to operate effectively or succeed at work (i.e., graduate employability) (McQuaid & Lindsay,
2005).
Knight and Yorke (2004) proposed four main competence areas to deal with specic content of graduate employability
(known as USEM model): understanding (i.e., mastery of the subject matter of a eld), skillfulness (i.e., generic and subject-
specic skills), efcacy beliefs and metacognition (i.e., an awareness of how one acts, including ones own competencies and
limitations and insight into how to learn and develop ones capabilities). Although there is widespread recognition of the
need to develop both generic and subject-specic skills, a growing number of researchers emphasized the importance of
generic skills, because employability is increasingly equated with being exible and adaptable in the workplace, suggesting
that individuals should possess key transferable skills (Prokou, 2008; Wilton, 2008).
In spite of a growing focus on key skills, many researchers have suggested that graduate employability is a complex and
difcult to precisely dene and measure concept (e.g., Andrews & Higson, 2008; Boden & Nevada, 2010). Cranmer (2006)
agrees with the challenge in dening, measuring, developing and transferring employability, thus making it a wooly
concept to pin down (Cranmer, 2006; p. 172). She notes that the denition of graduate employability represents a broad range
of knowledge, skills and personal attributes being proposed in scientic literature and that further confusion is created from
the use of different terms such as core, key, common, generic and transferable. Employment outcomes (e.g., proportion of
graduates with a full-time job six months after graduation) are still frequently used as the key performance indicator for
employability in different countries, in spite of the criticisms raised in different studies. Perhaps more important for the
purpose of this paper is the fact that there is no consensus on a common list of key skills (e.g., Bridgstock, 2009; Mason,
Williams, & Cramer, 2009), making replication very difcult.
Harvey (2005) summarized a number of different initiatives designed and implemented within higher education insti-
tutions to deal with graduate employability. He described these initiatives within four broad areas of activity: embedded
attribute development opportunities within study programmes; provision of enhanced or revised student support (i.e.,
activities usually provided by career services); opportunities to gain work experience (within study programmes or external
to them); opportunities to engage in enabled reection and/or recording of experiences, attribute development and
achievement (e.g., via the development of progress les and career management programs). There is a wide variety of
methods for enhancing graduate employability within higher education from total embedding of employability skills within
the curriculum to a parallel development of generic skills (Cranmer, 2006). To date, there is insufcient empirical evidence
on how effective any of these methods are for skill development and more generally, graduate employability (Mason et al.,
2003). In fact, several authors noted that the anticipated transfer of graduate skills to the job market occurs with varying
degrees of success, depending on personal characteristics, the type of degree or subject studied, as well as the specic nature of
workplace demands (e.g., Guile & Grifths, 2001; Jackson, 2009a).
In spite of these challenges, key skills and competency development became a central aim in higher education, especially
in the past two decades. While the term graduate employability may not be internationally recognized, universities around
the world have embraced this notion by emphasizing graduates development of critical skills within undergraduate and
graduate study programmes (Harvey & Bowers-Brown, 2004; as cited in Cranmer, 2006). Within the European Union, the
topic of graduate employability is perceived as critical to the Bologna process and the promotion of the European dimension
in higher education, given the need to harmonise European curricula (Prokou, 2008).
The authors of this paper acknowledge that even though we agree that the development of key generic or transferable
skills within higher education is one of the critical aspects of attaining graduate employability, it cannot be equated to it. We
believe that this is partially because of the complexities inherent in the denition and use of the concept, as previously
discussed, but also because, employability must be understood from a wider perspective, i.e., in terms of a lifelong learning
process including personal experiences and achievements attained at different life stages, such as school, higher education
and work (Aamodt & Havnes, 2008). Consistent with this wider perspective, many factors should be taken into account when
discussing graduate employability, such as a willingness to engage in continuing education and seek out opportunities for
workplace learning. Graduates need to continually learn, gain new qualications and work experiences, develop career
management skills and key personal attributes, such as capacity to reect as well as learn to deal with a host of other
workplace factors (Bridgstock, 2009; Gracia, 2009; Prokou, 2008).
While we embrace a wider perspective of graduate employability, the topic of this paper is directly tied to this concept in
two signicant ways. First, there is a need to converge on a set of key generic, transferable skills that can be used as learning
outcomes in undergraduate programmes. We offer an industry perspective on this, by suggesting a step-by-step method for
arriving at what both employers and recent graduates consider to be a required set. Second, we investigate the critical skill
gaps by examining graduates capability ratings within the context of undergraduate business education and then compare
these to self and employer ratings of value (i.e., usefulness) and relevance in the workplace. We suggest the proposed
framework of value, relevance and capability can provide a meaningful way to assess the degree of mismatch between skills
acquired in higher education and those required for employment (Mason et al., 2003; Wilton, 2008).
Finally, although many authors use the terms skill and competence separately and interchangeably, after a detailed review
of the literature, we use the term competence, as encompassing the notion of skill, whilst being broader than it (e.g., Belasen &
Rufer, 2007; Berge, Verneil, Berge, Davis, & Smith, 2002).
2.2. Dening competencies
In congruence with a growing emphasis on learning outcomes and graduate employability, research on competence has
emerged from many different academic elds, such as psychology, education and management (Boyatzis, 2008; Dierdorff,
Rubin, & Morgeson, 2009; Eraut, 1994). Within psychology, Raelin (2007) suggests that the roots of the term competence
come from Banduras social learning theory (1986), with self-efcacy as centrally important. In addition, Eraut (1994) traced
the development of the concept of competence within three main historical phases (as originally suggested by Norris, 1991):
First, the post-war behaviourist tradition phase, provided detailed behavioural specications via task analysis (this approach
was especially developed in the eld of Education); Next, the generic approaches phase, focused on identifying sets of generic
competencies to differentiate excellent performers from average performers (this approach was especially developed in the
eld of management). Finally, the cognitive tradition phase, attempted to distinguish competence (what a person knows and is
able to do under ideal circumstances) from performance (what a person actually does under existing circumstances). This
later phase was particularly articulated within linguistics, psychology and higher education research (Bridges, 1996;
Entwistle, 1995; Entwistle & Entwistle, 1991; Hyland, 1993; Messick, 1984; Wood & Power, 1987).
In spite of a long history of development, there is still signicant disagreement among researchers as to how the concept of
competence should be dened and measured. Grzeda (2005) identied two fundamental approaches: The American
approach, which views competence as an independent variable affecting managerial behaviour and performance; and the
British approach, which views competence as a dependent variable or outcome (i.e., the result of managerial behaviour). In the
rst approach, competence is dened around a persons abilities knowledge, skills, abilities (KSAs), but also attitudes and
underlying individual characteristics (e.g., the AMA/McBer model, based on McClellands original work (1973) and later
extended by Boyatzis (1982) and Spencer and Spencer (1993)). In the later approach, the denition of competence is closer to
that of a performance standard, or a list of tasks (work duties) that a person is expected to perform given a job position (e.g.,
the National Vocational Qualications frameworks adopted in England and Australia; see also contributions in Human
Resources Management by Reid (1992), Holmes and Joyce (1993) and Iles (1993)).
For the purpose of this study, we dene competence following the American approach, to more clearly differentiate the
denition from managerial performance. Our denition of competence most closely resembles Websters New World College
Dictionarys (1999) denition of ability or capability, i.e., capacity or power to do something.
Aside from the apparent denitional ambiguity, Jackson (2009a) summarized a few other signicant problems encoun-
tered in competence research. First of all, it is not easy to view individual competencies as single entities, given their
synergistic and inter-related nature (e.g., how do we separate the ability to think strategically from the more inclusive
competence of critical thinking?). Second, there is signicant debate as to whether competencies can be seen as generic (i.e.,
applicable or generalizable to different management positions and organizational contexts) or organic (i.e., unique to specic
positions and organizational contexts). Grzeda (2005) reviewed a number of authors supporting both positions and suggested
that management education tends to be more supportive of the generic view of competencies, both from a theoretical and
practical perspective. This suggestion is consistent with Erauts (1994) overview of the development of competencies in the
management literature. Nonetheless, as Jackson (2009a) points out, in choosing to adopt this generic view of competencies, it
is very important that business education programmes implement competency-based learning to complement academic
programmes in order to assist students in acquiring competencies that have not only been extensively researched, but that
have also taken into account critical input from many types of organizational contexts and industries. The approach suggested in
this paper is a direct answer to this call for a broader and systematic consideration of industry needs in undergraduate
business programmes.
A nal issue of contention and debate in the competence literature is the casual link between competencies and
competence development on one side, and managerial and/or organizational performance on the other side (Boyatzis, 2008;
Rubin & Dierdorff, 2009). While most of the empirical studies examining this issue have used either MBA students or alumni,
there is contradictory evidence as to whether competence development within graduate programmes can indeed enhance
individual and/or organizational performance. Perhaps the most striking supporting evidence comes from the work con-
ducted by Boaytzis and his colleagues (e.g., Boyatzis, 2009; Boyatzis, Stubbs, & Taylor, 2002; Boyatzis & Saatcioglu, 2008;
Goleman, 1998; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). This body of research has provided evidence that MBA programmes can
signicantly improve the cognitive, emotional and social intelligence competencies which are needed for excellent perfor-
mance of managers. However, there is some uncertainty around whether or not results from studying MBA programmes can
be extrapolated and ndings applied to undergraduate business programmes, given the potentially disparate amounts of
experiential knowledge held between the two groups of students.
Additional studies are thus needed to ascertain the exact nature of the relationship between competencies developed and
managerial performance, as well as the degree of relevance that business programmes have in promoting competency
development in junior, middle and senior managers. Of particular importance for the purpose of this paper is the fact that
there are not enough studies examining how competencies developed in undergraduate business education prepare grad-
uates to perform effectively in junior or entry-level management positions. Consequently, it is unclear whether
undergraduate students require the same competencies as MBA students, even though a similar combination of disciplinary
knowledge and generic skills seems to be required at both levels (Davis, Misra, & van Auken, 2002; Jackson, 2009a).
2.3. Lack of empirical research on undergraduate business education
Given the lack of clarity and study of required competencies at the undergraduate level, EU-funded project partners had
minimal information to use in rening their study of a few generic competencies for early career success. Warn and Tranter
(2001), studied outcomes achieved in higher education conducted in Australia, demonstrating the development of generic
competencies (e.g., planning, teamwork and leadership consideration) to be signicant in the preparation of students for
future work as military ofcers, though not signicantly inuencing their overall self-assessment of the quality of under-
graduate degrees. Waldman and Korbar (2004), studied U.S. undergraduates and found that assessment centre performance
(i.e., skills-based performance, measured with a diverse set of exercises including in-basket, leadership group discussion, case
analyses, interview simulation and oral presentation) was a signicant predictor of early career success (i.e., extrinsic and
intrinsic career success aspects, measured with a follow-up survey, administered 23 years after the assessment centre
participation). This was especially true with respect to extrinsic aspects such as number of promotions achieved and current
salary (overall assessment centre performance was also positively correlated with the intrinsic aspect of job satisfaction, but
the overall R-square for the hierarchical regression of this dependent variable was not signicant). The AC-based skills
evaluated in this study (e.g., problem solving and decision-making, planning and organization, interpersonal skills, leadership
skills, written communication, teamwork, presentation) impacted early career success after controlling for undergraduate
GPA and the Big Five personality measures (i.e., agreeableness, extroversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability and
openness to new experiences), thus suggesting that desired skills of undergraduates can add variance above and beyond these
variables in the explanation of early career success.
The overall lack of research addressing undergraduate business education is especially problematic considering the
growing debate on skill gaps, lack of experiential knowledge and employability of business undergraduates in many OECD
countries from the employers view (Hills et al., 2003; McQuaid & Lindsay, 2005). Jackson (2009b) summarizes a number
of recent studies in the US, UK and Australia revealing employers dissatisfaction with graduates generic employability
skills, such as non-technical and/or soft skills. Her ndings are consistent with US studies stating employers concerns with
higher education and development of graduate competencies such as their broad intellectual (e.g., critical thinking,
problem solving), interpersonal (e.g., communication, teamwork) and personal skills (e.g., appreciation for diversity,
professionalism/work ethic, social responsibility) (Casner-Lotto & Benner, 2006; Peter Hart Research Associates, Inc.,
2006).
Given the growing concern on graduate employability, there seems to be a clear need for more empirical research to better
understand and improve competency development in undergraduate business education. Such research will allow us to
better assess how well-prepared business graduates are for entry and junior level management positions, as well as to
identify the most critical skill gaps and the types of employability development opportunities that can be developed or
strengthened both within Higher Education institutions (e.g., skills development within study programmes) and outside of
them (e.g., skills development from placement opportunities, live projects and other extra-curricular activities) (Harvey,
2001). Furthermore, greater employer input from different industries will be very helpful for understanding what specic
competencies are perceived to be most critical for effective work performance at junior or entry-level positions (i.e.,
competency proling). Our study attempts to address the issues raised from employers and graduates points of view. We
consider their ratings of undergraduate business graduates capability on the eight key competency cluster developed. We
intend to assess how useful our cluster of competencies is perceived to be for graduates current job performance and future
career development. In the following section we outline our project method.
3. Method
3.1. Project overview and purpose
Our industry-driven approach to measuring required competencies of business graduates was developed and tested
within the context of a two-year EU-funded project on the topic of Quality in Higher Education. The project, entitled MISLEM,
included nine partners from four European countries (Austria, the UK, Slovenia and Romania) and it was implemented
between 2005 and 2007. A diverse group of project partners was composed of four Higher Education institutions, two
Institutions of Further Education and Vocational Training, two Industry partners and one Quality Assurance partner.
The primary goal of the project was to develop a systematic approach for quality assessment to help educational insti-
tutions better understand how well they are responding to labour market needs. This approach was broadly conceived of in
six steps: the denition of learning outcomes for business study programmes; the design and administration of question-
naires for assessing the match between learning outcomes achieved (i.e., knowledge and competencies developed within
study programmes) versus those required by the labour market; the administration of questionnaires to recent business
graduates and employers; the analysis and interpretation of results; the aggregation of data to generate meta-level quality
indicators; and the creation of a feedback system for the purpose of curriculum improvement (Azevedo, Frech, & Mueller,
2007).
The projects methodological design included three phases: exploratory; descriptive; and critical/analytical. During phase
one, a comprehensive literature review was conducted, followed by exploratory qualitative interviews with employers and
recent business graduates (those who had completed their undergraduate study programmes at partner institutions). Phase
two included questionnaires designed and administered to two samples of employers and recent business graduates across
the four European countries. Phase three included a critical analysis and interpretation of results (for a more detailed review,
please see Azevedo, Tusini, Renner, & Frech, 2008).
3.2. Phase one: development of competency assessment approach
We conducted a comprehensive literature review on the structure of higher education and vocational training systems in
the four European countries, the different approaches for dening and measuring quality within educational institutions and,
competence based research. While a detailed discussion of literature on competency development is beyond the scope of this
paper, it is noteworthy that we did not nd any widely accepted framework to conceptualize and measure competency
development in undergraduate business education. This may be partially attributed to the scarcity of research on the topic.
Among the different approaches encountered, the following denition of competencies was adopted and subsequently
included in the study questionnaires: Competencies represent a dynamic combination of knowledge, understanding, skills and
abilities (adapted from Baartman, Bastiens, Kirschner, & Van Der Vleuten, 2007; Berge et al., 2002; Belasen & Rufer, 2007;
Gillard & Price, 2005; Nabi, 2003; Palmer, Ziegenfuss, & Pinsker, 2004; Summers & Summers, 1997). Even though more
encompassing denitions were available in existing studies (including personality characteristics such as motives, beliefs and
values), we favoured this parsimonious denition, in order avoid an all inclusive concept.
Our literature review was the rst step in clarifying the denition of competencies used in this research. The denition was
rened via qualitative interviews with employers and recent business graduates from each of the partner universities in the
four European countries. A total of 39 people (25 business graduates and 14 employers), were interviewed using a common
interview protocol developed by one of the project researchers (Appendix A presents a sample of questions from the
employers interview protocol). Interview topics with business graduates included required competencies perceived to be
necessary for effective work performance at their respective organizations and a host of other related issues (e.g., the
importance of work-based learning and extra-curricular activities, career aspirations). Employers interview topics also
included required competencies of business graduates, the importance of existing links between their companies and Higher or
Further Education institutions, as well as recruitment issues (i.e., critical factors when considering recent business graduates
for employment).
A preliminary content analysis of interview transcripts revealed key emergent themes identied by respondents in each of
the four countries. This preliminary analysis provided a good basis for subsequent questionnaire development. Interestingly,
a number of similar themes were uncovered in both groups (employers and recent graduates) across the four countries. Both
employers and recent graduates agreed that business knowledge alone was not sufcient to prepare students for their future
careers. Both noted the importance of a well-rounded education including a combination of functional knowledge and
competency development. While a relatively long list of competencies could be created as a result of the literature review and
subsequent interviews, a small cluster of eight key generic competencies emerged as consistently important. These
competencies included: Inuencing and Persuading; Teamwork and Relationship Building; Critical and Analytical Thinking;
Self and Time Management; Leadership; the Ability to see the bigger picture; Presentation; and Communication. These key
competencies consistently appeared in a number of empirical studies reviewed by the project partners.
3.3. Phase two: instrument and procedures
In phase two, the descriptive stage of the project, two nearly identical questionnaires were developed to explore
competency cluster further. One questionnaire was used with employers and the other with recent business graduates (i.e.,
those who graduated within the past ve years from an undergraduate business study programme at an institution of Higher
Education; or those who completed a business certicate or extensive training e.g., in leadership or project management
within a Vocational Training or Further Education institution). The questionnaires addressed the importance of both
substantive business knowledge and business competencies for the performance of graduates current job activities and for
future career development. We also intended to measure the level of capability of business graduates in key business
knowledge areas, as well as in each of the eight key competencies identied. Business knowledge questions were designed to
address ve main functional areas (Accounting, Finance, Human Resources, Marketing and Production/Operations) and a few
other associated disciplines (e.g., Economics, Psychology, Law). To address key generic competencies, specic questions were
developed to identify whether they were actually considered useful or valuable for the workplace (e.g., graduate survey
question To what extent do you agree with the following statement: The following business competencies are valuable when I
perform my current job activities.) and relevant for future career development (e.g., graduate survey question To what
extent do you agree with the following statement: The following competencies are relevant for my future career devel-
opment.). In addition, we asked how competent or capable business graduates were perceived to be in the eight key
competencies (e.g., graduate survey question To what extent do you agree with the following statement: I am capable of
using the following competencies in my current job.). Survey questions for employers were worded in a very similar manner
as those described above, except that they were asked to evaluate one employee of their choice. Employers were instructed in
the very beginning of the questionnaire to answer the survey referring to one recent business graduate working under their
direct supervision (a sample of employers survey questions can be found in Appendix B). Project partners agreed that the
decision to ask employers to evaluate one employee of their choice could potentially skew the results (most likely in a positive
direction), but it would simply be too demanding and possibly less precise or accurate to expect employers to make specic
calculations for an average employee regarding 1) the value and relevance of key competencies and 2) the capability of recent
graduates, considering the potential diversity in entry-level jobs and competency-levels of employees.
The questionnaire design and implementation process was fairly long, including many discussions and interactive steps
among project partners, as well as language translations. Although some team members wanted to include additional
questions (e.g., comparative scales allowing for a ranking of the different competencies), practical considerations surrounding
survey length led us to concentrate on non-comparative or Likert-type scales, given that they provide the most amount of
information per question and still allow for statistical comparisons (Malhotra, 2002). The team agreed that in future studies
competency measurement could be expanded to replicate ndings and further develop and test multi-item scales.
Two different questionnaires (one for employers, one for business graduates) were pretested in each of the four countries,
than signicantly revised to address important issues discovered during pretest. Final questionnaires were administered at
universities and institutions of Further Education and Vocational Training in each of the four European countries. A large
number of questionnaires were sent by mail (approximately 2000 per country). The nal count of usable questionnaires was
900 (596 business graduates and 304 employers), indicating an average survey response rate of 11%.
3.4. Participants
Of the survey sample, the majority were young business graduates (66%) (i.e., aged between 21 and 30 years of age) and
57% female. Respondents were recent graduates from a few different educational institutions in each country and were
working in a variety of different industries (e.g., manufacturing, business-related activities, public administration and
defence). The employer sample was older (i.e., between 36 and 50 years of age) and 58% male. Employers represented
a number of different industries (e.g., manufacturing, whole sale and retail trade, business-related activities).
It is noteworthy that 82% of business graduates respondents came from Higher Education, with the remaining 18% from
Vocational Training and Further Education institutions (i.e., educational institutions providing 2-year diplomas, business
certicates and other business training programmes). The majority of employers (90%) replied that the employee they
described graduated from a Higher Education institution, with 10% coming from either a Vocational Training or Further
Education institution.
4. Analysis
We begin this section with a short explanation of our decision to combine graduate and employer groups in the data
analysis. We then discuss key survey ndings and interpretations derived from the last phase of the project (i.e., critical/
analytical).
4.1. Subsample comparison
Statistical tests (t-tests) were used to compare subsamples of both employers and business graduates (i.e., business
graduates from Higher Education versus business graduates from Vocational training or Further Education institutions;
employers who evaluated employees from the rst group versus employers who evaluated employees from the second
group). The majority of the t-test comparisons performed were not statistically signicant, leading project partners to
conclude that it was possible to combine the two respondent groups for subsequent analysis.
4.2. Survey ndings I: meta-level indicators for graduates and employers
Key data comparisons using descriptive statistics on each group were made to assess how graduates answers differed
from employers in each of the business competencies questions. In general, data revealed that both groups agreed that the
eight key competencies established earlier were both valuable and relevant for future career development. These eight
competencies included: 1) inuencing and persuading, 2) teamwork and relationship building, 3) critical and analytical
thinking, 4) self and time management, 5) leadership, 6) ability to see the bigger picture, 7) presentation and 8) commu-
nication. Each competence area was examined separately. Next, data were aggregated across the eight competencies to create
meta-level indicators (i.e., by summing up the percentages for each competence and then calculating the average percentage).
First, one meta-level indicator assessed the extent to which employers and business graduates agreed that the eight key
competencies were valuable for the graduates current job activities. A second meta-level indicator was created to assess the
extent of agreement regarding how relevant the eight competencies were perceived to be for graduates future career
development. One further meta-level indicator was used to assess the extent of agreement within both groups concerning
how capable graduates were in demonstrating the eight competencies.
Table 1 shows that approximately 78% of employers and 70.5% of business graduates either agreed or strongly agreed that
the eight business competencies were considered valuable for graduates performance on their current job activities
Table 1
Meta-level indicators for key competencies (% of respondents who either agree or strongly agree).
Indicators Business graduates competency ratings Employers competency ratings

Indicator #1 (valuable) 70.50 78.09
Indicator #2 (relevant) 82.11 82.15
Indicator #3 (capable) 63.40 53.03
(indicator #1). Approximately 82% of employers and of business graduates agreed or strongly agreed that the eight key
competencies were considered relevant for future career development (indicator #2). However, a much smaller percentage of
employers (approximately 53%) and business graduates (63.4%) either agreed or strongly agreed that business graduates are
capable or competent in the eight key competencies examined in this study (indicator #3). This gap between what new
graduates are perceived to have versus what they need in early career stages is of concern.
Overall survey ndings provide support for preliminary qualitative interview ndings, regarding the importance of the
eight key competencies related to graduates early career success. Input from both employers and business graduates show
that the eight competencies investigated were considered both valuable for current work performance, as well as relevant for
future careers. Graduates and employers ratings on indicator #1 revealed a strong level of agreement on how valuable or
useful the eight key competencies were for performing well in current jobs. Employers showed an even stronger level of
agreement than the graduates did on this, thus underscoring a shared understanding of the importance of each of these eight
key generic competencies for effective job performance at entry-level positions. Both business graduates and employers
agreed to a large extent on indicator #2 that the eight competencies were relevant for graduates future career development.
Combined, ndings from the two indicators seem to conrm that the eight competencies examined in this study are
important industry requirements for business graduates.
Indicator #3 examines the extent of agreement concerning graduates capability in the eight key competencies. The
average percentages on this indicator were notably lower, thus indicating that both groups were not so condent that
business graduates had developed needed competencies to a satisfactory level. This nding is consistent with other empirical
evidence previously discussed in this paper, suggesting that undergraduate students and/or alumni may not be sufciently
well-prepared in key generic skills needed in industry.
4.3. Survey ndings II: means and within country rankings for employers
We now expand the discussion of survey ndings by presenting a more detailed picture of employers ratings for each of
the eight key competencies, in each of the four European countries included in this study. Data for employers means and
country rankings are summarized in Tables 24.
Regarding the question of how valuable the eight key competencies were perceived to be for graduates performance in
their current jobs, employers means on each competence were consistently high (most of the means for each competence
were above 6, while a few of them were above 5), thus indicating a strong level of agreement with this question (see Table 2).
Not surprisingly, competencies of leadership (in all countries) and presentation (in three of the four countries) were not
perceived to be as critical as the others for graduates current job performance, given the nature of entry or junior level
positions. This can be seen by the values of the means in each country, but also more specically, by low ranking positions in
the within-country rankings (see column Rank). While we noticed that the within-country rankings were somewhat
different (please see discussion below), some competencies appeared consistently in the top three ranking positions, namely,
communication, self and time management and, teamwork and relationship building.
Similarly, for the question of how relevant the eight key competencies were perceived to be for graduates career
development by employers, mean values were mostly above 6 for each of the eight competencies, with only a few above 5 (see
Table 2
Employers means and country rankings extent of agreement that the following competencies are valuable for the employees performance of his/her
current job activities.a
Competence name Austria UK Slovenia Romania Total
Mean N Rank Mean N Rank Mean N Rank Mean N Rank N

Inuencing and persuading 6.14 56 5 6.41 58 4 6.09 91 6 5.77 97 5 302
Teamwork and relationship building 6.41 56 2 6.53 60 2 6.38 91 3 6.51 97 1 304
Critical/Analytical 6.55 56 1 6.15 60 6 6.26 91 5 5.42 96 8 303
Self and time management 6.07 56 6 6.57 60 1 6.42 91 1 6.43 93 3 300
Leadership 5.58 55 8 5.85 60 7 5.66 90 7 5.48 90 7 295
Ability to see the bigger picture 6.36 55 3 6.17 59 5 6.36 91 4 5.70 92 6 297
Presentation 5.75 56 7 5.83 59 8 5.55 91 8 6.13 97 4 303
Communication 6.23 56 4 6.53 59 2 6.40 91 2 6.44 97 2 303
Overall country mean 6.14 6.26 6.14 5.99
a
Answers were rated on a 7-point Likert scale, 1 Strongly disagree and 7 Strongly agree.
Table 3
Employers means and country rankings extent of agreement that the following competencies are relevant to the employees future career development.a

Teamwork and relationship Building 6.37 54 4 6.64 59 3 6.60 88 1 6.45 96 1 297
Leadership 6.26 54 7 6.45 58 6 6.05 88 7 5.62 94 6 294
Presentation 5.83 54 8 6.27 59 8 5.84 88 8 6.09 96 4 297
Communication 6.41 54 3 6.67 60 2 6.50 88 3 6.38 97 2 299
a
Table 3). In general, competencies of presentation and leadership had lower means and within-country rankings, even though
the rankings for these two competencies were not as consistent as in the previous question. Again, competencies of
communication, teamwork and relationship building and self and time management were frequently in the top three within-
country rankings, but this time the ability to see the bigger picture had also the highest ranking in Austria and the UK.
As it can be seen in Table 4, employers ratings of graduates capability in each of the eight competencies were considerably
lower than in the previous two questions (averages were mostly above 5, with some being above 4, which is the neutral point
of the scale). By examining the means and within-country rankings, it is possible to see that graduates consistently received
the highest ratings in teamwork and relationship building, followed by self and time management and communication. While
these three competencies were mentioned as among the most valuable and most relevant for business graduates, the mean
values revealed a clear gap between what is required and the level of preparation of business graduates.
The lowest means and within country rankings regarding the capability question were also given to the competence of
leadership (other competencies with low within-country rankings included presentation, and the ability to see the bigger
picture). While it is possible to argue that business graduates may not have had enough opportunities to demonstrate and/or
develop this competence in their current jobs, it is important to underline that additional education (e.g., MBA and other
types of graduate programmes, including executive development programmes) can play an important role in preparing
business graduates for future leadership positions in organizations.
4.4. Survey ndings III: cross-country comparisons for employers
Four countries (Austria, UK, Slovenia and Romania) were originally selected for this project in order to provide a diverse
representation of higher education systems and practices in Western, Central and Eastern parts of Europe. While
a comprehensive discussion of cross-country comparisons is beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to mention that
project partners did investigate the signicance of mean differences across countries for each of the eight key competencies
adopted in this study. The non-parametric Kruskal Wallis ANOVA test (i.e., comparing mean ranks, as opposed to the actual
country means) was used, as the variables were not normally distributed (e.g., Byrkit, 1987; Karami, Jones, & Kakabadse,
2008). Data comparisons were statistically signicant in the majority of the tests performed, although close investigation
revealed that the size of these differences was low. Further research is needed to examine whether there are important cross-
cultural differences in employers perspectives regarding the key required competencies of business graduates. We concluded
that, even though the values of the means were not exactly the same, there was a remarkable similarity in employers
Table 4
Employers means and country rankings extent of agreement that the employee is capable of using the following competencies in his/her job.a

Teamwork and relationship building 6.18 56 1 5.88 60 1 5.64 89 1 5.62 97 2 302
Leadership 4.96 56 8 5.05 60 8 4.73 89 8 4.89 75 8 280
Presentation 5.67 55 6 5.28 60 7 4.99 89 7 5.57 96 4 300
Communication 5.95 55 3 5.77 60 2 5.29 90 4 5.85 96 1 301
a
competency ratings across the four European countries. Mean values for each of the three competency questions were fairly
close to each other, across the four countries (with a few exceptions; notably in Romania, the means were typically lower than
in the three other countries); also, perhaps more importantly, within-country rankings showed similar employer opinions
regarding which competencies were considered most critical for success at early career stages.
After a lengthy discussion, project partners agreed that the small differences in competency ratings were primarily
a function of how early competency-based models were introduced in each country. The mean values for graduates and
employers competency ratings tended to be highest in England (the country with the longest history of implementing
competency-based models in Higher Education, compared to the other three EU countries) and lowest in Romania (the
country with the most recent introduction of competency-based models, compared to the other three EU countries). We can
only speculate whether this is an acceptable explanation for the differences identied in our cross-country data comparisons.
It is possible that the differences encountered in our study can be traced back to cultural dissimilarities among the four EU
countries such as, for example, the degree of individualism, which is estimated to be high in the UK and in Slovenia, moderate
in Austria and low in Romania (e.g., Littrell & Valentin, 2005). Countries with higher individualism place considerably more
emphasis on individual internal attributes, uniqueness, independence (and autonomous self-construals), personal
achievement and success, which may explain why, in general, competencies were more strongly endorsed in the UK - and also
in Slovenia - and less strongly endorsed in Romania (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002).
4.5. Survey ndings IV: factor analysis and structural path modelling
Project partners also investigated the interrelationship among variables with the aim of identifying common underlying
dimensions or factors. We conducted principal axis exploratory factor analysis using half of the graduate sample (298
respondents) and half of the employer sample (151 respondents). We used a random split sample procedure in order to allow
for subsequent conrmation with the second half of the sample from each group.
Results from the factor analysis (varimax rotation) of all competency questions (valuable, relevant and capable questions)
indicated the following six factors for employers: 1) Being capable (in all competencies!); 2) Presentation, together with
Communication; 3) Relevant mixed (relevant question for competencies Critical/Analytical, Ability to See Bigger Picture,
Self and Time Management); 4) Teamwork and Relationship Building, together with inuencing and Persuading; 5) Valuable
mixed (valuable question for Critical/Analytical and Self and Time management) and 6) Leadership, together with Ability to
See Bigger Picture (see Table 5). Results from the factor analysis (varimax rotation) of all competency questions (valuable,
relevant and capable questions) indicated the following 5 factors for graduates: 1) Critical/Analytical, together with Ability to
See Bigger Picture and Leadership; 2) Teamwork and Relationship building, together with Communication and Self and Time
management; 3) Being capable (in 4 out of the 8 competencies); 4) Presentation and 5) Inuencing and Persuading
(Azevedo et al., 2007) (see Table 6).
Table 5
Employers exploratory factor analysis factor loadings and Eigenvalues.
Competence items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

Capable question Critical/analytical 0.782
Capable question Ability to see bigger picture 0.767
Capable question Self and time management 0.766
Capable question Communication 0.742
Capable question Teamwork and relationship building 0.739
Capable question Inuencing and Persuading 0.728
Capable question Leadership 0.706
Capable question Presentation 0.633
Relevant question Presentation 0.799
Valuable question Communication 0.718
Valuable question Presentation 0.706
Relevant question Communication 0.602
Relevant question Critical/Analytical 0.793
Relevant question Ability to see bigger picture 0.764
Relevant question Self and time management 0.530
Valuable question Teamwork and Relationship building 0.687
Relevant question Teamwork and Relationship building 0.633
Relevant question Inuencing and Persuading 0.555
Valuable question Inuencing and Persuading 0.509
Valuable question Critical/Analytical 0.632
Valuable question Self and time management 0.581
Valuable question Leadership 0.746
Relevant question Leadership 0.547
Valuable question Ability to see bigger picture 0.427
Eigenvalues (after rotation) 4.725 2.847 2.596 1.965 1.606 1.536
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Table 6
Graduates exploratory factor analysis factor loadings and Eigenvalues.
Competence items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Capable question Critical/analytical 0.770
Relevant question Critical/analytical 0.763
Valuable question Critical/analytical 0.755
Relevant question Ability to see bigger picture 0.698
Capable question Ability to see bigger picture 0.665
Valuable question Ability to see bigger picture 0.596
Valuable question Leadership 0.558
Relevant question Leadership 0.558
Relevant question Teamwork and relationship building 0.782
Relevant question Communication 0.779
Valuable question Communication 0.664
valuable question Teamwork and relationship building 0.605
Relevant question Self and time management 0.604
Valuable question Self and time management 0.491
Capable question Teamwork and relationship building 0.462
Capable question Inuencing and persuading 0.631
Capable question Communication 0.566
Capable question Self and time management 0.523
Capable question Leadership 0.472
Capable question Presentation 0.766
Valuable question Presentation 0.667
Relevant question Presentation 0.522
Valuable question Inuencing and persuading 0.678
Relevant question Inuencing and persuading 0.554
Eigenvalues (after rotation) 4.419 4.181 2.104 1.906 1.855
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
While these results presented a fairly mixed picture, we interpreted them as evidence that the competencies are clearly
not independent from each other, consistent with other discussions (e.g., Jackson, 2009a). Furthermore, it provided
additional input to consolidate our conceptual framework in terms of value, relevance and capability. In subsequent
analysis, we treated our eight competencies as inter-related aspects of the constructs of value, relevance and capability
(with competency questions serving as measurement indicators). We developed two separate structural models in each
country (using PLS path modelling) one model for employers, one model for graduates in order to assess whether
these constructs could predict satisfaction with employee work performance (employer model) and satisfaction with the
undergraduate study programme (graduate model). While a detailed discussion of these ndings is beyond the scope of
this paper, we can briey mention that in the employer models, results revealed that employers ratings of graduate
capability in the eight competencies signicantly predicted satisfaction with graduates work performance in three of
the four countries examined (Austria, England and Slovenia). In the graduate model, results showed that graduates
ratings of value, i.e., their evaluations regarding how valuable the eight competencies were perceived to be for the
performance of their current job activities, signicantly predicted their satisfaction with their study programme in three
of the four countries investigated (Austria, Slovenia and Romania) (Azevedo, Gomezelj et al., 2008).
Although we cannot be certain of the content validity of these measures (based on our literature review and qualitative
research, competencies may be considered at least appropriate or relevant, but may not be representative, in terms of covering
the entire content domain see Haynes, Richard, & Kubany, 1995), given the amount of theoretical and empirical evidence
(i.e., convergent and discriminant validity evidence from the eight structural models) we feel condent that these measures
can provide a good starting point for multi-item scales of value, relevance and capability, which can be further tested and
rened in subsequent studies.
5. Conclusion
In spite of growing concern from employers around the world regarding business graduates ability to meet current and
future workplace demands, there has been little research addressing competency development within the context of
undergraduate business education (e.g., Casner & Benner, 2006; Jackson, 2009a; McQuaid & Lindsay, 2005; Washer, 2007).
Although a few conceptual frameworks have been proposed for the development of competencies within MBA programmes
(e.g., Boyatzis, 2009; Dierdorff et al., 2009), it is our contention that they are unlikely to suit the needs of undergraduate
business students, given background differences between these two groups of students (i.e., undergraduates versus gradu-
ates), as well as the specic requirements of entry and junior level management positions. The majority of business graduates
will probably enter the job market either at the beginning or an early career stage, thus posing unique transition to work
challenges (Holton, 1999). The central question is therefore: What are the critical competencies that will provide business
graduates with a solid foundation for early career success?
Our paper contributes a conceptual framework and an industry-driven, step-by-step approach for identifying key required
competencies of new business graduates for the early/entry career phase, based on input from both employers and graduates.
The approach proposed in this paper was developed and tested within the context of a large EU-funded research project
implemented in Austria, the UK, Slovenia and Romania. The evidence provided suggests that it is possible to investigate
industry requirements of new business graduates using a small cluster of eight key generic competencies (Inuencing and
Persuading; Teamwork and Relationship Building; Critical and Analytical; Self and Time Management; Leadership; the Ability
to see the bigger picture; Presentation; and Communication). We selected these competencies as a result of academic
literature and 39 semi-structured qualitative interviews and then evaluated the cluster via survey of 900 business graduates
and employers in the four European countries. The resulting framework provides a theoretical structure for examining critical
skills gaps in undergraduate business education, via the investigation of key generic competencies, with respect to their value
and relevance for the workplace, as well as the degree of capability possessed by recent graduates. The authors believe that
this framework can serve as an important tool in the identication and assessment of industry-relevant graduate skill gaps,
one critical aspect of graduate employability. The suggested methodological approach described herein of qualitative
interviews and surveys of both employers and recent business graduates from different industries, allows for in-depth,
preliminary exploration of critical competencies as well as a conrmation of initial ndings.
Key ndings included meta-level indicators (i.e., aggregated data showing the average percentage of agreement among
respondents, across the eight selected competencies) and specic mean values for each competence indicating a high level
agreement between employers and graduates regarding the importance of these competencies for entry or junior level
positions.
A closer examination of employer data revealed that, although small country differences were found in the mean values
and within-country rankings, there was a remarkable similarity in competency ratings across the four countries, with respect
to the competencies of communication, teamwork and relationship building and self and time management. These competencies
consistently appeared on the top three within-country ranking positions, while the competencies of leadership and
presentation received the lowest within-country rankings.
Survey ndings showed agreement on the eight key competencies as being valuable for business graduates current job
performance and relevant for their future careers. Survey results also showed that both of these groups were not so condent
in the level of capability of business graduates in the eight competencies investigated in this study. Given the existing gap in
the expectations of employers (as well as the graduates themselves) regarding the actual level of capability of business
graduates in key generic competencies, we believe that more attention is needed to foster competency development in
undergraduate business education. Results are consistent with existing empirical evidence regarding graduates poor level of
preparation in key generic skills and do highlight the need to strengthen competency development within undergraduate
business education (Hills et al., 2003; Jackson, 2009b).
This study supports the idea of focussing on a small set of key competencies in undergraduate business curriculum rather
than what Whitstons (1998) refers to as the temptation to adopt an ever-growing list of competencies (Whitston, 1998, as
mentioned in Washer, 2007). This decision will ensure that each study programme has a clear focus on a few learning
outcomes, allowing faculty to appropriately concentrate on developing and reinforcing these competencies throughout the
entire programme (e.g., AACSB, 2007; Washer, 2007). Second, an articulated path within the curriculum with specic
assessment criterion for each level of competence development (e.g., primary; secondary; advanced) is needed, so that it is
possible to know what students should be able to do at each level in the programme (Andrews & Higson, 2007). An
example of this is provided by Andrews and Higson (2007), regarding Communication competence. The assessment can be
designed to focus on the demonstration of clear, concise and detailed writing (e.g., during the rst undergraduate year),
and then gradual development and demonstration of a critical writing style, with incorporation of business knowledge
foundation (e.g., during the second and/or third years of study). Finally, competence in written communication can be
conveyed by adopting high levels of critical and analytical writing style, combined with utilisation of discipline-specic
business knowledge (e.g., during the nal year of study).
Employers assessment of graduates capability in key competencies examined in this study indicate the importance of
a focus on Leadership, Presentation and Ability to See the Bigger Picture (competencies needing signicant improvement).
Therefore, consistent with discussion above, specic learning activities and assessment criterion are needed to tailor to each
level in a particular study programme. For example, Leadership competence may be developed by designing and assessing
learning activities that demand increasingly higher levels of prociency from students (e.g., from performing a small lead-
ership role in group work during the beginning of the study programme to demonstrating high levels of leadership ability
towards the end of the programme, e.g., in a comprehensive classroom or service learning project).
Finally, we endorse the idea of adopting a comprehensive approach to competency development, which involves
signicant institutional commitment to devote necessary resources for the implementation of competency assessment
measures, as well as other fundamental changes regarding pedagogical approaches, teaching materials, teacher training etc
(De La Harpe et al., 2000). With respect to pedagogical approaches, a more extensive discussion is needed in order to reveal
what types of approaches most strongly support competency development within undergraduate business programmes. For
example, two of the authors had experience in designing and implementing project-based courses (e.g., Case Writing project
addressing the internationalization process of Austrian SMEs) which provided a unique opportunity for comprehensive
competency development in undergraduate business students. Camuffo and Gerli (2004) suggest that a number of teaching
methodologies can be used to foster competency development in MBA programmes (e.g., business plan formulation,
participation in simulations and role playing, use of different types of software applications, participation in individual and
group case studies). Nonetheless, in our opinion, additional research is needed to provide a more systematic assessment of the
value of different pedagogical approaches to competency development, especially within the context of undergraduate
business education.
Further investigation of the conceptual framework and industry-driven approach suggested in this paper is needed. We
believe that the framework of value, relevance and capability offers a unique and useful tool to investigate the alignment of
undergraduate business education with industry requirements. It may be useful to examine how suitable this framework can
be for other types of undergraduate degrees (e.g., humanities and social sciences degrees). Since the eight key competencies
proposed in this study were derived from a multi-country examination of employers and recent business graduates from
different industries, we believe that the competency cluster presented has some degree of generalizability. However, studies
are needed to test whether some or all of these competencies will be consistently perceived as centrally important to
employers and business graduates in different parts of the world. It is also possible that other competencies not investigated
in this study (e.g., creativity, cross-cultural competence) will be considered critical for early career success of recent business
graduates (and other recent graduates). Aside from this content validity issue, it is important to continue to test the existing
multi-item scales in different contexts, so that additional reliability evidence can be gathered and examined, to allow for
improvement and/or renement of these scales.
Future research also needs to address some limitations in the current study. First, we concentrated on the so called
threshold competencies (i.e., competencies required to perform a job effectively), also called key or core competencies.
This decision was consistent with our main goal of investigating industry requirements for effective job performance. In
other words, our primary aim was to identify the competencies that can differentiate those business graduates who can
perform a job, from those who cannot. Other differentiating competencies (i.e., those differentiating excellent performers
from average performers) can be examined in future studies, in order to get a broader picture of what superior or excellent
performance truly entails for managers at career start (e.g., Boyatzis, 2009; Jackson, 2009b). Additional studies could
employ a mixture of different competency assessment methodologies (e.g., assessment centre methodology), not exclu-
sively based on self-report or peer-based assessment. While the approach suggested in this paper offers a mix of quali-
tative and quantitative methodologies (i.e., interviews and surveys), it does not allow for a more direct demonstration of
competencies such as in, for example, the assessment of business graduates performance in specic skill-based exercises,
or in other course-related activities (e.g., making a presentation to an audience; leading a team in classroom project).
Similarly, follow-up research should investigate how self-report measures of competencies compare to other measures of
graduate performance in the workplace (e.g., delivering a presentation to business executives; leading a small company
project).
In spite of the limitations, we believe that the conceptual framework and the methodological approach presented in
this paper make an important contribution to the study of competencies in undergraduate business education and to the
graduate employability literature. We offer both a theoretical structure for understanding and investigating existing skill
gaps in undergraduates and an industry-driven method for deriving key required competencies of business graduates. We
suggest that the basic concepts of value, relevance and capability be used to identify key industry requirements at career
start and to examine how well undergraduate students are responding to them. In addition, we suggest that the
framework can contribute to initiatives aimed at harmonisation of curricula (e.g., within the EU), since it provides a clear
focus for undergraduate programmes on key competencies needed for early career success (Prokou, 2008; Waldman &
Korbar, 2004).
We present the step-by-step, industry-driven approach including an initial exploratory phase (combination of literature
review and exploratory interviews) followed by a descriptive and critical analytical phases (design, implementation and
analysis of large-scale surveys), as useful for conrming key competencies for a particular study programme. We recommend
the involvement of employers, together with recent business graduates, from a range of different industries in order to gain
a broad perspective.
While the eight key competencies herein need to be tested in further organisational contexts, they do provide a good
foundation for future research on this topic. Our approach allows for a detailed picture of the existing competency gaps in
business graduates. In fact, while business graduates appeared to lack preparation in all the eight competencies, the
competencies of leadership and presentation were clearly evaluated as the least satisfactory. These ndings have important
implications for curriculum improvement at the undergraduate level as well as for future graduate education and/or
corporate training.
The cluster of eight key competencies constitutes a generated competency prole that can be used to help better align
undergraduate programmes with industry needs, thus enhancing the employability of business graduates (e.g., Berman &
Ritchie, 2006; Jackson, 2009a). They can also be used to assess and monitor recent business graduates level of capability
in the key competencies at early career stages, which can provide useful information regarding their future training
needs.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the European Commission (Leonardo Da Vinci Programme) for the nancial grant and
technical assistance provided for the design and implementation of this project.
Appendix A
Sample questions: Employers interview protocol
- What key skills are you looking for when employing a business graduate?
- Communication skills
- Networking
- Report writing
- ICT
- Business-related skills
- Business knowledge
- Business experience
- In what way does employing a graduate benet your organisation?
- Knowledge
- Key skills
- Management skills
- Highly trained personal
- Need for less supervision
- Mature approach to work
- What are the most important factors you take into consideration when recruiting graduates?
- Level of degree
- Focus of degree
- Contents of degree
- Previous work experience
- Performance at interview
- Extra curricula activities
- Guild activities
- Committee membership
- Voluntary work
- Sports involvement
- Social activities
- What training and support do you offer newly appointed graduates within your organisation?
- What specic business focused skills do you feel ought to be taught at university [college]?
- How important do you feel previous work experience is for graduates?
Appendix B
Sample questions: Employers survey
Do you agree that the following competencies are valuable for the employees performance of his/her current job activ-
ities? (Please circle one option per line).
Competencies Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly agree I dont know

1. Inuencing and persuading (i.e. ability to use communication 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,
and negotiation skills to positively inuence individual behaviour
2. Teamwork and relationship building (i.e. ability to work in teams 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,
whilst utilising appropriate interpersonal skills to build relationships
with colleagues, team members and external stakeholders)
3. Critical/Analytical (i.e. ability to analyse problems and situations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,
in a critical and logical manner)
4. Self and time management (i.e. ability to organize oneself, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,
ones time effectively)
5. Leadership (i.e. ability to take responsibility for a task, give 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,
direction, provide structure and assign responsibility to others)
6. Ability to see the bigger picture (i.e. ability to see how things are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,
interconnected; manifested by an ability to think about the
business both strategically and operationally)
7. Presentation (i.e. ability to prepare and deliver effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,
presentations to different audiences)
8. Communication (i.e. ability to communicate clearly and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,
concisely, using a range of verbal and written methods)
Sample questions: Employers survey (cont.)
To what extent do you agree with the following statement: The employee is capable of using the following competencies in
his/her job. (Please circle one option per line).
Competencies Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly agree I dont know

1. Inuencing and persuading (i.e. ability to use communication 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,
and negotiation skills to positively inuence individual behaviour
2. Teamwork and relationship building (i.e. ability to work in teams 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,
whilst utilising appropriate interpersonal skills to build relationships
with colleagues, team members and external stakeholders)
3. Critical/Analytical (i.e. ability to analyse problems and situations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,
in a critical and logical manner)
4. Self and time management (i.e. ability to organize oneself, ones 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,
time effectively)
5. Leadership (i.e. ability to take responsibility for a task, give 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,
direction, provide structure and assign responsibility to others)
6. Ability to see the bigger picture (i.e. ability to see how things are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,
interconnected; manifested by an ability to think about the
business both strategically and operationally)
7. Presentation (i.e. ability to prepare and deliver effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,
presentations to different audiences)
8. Communication (i.e. ability to communicate clearly and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,
concisely, using a range of verbal and written methods)
References
AACSB. (2007). AACSB assurance of learning standards: An interpretation. Retrieved on January 25, 2012, from. www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/papers/
AOLPaper-nal-11-20-07.pdf.
Aamodt, P. O., & Havnes, A. (2008). Factors affecting professional job mastery: quality of study or work experience? Quality in Higher Education, 14, 234248.
doi:10.1080/13538320802507539.
Andrews, J., & Higson, H. (2007). The MISLEM project: education, employment and graduate employability (project manual). Birmingham: Aston University.
Andrews, J., & Higson, H. (2008). Graduate employability, Soft skills versus Hard business knowledge: a European study. Higher Education in Europe, 33,
411422. doi:10.1080/03797720802522627.
Armstrong, M. (2000). Performance management: Key strategies and practical guidelines. London: Kogan Page.
Azevedo, A., Frech, B., & Mueller, C. (2007). The role of business competencies as supplementing business knowledge: theoretical framework and empirical
evidence from a pan-European study of business graduates and employers. In Proceedings of TAQC conference, Bucharest, Romania, 514 September 2002.
Azevedo, A., Gomezelj, D., Andrews, J., Higson, H., & Caballero, A. (2008). The impact of learning outcomes in business education: assessing value, relevance
and graduate ability in a multi-country study of employers and business graduates. Paper presented at the IMHE general conference of the OECD, Paris,
September 2008.
Azevedo, A., Tusini, E., Renner, P., & Frech, B. (2008). MISLEMs nal technical report. Graz: FH Joanneum Library.
Baartman, L. K., Bastiens, T. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Van Der Vleuten, C. P. (2007). Evaluating assessment quality in competence-based education: a qualitative
comparison of two frameworks. Educational Research Review, 2, 114129. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2007.06.001.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Belasen, A., & Rufer, R. (2007). Building a competency-based MBA from the ground up: curriculum design and programme delivery. In Proceedings of the
academy of management meetings, Philadelphia, 38 August 2007.
Berge, Z., Verneil, M., Berge, N., Davis, L., & Smith, D. (2002). The increasing scope of training and development competency. Benchmarking, 9, 4361. doi:10.
1108/14635770210418579.
Berman, J., & Ritchie, L. (March/April 2006). Competencies of undergraduate business students. Journal of Education for Business, 205209. doi:10.3200/JOEB.
81.4.205-209.
Boden, R., & Nevada, M. (2010). Employing discourse: universities and graduate employability. Journal of Education Policy, 25, 3754. doi:10.1080/
02680930903349489.
Boyatzis, R. (1982). The competent manager. New York: Wiley.
Boyatzis, R. E. (2008). Competencies in the 21st century. Journal of Management Development, 27, 512. doi:10.1108/02621710810840730.
Boyatzis, R. E. (2009). Competencies as behavioural approach to emotional intelligence. Journal of Management Development, 28, 749770. doi:10.1108/
02621710910987647.
Boyatzis, R. E., & Saatcioglu, A. (2008). A 2-year view of trying to develop emotional, social and cognitive intelligence competencies in graduate
management education. Journal of Management Development, 27, 92108. doi:10.1108/02621710810840785.
Boyatzis, R. E., Stubbs, L., & Taylor, S. (2002). Learning cognitive and emotional intelligence through graduate management education. Academy of
Management Journal on Learning and Education, 1, 150162.
Bridges, D. (1996). Competence-based education and training: progress or villainy? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 30, 361376. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.
1996.tb00406.x.
Bridgstock, R. (2009). The graduate attributes weve overlooked: enhancing graduate employability through career management skills. Higher Education
Research & Development, 28, 3144. doi:10.1080/07294360802444347.
Byrkit, D. R. (1987). Statistics today: A comprehensive introduction. California: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company.
Camuffo, A., & Gerli, F. (2004). An integrated competency-based approach to management education: an Italian MBA case study. International Journal of
Training and Development, 8, 240257. doi:10.1111/j.1360-3736.2004.00212.x.
Casner-Lotto, J., & Benner, M. W. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the
21st century U.S. Workforce. USA: the Conference Board, Inc., the Partnership for 21st Century skills, corporate Voices for working Families, and the
Society for human resources management.
Cedefop. (2008). The shift to learning outcomes: Conceptual, political and practical developments in Europe. Luxembourg: Ofce for Ofcial Publications of the
European Communities.
Cranmer, S. (2006). Enhancing graduate employability: best intentions and mixed outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 169184. doi:10.1080/
03075070600572041.
Davis, R., Misra, S., & van Auken, S. (2002). A gap analysis approach to marketing curriculum assessment: a study of skills and knowledge. Journal of
Marketing Education, 24, 218224. doi:10.1177/0273475302238044.
De La Harpe, B., Radloff, A., & Wyber, J. (2000). Quality and generic professional skills. Quality in Higher Education, 6, 231243. doi:10.1080/
13538320020005972.
Dierdorff, E. C., Rubin, R. S., & Morgeson, F. P. (2009). The milieu of managerial work: an Integrative framework linking work context to role requirements.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 972988. doi:10.1037/a0015456/PMid:19594238.
Entwistle, N. (1995). The use of research on student learning in quality assessment. In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving student learning through assessment and
evaluation. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Entwistle, N. J., & Entwistle, A. (1991). Contrasting forms of understanding for degree examinations: the student experience and its implications. Higher
Education, 22, 202227. doi:10.1007/BF00132288.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Routledge.
European Commission. (2006). Proposal for a recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the European quali-
cations framework for lifelong learning. Brussels: European Commission.
Finnie, R., & Usher, A. (2005). Measuring the quality of post-secondary education: concepts, current practices and a strategic plan. Research Report W/28, Work
Network, April 2005. Retrieved on June 25, 2006, from. http://www.cprn.org.
Garvin, D. A. (1984). What does product quality really mean? The Sloan Management Review System, 26, 2543.
Gillard, S., & Price, J. (2005). The competencies of effective project managers: a conceptual analysis. International Journal of Management, 22, 4361.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Gracia, L. (2009). Employability and higher education: contextualising female students workplace experiences to enhance understanding of employability
development. Journal of Education and Work, 22, 301318. doi:10.1080/13639080903290454.
Grzeda, M. M. (2005). In competence we trust? Addressing conceptual ambiguity. Journal of Management Development, 24, 530545. doi:10.1108/
02621710510600982.
Guile, D., & Grifths, T. (2001). Learning through work experience. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 113132. doi:10.1080/13639080020028738.
Harvey, L. (2001). Dening and measuring employability. Quality in Higher Education, 7, 97109. doi:10.1080/13538320120059990.
Harvey, L. (2005). Embedding and integrating employability. New Directions for Institutional Research, 128, 1328. doi:10.1002/ir.160.
Harvey, L., & Bowers-Brown, T. (2004). Employability cross-country comparisons. Graduate Market Trends, Winter 2004/5, Retrieved on December 20, 2011,
from. http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/Show-Page/Home_page/p!emlpid.
Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Dening quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18, 934. doi:10.1080/0260293930180102.
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: a functional approach to concepts and methods.
Psychological Assessment, 7, 238247. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238.
Hillage, J., & Pollard, E. (1998). Employability: Developing a framework for policy analysis. London: Department of Education and Employment.
Hills, J. M., Robertson, G., Walker, R., Adey, M. A., & Nixon, I. (2003). Bridging the gap between degree programme curricula and employability through
implementation of work-related learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 8, 211231. doi:10.1080/1356251032000052456.
Holmes, L., & Joyce, P. (1993). Rescuing the useful concept of managerial competence: from outcomes back to process. Personnel Review, 22, 3752. doi:10.
1108/00483489310048972.
Holton, E. (1999). Managing the transition to work. Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 59, 2838.
Hyland, T. (1993). Competence, knowledge and education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 27, 5768. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.1993.tb00297.x.
Iles, P. A. (1993). Achieving strategic coherence in HRD through competence-based management and organization development. Personnel Review, 22, 63
80. doi:10.1108/00483489310054515.
Jackson, D. (2009a). Proling industry-relevant management graduate competencies: the need for a fresh approach. International Journal of Management
Education, 8, 8598. doi:10.3794/ijme.81.281.
Jackson, D. (2009b). An international prole of industry-relevant competencies and skill gaps in modern graduates. International Journal of Management
Education, 8, 2958. doi:10.3794/ijme.83.288.
Kagaari, J. R. K., & Munene, J. C. (2007). Engineering lecturers competencies and organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) at Kyambogo university. Journal
of European Industrial Training, 31, 706726. doi:10.1108/03090590710846675.
Karami, A., Jones, B. M., & Kakabadse, N. (2008). Does strategic human resource management matter in high-tech sector? Some learning points for SME
managers. Corporate Governance, 8, 717. doi:10.1108/14720700810853365.
Knight, P., & Yorke, M. (2004). Learning, curriculum and employability in higher education. London: Routledge Falmer.
Littrell, R. F., & Valentin, L. N. (2005). Preferred leadership behaviours: exploratory results from Romania, Germany, and the UK. The Journal of Management
Development, 24, 421442.
Malhotra, N. (2002). Basic marketing research: Application to contemporary issues. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Mason, G., Williams, G., & Cramer, S. (2009). Employability skills initiatives in higher education: what effects do they have on graduate labour market
outcomes? Education Economics, 17, 130. doi:10.1080/09645290802028315.
Mason, G., Williams, G., Cranmer, S., & Guile, D. (2003). How much does higher education enhance the employability of graduates. Bristol: Higher Education
Funding Council for England.
McClelland, D. (1973). Testing for competence rather than intelligence. American Psychologist, 28, 114. doi:10.1037/h0034092/PMid:4684069.
McQuaid, R. W., & Lindsay, C. (2005). The concept of employability. Urban Studies, 42, 197219. doi:10.1080/0042098042000316100.
Messick, S. (1984). The psychology of educational measurement. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 215238. doi:10.1111/j.17453984.1984.tb01030.x.
Moskal, P., Taylor, E., & Keon, W. (2008). Summary assessment in higher education and the management of student-learning data. Academy of Learning &
Education, 7, 269278.
Nabi, G. R. (2003). Graduate employment and underemployment: opportunity for skill use and career experiences amongst recent business graduates.
Education and Training, 45, 371383. doi:10.1108/00400910310499947.
Norris, N. (1991). The trouble with competence. Cambridge Journal of Education, 21, 331--341. doi:10.1080/0305764910210307.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-
analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 372. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.128.1.3.
Palmer, K. N., Ziegenfuss, D. E., & Pinsker, R. E. (2004). International knowledge, skills and abilities of auditors/accountants: evidence from recent
competency studies. Managerial Auditing Journal, 19, 889896. doi:10.1108/02686900410549411.
Peter, D., & Hart Research Associates, Inc. (2006). How should colleges prepare students to succeed in todays global economy? Based on surveys among
employers and recent college graduates. Retrieved on December 21, 2010, from. http://www.aacu.org/advocacy/leap/documents/re8097abcombined.pdf.
Prokou, E. (2008). The emphasis on employability and the changing role of the university in Europe. Higher Education in Europe, 33, 387394. doi:10.1080/
03797720802522593.
Raelin, J. A. (2007). Toward an epistemology of practice. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6, 495519.
Reid, W. (1992). Setting standards for the future. Personnel Management, 24, 2832.
Rubin, R. S., & Dierdorff, E. C. (2009). How relevant is the MBA? Assessing the alignment of required curricula and required managerial competencies.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 208224.
Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Summers, T. P., & Summers, S. B. (1997). Strategic skills analysis for selection and development. Human Resource Planning, 20, 1419.
Thompson, K. (2004). A conversation with Milton blood: the new AACSB standards. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 429439.
Van Kemenade, E., Pupius, M., & Hardjono, T. W. (2008). More value to dening quality. Quality in Higher Education, 14, 175185. doi:10.1080/
13538320802278461.
Waldman, D. A., & Korbar, T. (2004). Student assessment center performance in the prediction of early career success. Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 3, 151167.
Warn, J., & Tranter, P. (2001). Measuring quality in higher education: a competency approach. Quality in Higher Education, 7, 191198. doi:10.1080/
13538320120098078.
Washer, P. (2007). Revisiting key skills: a practical framework for higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 13, 5767. doi:10.1080/13538320701272755.
Websters New World college dictionary (4th ed.).1999 New York: MacMillan USA.
Whitston, K. (1998). Key skills and curriculum reform. Studies in Higher Education, 23, 307319. doi:10.1080/03075079812331380276.
Wilton, N. (2008). Business graduates and management jobs: an employability match made in heaven? Journal of Education and Work, 21, 143158. doi:10.
1080/13639080802080949.
Wood, R., & Power, C. (1987). Aspects of the competence-performance distinction: educational, psychological and measurement issues. Journal of Curric-
ulum Studies, 19, 409424. doi:10.1080/0022027870190503.
Yorke, M. (2006). Employability in higher education: What it is and what it is not. ESECT learning & Employability Project, Series One. York: The Higher
Education Academy.
Yorke, M., & Knight, P. (2007). Evidence-informed pedagogy and the enhancement of student employability. Teaching in Higher Education, 12, 157170. doi:
10.1080/13562510701191877.
Ana Azevedo is an Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship in the Faculty of Business at Athabasca University, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Prior to her
relocation to Canada, Dr. Azevedo taught at Florida International University (during her doctoral studies), the University of Texas in El Paso, Florida A&M
University and the University of Applied Sciences FH Joanneum (in Austria). Dr. Azevedos research interests include management education, international
entrepreneurship, cross-cultural management issues, migration, and narrative research.
Gerhard Apfelthaler is a Professor in International Business and Associate Dean for Graduate Programs at the School of Business at California Lutheran
University. Prior to that, he chaired the Department of International Management at FH Joanneum University of Applied Sciences and the Department of
International Business Studies at FHS Kufstein, both in Austria. Before joining academia, Dr. Apfelthaler was a diplomat in Austrias Foreign Commercial
Service with postings in the United States and in Singapore. He has published several books and numerous articles.
Deborah Hurst is an Associate Professor Work and Organization Studies and Associate Dean, Faculty of Business, Athabasca University, in Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada. Deborahs research interests include management education, the development and transfer of knowledge and soft skills in online envi-
ronments, leadership development, institutional entrepreneurship, and cultural organization change.

2012 - Azevedo Et Al. - Competency Development in Business Graduates PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2012 - Azevedo Et Al. - Competency Development in Business Graduates PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

The International Journal of Management Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijme

Competency development in business graduates: An industry-driven

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 780 418 7540.

A. Azevedo et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228 13

2.1. Graduate employability

14 A. Azevedo et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228

A. Azevedo et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228 15

2.2. Dening competencies

16 A. Azevedo et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228

2.3. Lack of empirical research on undergraduate business education

3.1. Project overview and purpose

A. Azevedo et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228 17

3.2. Phase one: development of competency assessment approach

3.3. Phase two: instrument and procedures

18 A. Azevedo et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228

4.1. Subsample comparison

4.2. Survey ndings I: meta-level indicators for graduates and employers

A. Azevedo et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228 19

Indicators Business graduates competency ratings Employers competency ratings

Competence name Austria UK Slovenia Romania Total

Mean N Rank Mean N Rank Mean N Rank Mean N Rank N

20 A. Azevedo et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228

Competence name Austria UK Slovenia Romania Total

Mean N Rank Mean N Rank Mean N Rank Mean N Rank N

4.4. Survey ndings III: cross-country comparisons for employers

Competence name Austria UK Slovenia Romania Total

Mean N Rank Mean N Rank Mean N Rank Mean N Rank N

A. Azevedo et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228 21

Competence items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

22 A. Azevedo et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228

Competence items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

A. Azevedo et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228 23

24 A. Azevedo et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228

A. Azevedo et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228 25

Sample questions: Employers interview protocol

Sample questions: Employers survey

Competencies Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly agree I dont know

26 A. Azevedo et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228

Sample questions: Employers survey (cont.)

Competencies Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly agree I dont know

A. Azevedo et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228 27

28 A. Azevedo et al. / The International Journal of Management Education 10 (2012) 1228

You might also like