The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-8269.htm

MRR
45,5 Business employability for late
millennials: exploring the
perceptions of generation Z
664 students and generation X faculty
Received 30 April 2021 Antigone G. Kyrousi and Eugenia Tzoumaka
Revised 21 September 2021
Accepted 4 December 2021
Department of Marketing, School of Business and Economics,
The American College of Greece, Athens, Greece, and
Stella Leivadi
Department of Tourism, Hospitality and Sports, School of Business and
Economics, The American College of Greece, Athens, Greece

Abstract
Purpose – The paper aims to explore employability in business as perceived by Generation Z (late
millennials) business students and faculty. It focuses on perceptions regarding necessary employability skills
from the diverse standpoints of two different groups of stakeholders within one Higher Education Institution.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses a Mixed Qualitative Design approach including a
core and a supplementary component; Generation Z student perceptions are initially identified through a
thematic analysis of students’ research reports on employability. These perceptions are then further
contextualized through findings from a series of personal interviews conducted with Generation X academics
in the same institution.
Findings – The findings support the two basic dimensions of perceived employability, work readiness and
employability skills, for which students and educators hold similar notions. Both stakeholders distinguish
between “hard” and “soft” skills, but filter their relative importance through a generational lens. An emerging
finding was the link between personality traits and perceived employability skills.
Originality/value – The paper examines the much-debated issue of perceived employability through the
eyes of Generation Z students; research on employability perceptions of Generation Z is, to date, limited.
The topic is timely, as Generation Z is the newest generation entering the business job market. In addition, the
paper adds to the emerging contemporary stream of literature exploring employability in the field of business
education.
Keywords Business education, Qualitative research, Generation Z, Perceived employability,
‘Soft’ skills
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The industry press is replete with reports on the newest generation of professionals; “Gen
Zers” (or “late millennials”), born between 1995 and 2012 (Gabrielova and Buchko, 2021),
have started entering the workforce and “the impact of their entry will be swift and
profound, its effects rippling through the workplace” (Deloitte, 2019). Employers who seek to
Management Research Review
attract talent are advised to tailor job positions around Gen Zers’ unique skillsets (Deloitte,
Vol. 45 No. 5, 2022
pp. 664-683
2019). Gen Zers are reportedly skilled in technology, but apprehensive of their
© Emerald Publishing Limited communication skills (Deloitte, 2017). They are career-minded and strongly committed to
2040-8269
DOI 10.1108/MRR-04-2021-0328 being work-ready before their first job (Accenture Strategy, 2017). Nevertheless, in a global
survey, only 33% of Gen Zers felt confident about their future at work (PwC, 2017). For Business
businesses and economies, the “skills gap” remains a pervasive problem; illustratively, 74% employability
of CEOs surveyed globally reported concerns about the availability of key skills in job
applicants (PwC, 2020). Within the European Union, initiatives are being undertaken to
for late
identify and address skill shortages and gaps (Cedefop, 2018), but the mismatch between millennials
existing and necessary skills is still a major challenge for companies (Eurochambres, 2020).
In this context, employability, i.e. the ability to find suitable work, is elevated as a key
decision criterion for students, many of whom view education as an investment in their 665
future careers (Times Higher Education, 2020).
Within academic literature, it is well established that the field of Higher Education
(hereafter HE) is undergoing a notable transformation due to the growing importance of
enhancing employability (Rae, 2007; Amaral and Sin, 2017). This has been attributed to the
increasing pressure of governments and industries on HE Institutions to deliver “work-
ready” business graduates (Griffin and Coelhoso, 2019, p. 60). Contemporary HE Institutions
strive to satisfy multiple internal (students, faculty, career services) and external (employers,
governments) stakeholders, who often hold divergent perceptions regarding employability
skills. Interestingly, it has been noted that studies regarding employability perceptions of
business students still remain scarce (Griffin and Coelhoso, 2019), despite the need for
students to appreciate the importance of skills cultivated throughout their studies and to
present them to prospective employers (Jackson, 2013a, 2013b). In this vein, there is a
growing body of literature investigating student perceptions regarding employability and
necessary skills and comparing these with perceptions of faculty and employers
(indicatively: Andrews and Higson, 2008; Succi and Canovi, 2020). Moreover, research on the
role of generation in perceived employability is, to date, limited. Relevant studies are only
recently emerging (Yawson and Yamoah, 2020), although it is well-established that different
generations ascribe to different values (Rani and Samuel, 2016). Yet, as newer generations
gradually enter the job market, it is pertinent to examine their perceptions of employability.
Generation Z, in particular, “represents a very significant generational shift in the
workplace” and its characteristics should be better understood (Gabrielova and Buchko,
2021). As different generations populate contemporary organizations (Lyons and Kuron,
2014), the beliefs of newest graduates are also of interest to managers from older
generations, i.e. Millennials (Gabrielova and Buchko, 2021) and Generation Xers.
Thus, the first contribution of this paper is to address the calls for further research on
employability for this late millennial generation, the emerging body of employees. Second,
the current study adds to the developing stream of literature on business students’ perceived
employability, while its third contribution is the examination of faculty and student
perceptions of employability through a generational lens.

Literature review
Employability and perceived employability
Research on employability is prolific; nonetheless, employability as a construct has attracted
much debate and diverse conceptualizations have been suggested (Jackson, 2013a, 2013b). In
the Human Resources and Organizational Behavior literature, the focus is on actual
employability, i.e. “the personal aptitude to carry out work”, which is contingent on the
individuals’ skills and abilities, attitudes and motivations, but also on contextual factors
pertaining to the company and the labor market (Forrier and Sels, 2003, p. 106). Contrarily,
within educational literature, where the focus is on making students work-ready
(Kapareliotis et al., 2019), the dominant view of employability focuses on competence
(Römgens et al., 2020). Employability is thus defined with an emphasis on skills, as “a set of
MRR achievements – skills, understandings and personal attributes” which renders individuals
45,5 more likely to be employed and to do well in their careers (Yorke, 2006, p. 8). As the
individual’s active role in enhancing their own employability is accentuated, a developing
stream of literature concentrates on self-perceived employability of students (Donald et al.,
2019; Pinto and Ramalheira, 2017) and distinguishes between actual and perceived
employability (Caricati et al., 2016).
666 For the purposes of the present paper, we view employability in line with the latter
perspective, i.e. as a subjective perception of the likelihood to attain suitable future
employment, and we focus on students’ perceived employability, namely “the perceived
ability to attain sustainable employment appropriate to one’s qualification level” (Rothwell
et al., 2008, p. 2). The perceived employability concept is characterized by inherent
subjectivity (Vanhercke et al., 2014). Perceived employability of students incorporates
multiple dimensions: one’s self-perceived internal employability (perceptions of academic
performance, skills and abilities), one’s self-perceived external employability (perceived
demand for graduates with one’s specialization, perceived status of one’s degree) and
dimensions of ambition and commitment to one’s university (Rothwell et al., 2008).

Perceived employability and skills in the context of business education: perceptions of

students and faculty
The field of business constitutes an important area for research on employability, as there is
a well-documented discrepancy between skills required by employers and skills actually
possessed by business graduates (Jackson, 2014). The significance of skills for employability
is especially pronounced in business education, with business schools largely defining
employability in terms of skills (Cranmer, 2006). In a series of interviews, Andrews and
Higson (2008) found that European students perceived that having a degree and possessing
“hard” knowledge on business was crucial for their employability, while they also felt that
some “softer” skills, most notably oral communication and presentation skills, ability to
work in groups and interpersonal skills, were pivotal to their development as professionals.
Consequently, perceptions of employability comprise “hard” skills (business knowledge
learnt through formal education), “soft” skills (transferable skills, for example written and
oral communication and interpersonal skills) and work experience (skills gained through
formal placements and internships) (Andrews and Higson, 2008).
“Hard” skills necessary for business students clearly vary depending on the specific field
of business that one wishes to specialize on. For instance, core marketing knowledge is
important for a career in marketing (Di Gregorio et al., 2019), while knowledge in sport
science, management and entrepreneurship is necessary for a career in sports management
(Gonz
alez-Serrano et al., 2018). Conversely, key “soft” skills are transferable across careers in
a range of business functions and are “non-technical” social skills such as “listening,
communication, teamwork, time management, self-management, empathy, integrity,
flexibility, emotional intelligence” (Anthony and Garner, 2016, p. 361). The perceptions of
business students regarding their mastery of employability skills are an ongoing area of
investigation and debate (Griffin and Coelhoso, 2019).
Studies investigating the relative importance of different employability skills indicate that,
in later years, there has been a shift toward “soft” skills. As employers increasingly prioritize
‘soft’ skills including teamwork, problem-solving, leadership and communication (Ritter et al.,
2018), it is reasoned that HE Institutions should enhance students’ awareness of the value of
such skills and motivate students to assume responsibility for cultivating them (Succi and
Canovi, 2020). This shift seems to concur with the argument that transferable skills are
critical in an era when individuals must “own” their careers (Stewart and Knowles, 2000).
Moreover, it has been suggested that, especially for undergraduate business students, “soft” Business
skills such as the ability to self-regulate, to motivate one’s self and social/interpersonal skills employability
are supportive of the attainment of learning outcomes (Tsenga et al., 2019). Skills such as time
management, initiative-taking and effective collaboration can also be cultivated through
for late
participation in internships (Kapareliotis et al., 2019). millennials
An important question therefore regards how business students rate themselves on
necessary skills, as this presents notable implications for managers in contemporary
organizations, as well as for educators who should secure student buy-in in the development 667
of skills and encourage students to cultivate needed skills autonomously (Jackson, 2013a,
2013b). However, students’ perceptions about employability skills represent only one of the
many “sides” of employability. Contemporary HE Institutions include multiple stakeholders
whose views on employability and skills might differ. Specifically, according to Crossman
and Clarke (2010), employers, academics and students are the three key stakeholder groups
to include when investigating employability. Lately, there is an increasing number of
studies comparing perceptions of students to those of other stakeholders; findings illustrate
some discrepancies between students’ self-ratings and other stakeholders’ perceptions. In a
recent study (Griffin and Coelhoso, 2019), business students in the UAE attributed great
importance in communication and teamwork, but they were not as aware of the necessity of
other skills including critical thinking, self-management and initiative-taking. An earlier
study on Australian business students had found that undergraduates perceived themselves
as lacking in critical thinking, self-awareness and undertaking initiative (Jackson, 2012). Yet,
it emerged that they thought of themselves as considerably more skilled in terms of
professionalism, ability to work with others, as well as accountability, compared to active
professionals. These findings have been interpreted as suggestive of inflated self-
importance and over-confidence but also self-entitlemented and heightened, even unrealistic,
expectations (Jackson, 2012). Further, differences in the perceptions of faculty and students
regarding the relative importance of specific ‘soft’ skills might exist. For instance, it has
been reported that although prospective employers, faculty and students agree on
communication skills being a priority for careers in tourism and retail management, faculty
attribute greater importance to work experiences and lesser importance to leadership
skills compared to students (Wesley et al., 2017). Similarly, it has been found that recent
graduates believed that leadership and work ethic were more important than faculty did,
whereas faculty considered interpersonal skills to be crucial (Rosenberg et al., 2012). More
broadly, there is some evidence to suggest that students and faculty hold different notions
regarding what employability is (Sin and Neave, 2016).
Faculty perceptions of employability and relevant skills should be part of the ongoing
debate for a number of reasons. First, in the past decades, it is generally expected that
business educators should “provide graduates with skills and attributes that prospective
employers desire” (Tanyel et al., 1999). Faculty are often tasked with teaching both hard and
soft skills; although the former are easier to grasp since they are cultivated through subject-
specific content, the latter are more elusive, subjective and, consequently, harder to teach
(Anthony and Garner, 2016). There is continued discussion as to how employability skills
can be cultivated through curricula or through extra-curricular activities (Pinto and
Ramalheira, 2017). For instance, diverse opinions have been put forward as to whether skills
are to be delivered by faculty or career professionals and if they should be developed
through dedicated courses or embedded in content courses (Cranmer, 2006). Nevertheless, it
can be inferred that educators are involved, albeit in different degrees, in the development of
students’ skills. Second, faculty perceptions are important because educators can emphasize
the importance of relevant skills through advising (Hodge and Lear, 2011). Moreover, it has
MRR been argued that faculty have a pivotal role in getting undergraduate students to assume
45,5 initiative in enhancing their individual skills, and to teach them how to articulate their skills
(Goodwin et al., 2019). Interestingly, this heightened role of faculty in skill cultivation and
awareness has been connected to the notion that newer generations of students are less
independent and require more guidance and feedback, as well as employability support
(O’Leary, 2017). The next section discusses the role of generation in more detail.
668
The role of generation: Generation Z students and generation X faculty
A generation is traditionally defined as a cohort of people experiencing key social and
historical events around the same time in their life and thus exhibiting some common
characteristics and behaviors (Mannheim, 1952 as cited in Lyons and Kuron, 2014). Though
many different generation typologies exist, we are hereby focusing on Generation Z.
Individuals in this generation were born after 1995 and up to 2012 (Gabrielova and Buchko,
2021). This generation is described as pragmatic and cynical, highly tech-savvy but also
seeking a higher purpose (Grow and Yang, 2018). Generation Z presents considerable
interest as it is currently entering the workforce, but also because the majority of students in
HE belong there (Seemiller and Grace, 2016). Gen Z students have been described as more
career-minded and more open to assuming risks than Millennials (Seemiller and Grace,
2016), less independent and more in need of support (O’Leary, 2017), and more interested in
being cared for by faculty (Miller and Mills, 2019). Reportedly, this generation of students
strongly desires an education that will help pursue a meaningful career (Seemiller and
Grace, 2016). Still, given their current age, most Generation Z students have not yet had any
substantial work experience (Yawson and Yamoah, 2020). Also, this generation is eager to
socially connect, though by having spent most of their lives communicating digitally,
Generation Zers are presumed to be lacking in social skills necessary for professionals, such
as listening and respectfully participating in conversations, handling conflicts and problem-
solving (Gabrielova and Buchko, 2021). Moreover, they are believed to be challenged by
groupwork, as they prefer to work alone, in contrast to their Millennial predecessors
(Gabrielova and Buchko, 2021).
There is some evidence that students in the newest generations differ from their
predecessors in their perceptions of employability, though research examining
employability and generational differences is still scarce (Yawson and Yamoah, 2020).
Extant literature on career expectations and work-related values indicates that the latter
vary across generational cohorts (Stewart et al., 2017). Although the interplay of factors
forming career expectations is quite complex, Barhate and Dirani (2021) suggest that
parents might play an important role in shaping Gen Z perceptions and expectations. Thus,
perceptions of employability might also vary, as for Gen Z students, perceptions of
employability are bound to their expectations about the job market and workplace realities
(Succi and Canovi, 2020). Moreover, in a very recent study, it was found that different
generations of students had different learning experiences in employability-related courses,
with Generation Z students self-reporting lower satisfaction scores than older generations
(Yawson and Yamoah, 2020).
Different generations co-exist in contemporary HE institutions. Currently, most faculty
belongs in either the Millennial generation (born between 1981 and 1995), Generation X (1963–
1981) or that of Baby Boomers (1946–1963) (Kleinhans et al., 2015) [1]. Generation X is now
representing the majority of the academic workforce. Generation Xers have been characterized
as self-sufficient, adaptive to changes and preferring individual work (Kleinhans et al., 2015).
More importantly, it is noted that Generation Xers have a strong focus on employability,
valuing life-long learning and self-advancement, are educated and computer literate and
equipped with transferrable skills (Bogdanowicz and Bailey, 2002). So, it is plausible to wonder Business
if generational differences between students and educators might affect perceptions of employability
employability. Nevertheless, an examination of educational literature suggests that, to the best
of the authors’ knowledge, this issue has not yet been formally investigated, despite the fact
for late
that in organizational contexts, it has been acknowledged that generational differences can be a millennials
source of differences in perceptions (Gabrielova and Buchko, 2021).

Research questions
669
Following the above discussion, we echo the view that “significant confusion [.] concerning
employability skills” still exists (Rosenberg et al., 2012, p. 12). Hence, employability, as
perceived by business students, is worthy of further examination. Prior research
on perceived employability has examined both undergraduate (Jackson, 2012) and
postgraduate students’ (Rothwell et al., 2009) perceptions. Considering that a focus on
perceptions of the emerging Generation Z is a timely concern (Seemiller and Grace, 2016),
this paper especially considers only business undergraduates. Existing empirical findings
on perceived employability are difficult to consolidate, also considering that studies have
been conducted in different temporal and cultural settings. Therefore, the present paper
aims at initially examining the following research questions:

RQ1. Which are the perceptions of undergraduate Generation Z business students

regarding employability and relevant skills?
RQ2. How does generation relate to perceptions of employability?
Moreover, as previously argued, it is pertinent to explore business faculty perceptions of
employability (Griffin and Coelhoso, 2019). Although it is plausible to expect that students
and faculty might hold perceptions that differ due to their different roles and background,
accessibility to information and generational differences, extant research explicitly
comparing differences in perceptions of employability is still limited. Yet, the very concept
of employability might hold different meanings for students, who presumably do not accept
individual responsibility for skill cultivation and transfer the responsibility to HE
institutions, and faculty/academics, who ascribe to a more multi-faceted view of
employability which encompasses individual but also situational factors (Sin and Neave,
2016). Exploring perceptions of employability from more than one viewpoints is conducive
to obtaining a richer understanding of the phenomenon (Rosenberg et al., 2012). Moreover,
the perspective of educators on employability can enhance understanding of student
perceptions, as educators’ perceptions of employability can aid the interpretation of
student beliefs. Literature has repeatedly stressed the importance of integrating different
perspectives of employability (Jackson, 2013a, 2013b). Although this is a developing
research stream, it is important to note that most studies comparing different viewpoints
focus on quantitatively assessing the relative perceived importance of various skills (Lim
et al., 2016). Despite the undisputed value of quantifying comparisons, it is important to
acquire a more in-depth understanding of any differences in perceptions and the underlying
reasons. In addition, the juxtaposition of the two perspectives allows addressing potential
generational differences in views of employability, as current undergraduate students and
educators belong in different generations. Hence, it is important to address the following:

RQ3. Which are the perceptions of educators regarding student employability and the
cultivation of relevant skills in the context of business education?
RQ4. How do perceptions of employability compare between faculty and students?
MRR Methodology
45,5 Research design
Considering the breadth of the research questions, a research design encompassing two
qualitative studies was implemented. A Simultaneous Qualitative (QUALþ qual) Mixed
Design approach was followed (Morse, 2010) to allow the generation of rich data that would
cater for the nature of the research questions. Study 1 (core component) focused on student
670 perceptions of employability and skills (RQ1) by qualitatively analyzing nine student
reports on employability. Study 2 (supplementary component) focused on educators’
perceptions of student employability (RQ3) and on the role of students’ generation (RQ2) by
analyzing five transcripts of semi-structured interviews.

Sampling – data collection procedures

The studies’ setting was the School of Business and Economics in a HE Institution in
Southern Europe, in a country ranking very highly in talent shortages (Cedefop, 2018), but
where business jobs are in relatively high demand (Cedefop, 2020). Choosing a single
institutional context permits the inquiry to compare different viewpoints between students
and faculty and has been undertaken in prior research examining different stakeholder
perspectives (Crossman and Clarke, 2010; Rosenberg et al., 2012). Given that this inquiry is
inherently context-bound, it should be mentioned that the Institution selected has a heritage
of strong vocational focus; this has been associated with increased attention to
employability skills (Cranmer, 2006). Limiting the research in a single Institution further
implies that the studies are situated within a given sociocultural context, in which it is
generally common for students not to have worked before completing their studies and still
living in the family home (Gavrili- Alexandris, 2018), thus perceptions of employability are
expected to be largely influenced by educational experiences and family input.
Study 1, the core qualitative component, centered on examining employability as
perceived by Generation Z business students and the skills they considered important from
their point of view, (RQ1, RQ2). The data set included group research reports produced by
students in a Research Methods course over four terms in 2018–2019; for reasons of data
quality, a sample of nine research reports authored by 32 students, those that received the
highest assessment within each term, were selected to be included in the data set. For the
purposes of the course, students had received a brief introducing them to the issue of
employability and they had to produce a literature review narrowing down the topic, to
formulate research questions and to conduct qualitative and quantitative research using
samples of their fellow students. The sampled reports were very “rich” sources of data, as
each report was prepared by students over the course of a full term, was approximately
3,000 words long, and high on information density as it relied on multiple data sources
(literature sources, as well as analyses of primary data from a survey of students and
qualitative interviews). The reports can thus be better described as “shadowed data” (Morse,
2000, p. 4), as each report was revealing not only of the authors’ (students’) views but also of
the perspectives of their peers who participated in their primary research. The reports
included in the data set were thematically analyzed. This approach enabled us to rely on a
more articulate discussion of employability and relevant skills from the students’
perspective compared to that which could be obtained through a typical interview or focus
group setting with a more populous sample of students, given the nature of the topic and
participant experience.
Study 2 was designed to supplement Study 1 by allowing the exploration of the
educators’ perspective (RQ3) to permit comparisons on perceived employability (RQ4).
Moreover, Study 2 intended to shed additional light on the role of generation (RQ2). Data
was collected during a two-week period (Spring 2021) through five semi-structured Business
interviews conducted via video conferencing, with an approximate duration of 30 min each; employability
the interviewees selected were Generation Xers and had leading positions within the
business school and several years of experience. The purpose of this study was to
for late
supplement Study 1 by generating data that could enhance and support the researchers’ millennials
interpretations of the student perspective. Therefore, our approach focused not in reaching
an a priori fixed sample size in terms of interviewees, but on obtaining meaningful and on-
target data by interviewing faculty members belonging to Generation X that were familiar 671
with the concept of employability and had several years of teaching experience so as to
provide informed answers on the given topics. To this end, interviews were conducted
sequentially, as we were simultaneously reflecting upon available data at each point in the
process and deciding on whether additional data was needed.
Prior to the interviews, an interview guide including key topics and prompts was
developed to ensure that the necessary information would indeed be collected. Each
interview started with general questions on the meaning of employability for the
interviewee. After allowing interviewees to freely express their subjective understandings,
the interviewer prompted them to discuss about employability skills and inquired on skills
perceived as crucial for business students. Then, the course of the discussion was channeled
into the temporal evolution of skills and educators were asked if the skills required had
changed over the years and how the current generation of students differed from previous
ones. Next, the interviews focused on the means through which faculty identified important
skills and their points of reference. The last part of each interview regarded the development
of employability through education and on the perceived role of faculty in the process.

Data analysis
Though each study focused on a different data set (student reports were used as data for
Study 1 while semi-structured interviews were used for Study 2) to explore perceived
employability from two different perspectives (the students’ and the educators’ respectively
but also Generation Z versus Generation X), the same analytical approach was used across.
A different researcher was assigned to each data set initially, and group dialogue followed to
enable comparisons (Morse, 2010).
A six-phase process of thematic analysis was used to analyze the data within each data
set (Braun and Clarke, 2006); the approach was qualitative, subjective and interpretative
(Terry et al., 2017). The starting point was repeated reading of the data for familiarization
purposes. In the second phase, the data was systematically coded into an initial set of codes
through NVivo 12 Plus. Codes were generated initially purely inductively, focusing on the
semantic content (Braun et al., 2016), as we sought to identify codes on the basis of word
frequencies and word clouds and the explicit wording in the data. At the second level of
coding, we focused on latent coding, again through an inductive process but simultaneously
drawing on our prior theorizing to uncover meanings and assumptions underpinning the
data itself (Braun et al., 2016). In the third phase, the codes were accumulated to form
broader themes (Braun and Clarke, 2006). In the fourth phase, we reviewed themes by re-
examining them to ensure fit with coded extracts (Terry et al., 2017). This resulted in
removing a few themes and collapsing others onto higher-level ones. Subsequently, we
proceeded with additional coding and a re-examination of the data set as a whole to
ascertain fit of themes with the specific data set. This process yielded a thematic map for
each data set, which illustrated the dominant themes. In the fifth phase, the themes were
defined and obtained their finalized names, while it was also considered whether the
identified themes provided answers to the relevant research questions (Terry et al., 2017).
MRR Following the dedicated analysis of each data set, iterative dialogue allowed the comparison
45,5 of the two sets of findings (Morse, 2010) and the final thematic map was constructed.
Alphanumeric coding was applied to preserve anonymity and confidentiality, i.e. E1 reflects
the opinion of the educator interviewed first and S2 a quote from the second student report.
The following section discusses the findings obtained.

672 Results
For a more meaningful presentation that facilicates the integration and comparison of the
findings, the results of Studies 1 and 2 are jointly presented. The code identification analysis
is presented in the word cloud in Figures 1 and 2; these word clouds are visualizations of the
frequency with which corresponding words were found to occur in the data in the initial
stage of our analysis. In both studies, there is emphasis on the codes “employability”,
“skills” and the typologies “hard skills” and “soft skills”; however the order of frequency (in
ascending order) is skills-soft skills-hard skills for students, while for educators it is skills-hard
skills-soft skills. Likewise, in both studies, the code “students” is frequently mentioned, thus
indicating the relative importance of this stakeholder group. Additional codes, to which
emphasis is placed by the educators, were found. Those were the facets of hard and soft
skills, reflected by the words “know” and “think”. The different stakeholder groups are also
underscored, and frequently discussed using the codes “employers” and “educators”.

Employability
In this section, we discuss the key themes and the codes regarding the perceptions of
employability which are visually represented in the form of a thematic map in Figure 3 and
further explained in Table 1. Table 1 presents the frequency of the latent codes in which we
organized the raw data of the first and second study components (Columns 1 and 2). The
latent codes (Column 3) are then further grouped into subthemes, the hard skills, soft skills
and personality traits shown in Column 4 and then into broader themes, the work-readiness
and skills (Column 5).
Overall, the results indicate that employability is perceived as comprising two basic
dimensions: work readiness and employability skills. Work readiness, according to
educators, starts with “entering the job market” [E5], but it extends to “getting a position
appropriate to the student’s qualifications” [E1] related to “what they have studied” and

Figure 1.
Word frequency
visualization (Study 1):
employability and
relevant skills as
perceived by
Generation Z business
students
 Business
employability
for late
millennials

673

Figure 2.
Word frequency
visualization (Study 2):
employability and
relevant skills as
perceived by educators

Figure 3.
Final thematic map

“their particular talents” [E4]. The students’ perceptions of work readiness go beyond the
job placement to also fulfil personal aspirations. Employability for students is “an
individual’s ability, chance, success, competency as well as their capability to obtain,
maintain and sustain a satisfying job so to achieve employment and be successful in their
suited field and decided occupation/s” [S5], and “an individual’s potential to be secure and
successful in the workplace because of its capabilities, skills and knowledge” [S7].
The results from both studies indicate that students and educators hold similar notions
of the second dimension of employability; “employability as a set of skills” is a common
theme, which students address as “the certain characteristics, which shall help them in
enhancing their personal professional growth and development, which in turn stimulates
 45,5

674
MRR

Table 1.

components
Frequency of latent

themes across study

codes among broader
Component 1 Student Reports mentioning Component 2 Interviews mentioning Latent codes
this theme one or more times this theme one or more times (in alphabetical order) Sub themes Themes

3 (S4, S5, S7) 2 (E1, E4) Aspirations Work

7 (S1, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9) 4 (E1, E2, E3, E5) Position Readiness
4 (S5, S6, S7, S8) 3 (E1, E2, E4) Relevance
7 (S1, S3, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9) 4 (E1, E2, E3, E5) Analytical skills Hard Skills Skills
9 (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9) 5 (E1, E2, E3, E4, E5) Discipline knowledge
5 (S1, S2, S3, S5, S9) 2 (E2, E3) Foreign languages
8 (S1, S2, S3, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9) 5 (E1, E2, E3, E4, E5) Technology skills
5 (S5, S6, S7, S8, S9) 3 (E3, E4, E5) Reporting
7 (S1, S2, S3, S5, S6, S7, S9) 4 (E1, E2, E4, E5) Adaptability Soft Skills
9 (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9) 5 (E1, E2, E3, E4, E5) Communication
7 (S2, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9) 2 (E1, E4) Creativity
9 (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9) 2 (E1, E2, E4, E5) Critical thinking
7 (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7) 1 (E2) Leadership
9 (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9) 5 (E2, E4) Problem solving
9 (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9) 5 (E1, E2, E3, E4, E5) Team work
6 (S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S9) 2 (E3, E4) Agreeableness Personality
6 (S3, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9) 3 (E2, E3, E4) Conscientiousness Traits
2 (S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9) 1 (E4) Neuroticism
3 (S6, S7, S9) 1 (E1) Openness

Note: Total number of student reports was 9 and total number of interviews was 5; The alphanumeric coding reflects the following pattern, S2 is the second
student report and E1 the first interview with an educator
organizational growth and development as a whole” [S4]. Educators view these as the Business
preparation of students for “the world of work” [E1] through the cultivation of “skills that employability
graduates need to be competent in the market” [S1]. While commonalities were found in the
employability skills required for business, both studies indicate that employability skills are
for late
perceived as dynamic and depending on several factors, i.e. the era, the cultural and social millennials
context, the discipline, the employing organization, the position within the organization,
even the working mode (remote vs face-to-face).
675
Hard and soft skills
Students and educators alike distinguish between “hard skills” and “soft skills”. According
to students, hard skills are the “measurable, teachable and quantifiable competencies [. . .]
corroborated with a form of qualification” [S2] to include “technical procedures which are
influenced by an individual’s Intelligence Quotient (IQ)” [S5]. Soft skills are the
“intrapersonal and interpersonal skills” [S9] or else “human skills, which are connected to
one’s social interaction with others” [S6] exhibited by a vast array of “behavioral attributes,
such as communication, team-work, problem-solving and mental resilience” [S8]. This
distinction is also articulated by the educators, who emphasize that hard skills, or else the
“academic knowledge” or “preparation” [E3, E5], are fully “teachable” and “measurable” in
the context of an educational institution, while soft skills cannot be taught or assessed in the
same manner. Educators therefore believe that soft skills can be “developed” [E2, E3] or
“inspired” through “a synthesis of curricular, co-curricular and extra-curricular activities”.
The top “soft skills” themes identified in both studies are presented in Figure 3.
Communication is the most prominent theme, and its importance is discussed by all
students and identified as the top or among the top three soft skills, i.e. “The most
significant soft skills fall in the communication skills category” [S1]. This finding is
further supported in Study 2, where all interviewees included communication among the top
employability skills; an illustrative quote is: “With regards to soft skills the most important
are communication skills, writing skills, presentation skills, and personal branding skills”
[E1]. Overall, communication skills discussed range from written and oral communication,
presentation skills, to public speaking, negotiation and business etiquette types of
communication. “Teamwork” is the prominent collaborative skill across both studies, the
importance of which is argued for with remarks such as “team-working and communication
are highly important characteristics that enhance their employability” [S4] and “when we
talk about employability, other things come into our mind [apart from knowledge] [. . .]
teamwork, communication, initiative, independence.” [E3]. Similarly, other themes include
soft skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, leadership, creativity and adaptability.
Regarding the relative importance of employability skills, Study 1 findings indicate that
students perceive soft skills as more important than hard skills. In some cases, this
perceived dominance of soft skills is expressed quite explicitly, i.e. as a conclusion that
students have derived from their reviews of the literature (“Soft skills are more important
than hard skills for a sport manager to be a successful one” [S3]). Interestingly, this was also
reflected in concluding remarks made by students even in cases when the literature only
partially supported their claims that “graduates must add value to their abilities by
acquiring and perfecting not only their hard, but, more importantly, their soft skills along
with important, fundamental business aptitudes” [S7]. There were student reports, in which
the literature review did not evidently point toward a supremacy of soft skills, but the
student authors were so confident about the dominance of soft skills that they did not
include any questions on hard skills in their research instruments, only exploring soft skills
instead ([.] the most important employability skills that employers expect from
MRR professionals are leadership, creativity, communication, cross-cultural communication,
45,5 teamwork and emotional intelligence [S4]). The greater perceived importance of soft skills
by students was further evidenced in their primary research findings. Three student reports
included surveys with student samples, which compared hard to soft skills and concluded
that soft skills were perceived as more important employability skills (S1, S2, S6). Overall,
the meaning conveyed favors soft skills’ dominance over hard skills, with statements such
676 as “students are being judged based on their successful work experience, internships and
extra-curricular activities, as opposed to their college GPA/C.I” [S5], and they should
therefore focus on acquiring a solid foundation of soft skills rather than plain, industry-
related practical knowledge [S2].
Unlike students, educators in Study 2 did not engage in comparisons between the two
sets of skills, but when prompted to identify the top employability skills for future
managers, the majority prioritized hard skills (“without a business degree you can’t have a
career in business [. . .] so for me computers and language skills, English language at least
are basic criteria, basic skills” [E2], “the interdisciplinary approach in their business” [E1]). It
is noteworthy that this stance was even defended against the dominant discourse in the
literature (“if you read any, any books and any manuals [. . .] they will tell you about
interpersonal skills and communication skills” [E4]), or against employers’ views. E3
partially attributed their accentuating of hard skills to their role as an academic: Talking to
managers, they seem to think [.] that knowledge is not number one, which for me is a pity,
because I’m in the knowledge business, I want students to have knowledge.
Interestingly though, in unprompted conversations, educators implicitly reneged on the
prioritization of hard skills. They mentioned that due to the “massification of knowledge”
[E2, E3, E4], “social changes” [E1, E2, E3, E4], changes in the nature of the business, both in
terms of “employment types and professions” [E5], as well the ones in domestic and global
markets [E1, E2, E3, E4, E5], which call for frequent career shifts [E1, E4, E5] soft skills like
“adaptability”, “flexibility” and “versatility” [E4, E5] will be equally if not more important
than hard skills. Illustrative quotes are: The employer will never ask what your GPA score
was. They try to find and employ a person that will not disrupt the function of the company.
So, if you are an A student and at the same time, you do not know how to behave, this [. . .]
will eventually disrupt the company’ [E4] or ‘You graduated with a CI of 3.5 from X
Business School. So what? There are hundreds of you with similar qualifications. That does
not differentiate you, but when you go on an interview and you have an outgoing
personality, you’re smiling, you’re a good communicator, you’re articulate, this is what it’s
going to differentiate [you] [E2].
We thus view Study 2 findings as less diverging from Study 1 than initially expected,
with the perceptions of educators not being entirely dissimilar from those of students. The
educators’ perspectives can partially explain how student perceptions were formed (because
we are close with our students, we pass it on to them [that soft skills are more important]
[E3]). In addition, the educators’ perceptions are underpinned by a more balanced approach
to the hard versus soft skills debate, which is aptly expressed by E2: “Hard skills are
classified as points of parity, while most soft skills are considered as points of
differentiation, what does that mean? Graduates with a business degree, there are 1,000,000
out there, so when it comes to hard skills, this brings you to a point of parity with other
candidates, but soft skills are what will differentiate you.”

Personality traits
The role of personality traits in employability was also a key theme, although neither
students nor educators were prompted to discuss this. Four personality traits were
perceived as relevant to the employability skills dimension. Those are agreeableness, Business
openness to experience, conscientiousness and neuroticism. More specifically, agreeableness employability
was expressed through “patience” [S3, S4], the “willingness to serve others” [S7] and respect
[S7, E4]. Openness to experience is reflected by quotes on “open-mindedness” [S7, S9], “we
for late
don’t want single minded graduates, [. . .] we need people that think openly and of course millennials
they can transform everything that comes to the mind” [E1], “the philosophy of learning is
beyond the soft and the hard skills” [E5]. Finally, conscientiousness is reflected in the
qualities of perseverance [S7] and determination [E4] and related to the soft skills of 677
accountability and responsibility [E2, E3, E4], while neuroticism is reflected in mental
resilience [S8], emotional intelligence or emotional stability [S4].

Generation Z compared to other generations

An explicit question on the role of generation was posed to educators. Surprisingly though,
the results of Study 2 indicate that, in their majority, educators do not readily notice cross-
generational differences regarding employability skills. While they do refer to shifts in
necessary skills (e.g. the popular rhetoric on soft skills’ dominance), they attribute those
mostly to external factors, i.e. market and employer needs rather than internal ones, the
students’ perceptions or needs. Relevant quotes are: “Yeah, well they’re different
characteristics, but no, I don’t think so [that there are differences across generations],
because the market is changing rapidly” [E3] or “So, this is quite common [. . .] that the
education emphasizes much more these kinds of skills [soft skills], but I cannot connect it
necessarily to, uh, generations” [E2] or “[. . .] things change and all the graduates acquire
different skills [. . .] you know, because things change, the materials that we teach change,
the software, which we did things change” [E5]. There was only one interviewee that honed
in on generational differences as seen in the following quotes: “obviously the fact that, Gen-Z
is tech-friendly and digital natives possibly gives them some kind of an advantage, in
certain types of work” but “they lack very important skills that previous generations have
[. . .]. They lack patience exactly because they have been, uh, nurtured through technology,
which gives instant answers, [and] understanding of the hierarchy and importance that
hierarchy has”.
Some differences have been discussed as relevant to the upbringing of newer
generations; thus, the role of family was freely discussed as a determining factor (Family is
very important [. . .] in supporting other qualities that it’s not only the education’s
responsibility to equip students with these skills and knowledge that they should have. [. . .]
In higher education we receive, allow me to use the expression, “ready products” that have
spent 18 years of their life, in their family and in the school that both, those institutions
formulate their personalities and their character [E3])
On a deeper level of analysis, we interpret the viewpoints of educators as reflecting their
role as faculty, but also indicative of Generation X perceptions, such as the emphasis on life-
long learning. Indicatively, E5 said “There’s an awful lot of emphasis nowadays on
teamwork not perhaps, what used to be the case a few decades ago [. . .] I think that this
philosophy of learning is beyond the soft skills and the hard skills, and that’s what we need
to instill to them, this life-long learning attribute to students. If one is a life-long learner, then
one will always be able to learn as many new soft skills and hard skills as needed.”
Similarly, we see students’ perceptions in Study 1 as reflecting some of their generational
predispositions. As discussed earlier, students’ view of employability incorporates the
notion of a satisfying and successful career and attributes importance to soft skills. These
perceptions are reminiscent of characteristics associated with Generation Z, i.e. career-
mindedness and apprehensiveness of soft skills.
MRR Discussion
45,5 In terms of answering the Research Questions, we note that, regarding the perceptions of
undergraduate Generation Z business students on employability and relevant skills (RQ1)
and the perceptions of educators regarding student employability and the cultivation of
relevant skills in the context of business education (RQ3), our findings concur with prior
literature in that both students and educators view employability as work readiness (Dacre
678 Pool and Sewell, 2007; Jackson, 2013a, 2013b; Kapareliotis et al., 2019) and directly connect it
to skills (Römgens et al., 2020). Students’ views, though, echo the definition by Yorke (2006)
according to which employability is not only being employed but also doing well in one’s
career. It is interesting that, for students, employability is also connected with the fulfilment
of personal aspirations and satisfaction. Moreover, the hard and soft skills distinction
(Andrews and Higson, 2008) is evident in both studies, which also support the shift toward
“soft” skills (Ritter et al., 2018). Students express this shift in an explicit manner, while
educators do so implicitly. Even though faculty prioritize hard skills as the absolute
threshold for employability, claiming that they work as the “point of parity”, they suggest
that soft skills constitute the “point of difference”, which sets a potential employee apart
from others. To this end, the findings indicate that there are some differences in
employability perceptions, which is also recorded in prior research (Griffin and Coelhoso,
2019), in the sense that students may underestimate the value of hard skills, thus taking
academic knowledge for granted and not as the foundation upon which soft skills can be
cultivated. Some differences in the two stakeholders’ opinions regard the relative importance
of soft skills. For example, students place more emphasis on creativity and less on
adaptability, which was prominently discussed by educators. Therefore, concerning RQ4,
namely, the comparison between the faculty and students’ perceptions there is some
divergence, but it is interpreted as only slight. Perceptions are rather aligned and there is
also some evidence that student and faculty opinions are, to some extent, interdependent.
An emergent finding relevant to RQ1 and RQ3 regards the influence of personality traits.
Four of the Big Five personality traits, namely, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness
and neuroticism were discussed as relevant to employability skills. Although the role of
personality is not prominent in the Andrews and Higson (2008) framework for employability
in business and was thus not explicitly explored in this paper, it is noted that the link
between personality and certain employability skills has been noted in the literature
(Tymon, 2013).
Regarding the differences of post-millennials and other generations (RQ2), our findings
are mostly in agreement with previous literature on generational characteristics. Generation
Zers in this study perceive employability as more than just finding a job, as the means to a
successful and self-fulfilling career, echoing their predisposition to pursue a meaningful
career (Seemiller and Grace, 2016) and a higher purpose (Grow and Yang, 2018). They also
place emphasis on soft skills (critical thinking, problem solving, and inter-personal
communication), perhaps because it is there that they feel ill-equipped (Gabrielova and
Buchko, 2021). Conversely, educators pinpoint that students lack in social skills
(understanding the hierarchy, attributing respect), which is in line with their attested
difficulty with social skills in the professional milieu (Gabrielova and Buchko, 2021).
Generational differences become more striking if we take into consideration the
predispositions of the interviewed faculty, who belong in Generation X. Their calls for
academic knowledge, adaptability and flexibility and life-long learning seem to reflect their
own generationally laden view of employability (Kleinhans et al., 2015), and their
generation’s focus on life-long learning and self-advancement (Bogdanowicz and Bailey,
2002).
Implications Business
The findings present practical implications for managers and educators. For educators, the employability
findings may signify the need for learning and teaching interventions to help
college students not only maintain and develop their employability skills but also
for late
communicate them effectively to prospective employers. Educators should be mindful of millennials
their own implicit assumptions for necessary employability skills and consciously reflect on
the influence of generational differences. For managers and organizations, who need to
better understand “how to motivate, engage and develop Gen Z as employees” (Barhate and 679
Dirani, 2021, p. 16), the findings imply that Generation Zers enter the job market with fixed
perceptions of necessary skills and may thus look at job postings differently than their
predecessors. They should be useful for corporate Human Resources departments that are
seeking to tailor job descriptions for the purposes of recruiting this newer generation of
employees, and to design induction and training programs to respond to their needs.
Moreover, our findings are relevant to career professionals in HE Institutions and also
independent career counselors, as they can aid in enhancing the services that they offer.
At the theoretical level, our results shed light on the largely unknown relationship
between employability perceptions and generation, adding to emerging literature focusing
on post-millennials’ views of employability (Yawson and Yamoah, 2020) and Generation Z’s
career aspirations (Barhate and Dirani, 2021). It has been repeatedly pointed out that further
research is necessary to understand student views of employability (Gedye and Beaumont,
2018; Griffin and Coelhoso, 2019); our research is a step in this direction. More importantly
perhaps, this qualitative exploration provides a deeper understanding of how business
students view employability and skills by uncovering the influence of educators in shaping
student perceptions and identifying how perceptions reflect some generational
predispositions. Our findings suggest that business students may perceive soft skills as
more important than hard knowledge. This is important, as it has been reported that
students are less aware of the role of soft skills than employers (Succi and Canovi, 2020); the
present paper conversely suggests that students, at least post-millennial ones studying
business in an Institution with a vocational focus, are mindful of this shift toward soft skills.
Furthermore, the results hint toward soft skills being linked to some personality traits. Some
students, and also some educators, view soft skills, and presumably employability, as
bearing some relationship to personality traits. Interestingly, it has been previously noted
that frameworks of employability skills might include attributes connected to personality
(Tymon, 2013). Although in our research this theme only emerged in the latter stages of
analysis, we note that agreeableness, openness to experience, and conscientiousness have
been recently reported to positively relate to self-perceived employability (Neneh, 2019).

Limitations and further research

This study relied on information from two studies, which were conducted in a single
country, under a single context within a private educational institution. The aim of the
research was to provide a rich and contextualized understanding of perceived employability
and essential skills that enable graduates to enter and succeed in the workplace. To answer
our research questions, we followed an essentially subjective interpretation of data that was
obtained from two different sources (students and educators); although the volume of data
analyzed was considerable, we do acknowledge that a larger number of interviews in the
supplementary component of the research might have resulted in additional themes being
developed. Additionally, as is common with qualitative research, our conclusions cannot be
readily generalized to other cases or settings, though they can serve as a starting point for
future studies; it would be interesting to see if similar results emerge in qualitative studies of
MRR other cases of Institutions. Moreover, quantitative studies using large heterogeneous
45,5 samples are necessary to determine the degree to which our key conclusions can be
generalized. This would, more importantly, also enable researchers to test for cross-
generational differences, as well as cross-cultural differences. In addition, further research
using quantitative methodology could establish relationships among identified variables,
such as generation, employability and personality traits. Subsequent research could also
680 focus on relevant issues that have not been explicitly addressed in our research for reasons
of scope, such as the link between personality traits and perceived employability from the
viewpoint of business professionals, how students can investment in their own social capital
through active participation in educational experiences, as well as further exploration of the
educators’ and employers’ perspectives.

Note
1. Slightly different age brackets are reported in the original source; nevertheless, for the purposes
of consistency throughout the paper, we adopt the demarcation dates reported in (Gabrielova and
Buchko, 2021).

References
Accenture Strategy (2017), “Gen Z rising”, available at: www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/pdf-50/
accenture-strategy-workforce-gen-z-rising-pov.pdf (accessed 10 April 2021).
Amaral, C. and Sin, A. (2017), “Academics’ and employers’ perceptions about responsibilities for
employability and their initiatives towards its development”, Higher Education, Vol. 73 No. 1,
pp. 97-111.
Andrews, J. and Higson, H. (2008), “Graduate employability, ‘soft skills’ versus ‘hard’ business
knowledge: a European study”, Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 411-422.
Anthony, S. and Garner, B. (2016), “Teaching soft skills to business students: an analysis of multiple
pedagogical methods”, Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, Vol. 79 No. 3,
pp. 360-370.
Barhate, B. and Dirani, K.M. (2021), “Career aspirations of generation Z: a systematic literature review”,
European Journal of Training and Development, ahead-of-print.
Bogdanowicz, M.S. and Bailey, E.K. (2002), “The value of knowledge and the values of the new
knowledge worker: generation X in the new economy”, Journal of European Industrial Training,
Vol. 26 Nos 2/3/4, pp. 125-129.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research in
Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101.
Braun, V., Clarke, V. and Weate, P. (2016), “Using thematic analysis in sport and exercise research”,
Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, Routledge, London,
pp. 191-205.
Caricati, L., Chiesa, R., Guglielmi, D. and Mariani, M.G. (2016), “Real and perceived employability: a
comparison among Italian graduates”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,
Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 490-502.
Cedefop (2018), Insights into Skill Shortages and Skill Mismatch, Publications Office, Luxembourg.
Cedefop (2020), 2020 Skills Forecast, European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training,
Luxembourg.
Cranmer, S. (2006), “Enhancing graduate employability: best intentions and mixed outcomes”, Studies
in Higher Education, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 169-184.
Crossman, J.E. and Clarke, M. (2010), “International experience and graduate employability: Business
stakeholder perceptions on the connection”, Higher Education, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 599-613.
employability
Dacre Pool, L. and Sewell, P. (2007), “The key to employability: developing a practical model of
graduate employability”, Education + Training, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 277-289. for late
Deloitte (2017), “Generation Z enters the workforce: generational and technological challenges in entry- millennials
level jobs”, available at: www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/technology-and-the-future-of-
work/generation-z-enters-workforce.html (accessed 10 March 2021).
Deloitte (2019), “Welcome to generation Z”, available at: www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/
681
Documents/consumer-business/welcome-to-gen-z.pdf (accessed 3 March 2021).
Di Gregorio, A., Maggioni, I., Mauri, C. and Mazzucchelli, A. (2019), “Employability skills for future
marketing professionals”, European Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 251-258.
Donald, W.E., Baruch, Y. and Ashleigh, M. (2019), “The undergraduate self-perception of employability:
human capital, careers advice, and career ownership”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 44 No. 4,
pp. 599-614.
Eurochambres (2020), “Will the updated EU skills agenda effectively address Europe’s growing skills
gaps?”, available at: www.eurochambres.eu/publication/will-the-updated-eu-skills-agenda-
effectively-address-europes-growing-skills-gaps/ (accessed 3 March 2021).
Forrier, A. and Sels, L. (2003), “The concept employability: a complex mosaic”, International Journal of
Human Resources Development and Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 102-124.
Gabrielova, K. and Buchko, A.A. (2021), “Here comes generation Z: millennials as managers”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 64 No. 4, In Press, Journal Pre-proof.
Gavrili- Alexandris, D. (2018), “Millennials in crisis”, in Cuffy, V.V., Airey, D. and Papageorgiou, G.C.
(Eds), Lifelong Learning for Tourism: Concepts, Policy and Implementation, Routledge, Oxon.
Gedye, S. and Beaumont, E. (2018), “The ability to get a job: student understandings and definitions of
employability”, Education þ Training, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 406-420.
Gonz
alez-Serrano, M.H., Moreno, F.C. and Herv
as, J.C. (2018), “Sport management education through an
entrepreneurial perspective: analysing its impact on Spanish sports science students”, The
International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 19 No. 1.
Goodwin, J., Goh, J., Verkoeyen, S. and Lithgow, K. (2019), “Can students be taught to articulate
employability skills?”, Education þ Training, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 445-460.
Griffin, M. and Coelhoso, P. (2019), “Business students’ perspectives on employability skills post
internship experience”, Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 60-75.
Grow, J.M. and Yang, S. (2018), “Generation-Z enters the advertising workplace: expectations through a
gendered lens”, Journal of Advertising Education, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 7-22.
Hodge, K.A. and Lear, J.L. (2011), “Employment skills for 21st century workplace: the gap between
faculty and student perceptions”, Journal of Career and Technical Education, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 28-41.
Jackson, D. (2012), “Business undergraduates’ perceptions of their capabilities in employability skills:
implications for industry and higher education”, Industry and Higher Education, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 345-356.
Jackson, D. (2013a), “Business graduate employability – where are we going wrong?”, Higher Education
Research and Development, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 776-790.
Jackson, D. (2013b), “Student perceptions of the importance of employability skill provision in business
undergraduate programs”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 271-279.
Jackson, D. (2014), “Testing a model of undergraduate competence in employability skills and its
implications for stakeholders”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 220-242.
MRR Kapareliotis, I., Voutsina, K. and Patsiotis, A. (2019), “Internship and employability prospects:
assessing student’s work readiness”, Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, Vol. 9
45,5 No. 4, pp. 538-549.
Kleinhans, K.A., Chakradhar, K., Muller, S. and Waddill, P. (2015), “Multigenerational perceptions of
the academic work environment in higher education in the United States”, Higher Education,
Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 89-103.
682 Lim, Y.M., Lee, T.H., Yap, C.S. and Ling, C.C. (2016), “Employability skills, personal qualities, and early
employment problems of entry-level auditors: perspectives from employers, lecturers, auditors,
and students”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 185-192.
Lyons, S. and Kuron, L. (2014), “Generational differences in the workplace: a review of the evidence and
directions for future research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35, pp. S139-S157.
Miller, A.C. and Mills, B. (2019), “If they don’t care, I don’t care: millennial and generation Z students
and the impact of faculty caring”, Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 78-89.
Morse, J.M. (2000), “Determining sample size”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 3-5.
Morse, J.M. (2010), “Simultaneous and sequential qualitative mixed method designs”, Qualitative
Inquiry, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 483-491.
Neneh, B.N. (2019), “An empirical study of personality traits, job market appraisal and self-perceived
employability in an uncertain environment”, Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 255-274.
O’Leary, S. (2017), “Graduates’ experiences of, and attitudes towards, the inclusion of employability-
related support in undergraduate degree programmes; trends and variations by subject
discipline and gender”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 84-105.
Pinto, L.H. and Ramalheira, D.C. (2017), “Perceived employability of business graduates: the effect of
academic performance and extracurricular activities”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 99,
pp. 165-178.
PwC (2017), “Workforce of the future: the views of 10,000 workers”, available at: www.pwc.com/gx/en/
services/people-organisation/workforce-of-the-future/workforce-of-future-appendix.pdf (accessed
10 April 2021).
PwC (2020), “Upskilling: building confidence in an uncertain world”, available at: www.pwc.com/gx/en/
ceo-agenda/ceosurvey/2020/trends/talent.html (accessed 10 April 2021).
Rae, D. (2007), “Connecting enterprise and graduate employability: challenges to the higher education
culture and curriculum?”, Education þ Training, Vol. 49 Nos 8/9, pp. 605-619.
Rani, N. and Samuel, A. (2016), “A study on generational differences in work values and person-
organization fit and its effect on turnover intention of generation Y in India”, Management
Research Review, Vol. 39 No. 12, pp. 1695-1719.
Ritter, B.A., Small, E.E., Mortimer, J.W. and Doll, J.L. (2018), “Designing management curriculum for
workplace readiness: developing students’ soft skills”, Journal of Management Education,
Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 80-103.
Römgens, I., Scoupe, R. and Beausaert, S. (2020), “Unraveling the concept of employability, bringing
together research on employability in higher education and the workplace”, Studies in Higher
Education, Vol. 45 No. 12, pp. 2588-2603.
Rosenberg, S., Heimler, R. and Morote, E.S. (2012), “Basic employability skills: a triangular design
approach”, Education þ Training, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 7-20.
Rothwell, A., Herbert, I. and Rothwell, F. (2008), “Self-perceived employability: construction and initial
validation of a scale for university students”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Rothwell, A., Jewell, S. and Hardie, M. (2009), “Self-perceived employability: investigating the responses
of post-graduate students”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 152-161.
Seemiller, C. and Grace, M. (2016), Generation Z Goes to College, John Wiley and Sons. Business
Sin, C. and Neave, G. (2016), “Employability deconstructed: perceptions of Bologna stakeholders”, employability
Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1447-1462.
for late
Stewart, J. and Knowles, V. (2000), “Graduate recruitment and selection practices in small businesses”,
Career Development International, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 21-38. millennials
Stewart, J.S., Oliver, E.G., Cravens, K.S. and Oishi, S. (2017), “Managing millennials: embracing
generational differences”, Business Horizons, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 45-54.
683
Succi, C. and Canovi, M. (2020), “Soft skills to enhance graduate employability: comparing students and
employers’ perceptions”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 45 No. 9, pp. 1834-1847.
Tanyel, F., Mitchell, M.A. and McAlum, H.G. (1999), “The skill set for success of new business school
graduates: do prospective employers and university faculty agree?”, Journal of Education for
Business, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 33-37.
Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V. and Braun, V. (2017), “Thematic analysis”, The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research in Psychology, Sage, London, pp. 17-37.
Times Higher Education (2020), “Global employability university ranking and survey 2020 released”,
available at: www.timeshighereducation.com/academic/press-releases/global-employability-
university-ranking-and-survey-2020-released-1 (accessed 10 April 2021).
Tsenga, H., Yib, X. and Yehc, H. (2019), “Learning-related soft skills among online business students in
higher education: grade level and managerial role differences in self-regulation, motivation, and
social skill”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 179-186.
Tymon, A. (2013), “The student perspective on employability”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 38
No. 6, pp. 841-856.
Vanhercke, D., De Cuyper, N., Peeters, E. and De Witte, H. (2014), “Defining perceived employability: a
psychological approach”, Personnel Review, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 592-605.
Wesley, S., Jackson, V. and Lee, M. (2017), “The perceived importance of core soft skills between
retailing and tourism management students, faculty and businesses”, Employee Relations,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 79-99.
Yawson, D.E. and Yamoah, F.A. (2020), “Understanding pedagogical essentials of employability
embedded curricula for business school undergraduates: a multi-generational cohort
perspective”, Higher Education Pedagogies, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 360-380.
Yorke, M. (2006), Employability in Higher Education: what It is- What It is Not, Vol. 1, Higher Education
Academy, York.

Further reading
Finch, D.J., Peacock, M., Levallet, N. and Foster, W. (2016), “A dynamic capabilities view of
employability”, Education þ Training, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 61-81.

Corresponding author
Eugenia Tzoumaka can be contacted at: etzoumaka@acg.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com