Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Management Student, Professor, and Recruiter
Perceptions of Objectives for Gateway Positions:
An Assessment
Robin T. Peterson
To cite this article: Robin T. Peterson (2004) Management Student, Professor, and Recruiter Perceptions of Objectives for Gateway Positions: An Assessment, Journal of Education for Business, 79:4, 209-212, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.79.4.209-212
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.79.4.209-212
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 7
ach academic year, numerous new degree recipients in management emerge to seek employment (Maher & Silverman, 2002). Despite increases in unemployment among managers in recent years (Barta, 2003), competition for these and other business administra-tion graduates, especially for those who are highly qualified, is intense (Strout, 2000). Nevertheless, shortages of candi-dates with desired skills exist in many sectors of the economy and are expect-ed to increase in the future—especially as baby boomers continue to retire (Archer, 2002). Numerous experts in recruiting advise managers to continue rigorous recruiting efforts, even in the face of declining industry and company revenues (Kesner, 2002). This need is especially acute for companies that are moving into new industries, such as government contracts and homeland security (Krell, 2002).
Graduates searching for entry-level jobs are looking for positions that will help them achieve significant life goals. Only a limited volume of insights is available regarding which criteria grad-uates use to select companies with whom to seek employment. Equally unclear is the extent to which professors and corporate recruiters are knowledge-able on student employer selection cri-teria. I undertook the present study to generate insights into these areas.
Today many managers, public policy formulators, educators, parents, and social commentators hold an interest in the factors sought by college graduates in potential employers. In turn, these criteria tend to reflect the ideals, values, norms, and objectives of society at large (Carroll & Ponterotto, 1998; Vroom, 1966). In the 1950s, graduates tended to seek individualistic goals such as good salaries, opportunities for promotion, fringe benefits, and job security. This pattern was reversed during the 1970s, when preferences reflected desires for positions that would advance social movements embracing causes such as social justice, world peace, and enhancement of the physical environ-ment. In the 1970s and 1980s, both graduates and society at large displayed an attraction to individual achievement and career-related rewards. In turn, the 1990s witnessed an interest in a
combi-nation of job attainment, job security, and self-improvement efforts designed to improve one’s status in a profession (Anderson, Stanley, & Parker, 1992). Against this background, we lack a composite perspective of the specific values that graduating management stu-dents perceive as most important in the 21st century.
In addition, there is a knowledge gap regarding the extent to which manage-ment professors and corporate recruiters are aware of the entry-level job criteria of graduates. Professors who are cog-nizant of these values can assist their students and advisees on how to prepare for specific careers and obtain appropri-ate positions. We even can argue that professors have a responsibility to instill “proper” and socially acceptable values in students (Carson & Carson, 1998), which, in turn, would advance their con-tribution to the goals of society. The success of corporate recruiters is influ-enced substantially by the degree to which they can inform students on how their firms can help further graduates’ objectives (Gati, 1998). On the other hand, if the recruiters prioritize criteria that are not central to graduates, their efforts may not be very fruitful.
In light of these observations, insights regarding the criteria used by recent graduates who seek entry-level positions would be potentially useful to
Management Student, Professor,
and Recruiter Perceptions of
Objectives for Gateway Positions:
An Assessment
ROBIN T. PETERSON
New Mexico State University Las Cruces, New Mexico
E
ABSTRACT. In this article, the author surveyed senior level manage-ment majors, managemanage-ment professors, and campus recruiters to investigate the criteria used by the students in selecting desirable positions for employment and the accuracy of man-agement professors’ and corporate recruiters’ perceptions of those crite-ria. The author identified the criteria and found that professors and recruiters were not highly accurate in identifying these variables.
recruiters, executives, educators, and society at large.
Previous Studies
Some researchers have surveyed graduating students regarding the crite-ria that they use in seeking positions (Anonymous, 2003; Leonard, 1999; Lovett, 1999; Nagle & Bohovich, 2000). Some of these studies have been large sample statistical surveys, whereas others have used qualitative research techniques employing in-depth inter-views and focus groups (Young, Antal, & Bassett, 1999).
The National Association of Colleges and Employers obtained some enlight-ening findings relating to sought-after entry-level job criteria in a recent survey of members of Generation X regarding their views on careers, the job search, and other work-related issues, (Collins, 1996). The top four choices, in descend-ing order of preference, were “enjoydescend-ing what I do,” “opportunity to use skills/abilities,” “opportunity for per-sonal development,” and “feeling what I do matters.” All of these relate to per-sonal satisfaction with one’s job’s responsibilities and challenges. Next were “benefits,” “recognition of good performance,” “friendly co-workers,” “job location,” and “lots of money.” These factors, all outside the purview of job duties, relate to the accoutrements of the job. At the bottom of the list were “working in teams” and “tuition reim-bursement.” Some studies have revealed differences in these preferences across gender (Ellis & Herrman, 1983; Gaylen, Chandler, Jansen, & Mero, 2000; Young & Chen, 1999) and occupational groups (Strout, 2000).
The results cited above are reason-ably consistent with those of Montana and Lenaghan’s (1999) study of job choice criteria employed by business administration students. In that study, the major motivators were “respect for me as a person,” “opportunity to do interesting work,” “feeling my job is important,” “opportunity for self-development and improvement,” and “large amount of freedom on the job.” These results are very consistent with the rankings given by managers regard-ing the factors that they perceived as
the major motivators. These factors were “respect for me as a person,” “good pay,” “opportunity to do inter-esting work,” “feeling my job is important,” “opportunity for self-development and improvement,” and “large amount of freedom on the job.” Despite these previously cited studies, there is a lack of specific information on the specific criteria used by recent man-agement graduates in seeking entry-level employment. Further, there is a void in the knowledge of the extent to which professors and recruiters are informed regarding those criteria.
Method
I forwarded packets of 21 question-naires and accompanying cover letters to 100 randomly selected management professors listed in the membership ros-ter of the Academy of Management. The cover letters provided a description of the objectives of my inquiry and requested that the professors furnish the questionnaires to 10 randomly selected management majors who would gradu-ate with bachelor’s degrees that year. Further, I asked each professor to pro-vide somewhat similar questionnaires to 10 randomly chosen campus recruiters who were seeking management gradu-ates and to complete a questionnaire him- or herself. As an inducement for
participation in the study, the professors and the recruiters were promised a copy of the results of the study, if desired. After acquiring the completed question-naires, cooperating respondents were to return them to the professors, who would mail them back to the researcher in stamped, self-addressed envelopes. Both the cover letter and the question-naire promised confidential treatment of the research results and anonymity of individual responses.
The student portion of the sample produced 764 usable returned question-naires (a response rate of 76.4%). The corresponding number for recruiters was 582 (a response rate of 58.2%), and that for professors was 87 (a response rate of 87.0%).
The measuring instrument employed in this study contained 14 9-point scales. I developed and previously used this particular instrument in a study of college of business entry-level job val-ues (Peterson, 1989). On the measuring instrument, students rated the impor-tance of each of the 14 job values or attributes on a 9-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly dis-agree. The professors and recruiters completed an identical questionnaire, except that the instructions asked them to indicate how important they felt each of the values were to graduating man-agement students.
TABLE 1. Perceived Significance of Job Criteria: Mean Values for Management Students, Management Professors, and Recruiters
Students Professors Recruiters
Values M Rank M Rank M Rank
Opportunity for self-development 8.51 1 6.95* 8 7.15* 9 Challenge and responsibility 8.40* 2 5.13 12 7.83 4 Freedom on the job 8.13* 3 6.07 10 6.57 10 Opportunity for advancement 7.89* 4 5.88* 11 8.77* 1 Training 7.38* 5 7.51 6 8.39* 2 Job security 6.66* 6 7.44* 7 7.87 3 Type of work 6.32* 7 8.19 2 7.31 8 Financial compensation 6.01 8 8.63* 1 7.58* 5 Location of work 6.01* 9 8.01* 4 7.11* 6 Working conditions 5.69* 10 6.58* 9 6.43 11 Working with people 5.28* 11 8.09 3 5.59 14 Company reputation 5.21 12 7.69 5 6.42 7 “Other” 5.12* 13 4.31 14 6.25* 12 Job title 4.87 14 4.95* 13 5.72 13
*A mean that is significantly larger than the next smallest mean, according to a Tukey ktest at the .05 level.
Results
I determined the mean response for each of the three groups on each scale. In Table 1, I present the means and their rank order (in descending order of importance to the students) within their respective groupings.
For the student grouping, the top criteria were opportunity for self-development, challenge and responsi-bility, freedom on the job, opportunity for advancement, training, and job security (in descending order of importance). Criteria mentioned next included type of work, financial com-pensation, job location, and working conditions. Following these were working with people, company reputa-tion, “other,” and job title.
The values that student respondents sought most vigorously in entry-level positions were essentially higher level and intangible: They related to fulfillment, accomplishment, and self-actualization. Essentially, they reflect-ed long-term goal achievement, point-ed to the future, and were relatively abstract in nature, as opposed to “here and now,” short-term concrete goals reflected by criteria such as financial compensation and working conditions. The values uncovered in this study par-allel the goals of the Generation X cohort group investigated in the previ-ous study cited in this article. Status-oriented criteria, such as company rep-utation and job title, did not receive high rankings. Notably, “financial compensation” received a mid-to-low ranking, contrary to the popular con-ception that this is the primary driver of student job choice.
Columns 3 and 4 in Table 1 reveal that management professors, considered as a group, manifested considerable lack of accuracy in their perceptions of students’ criteria. From the perspective of the professors, the top student criteria were financial compensation, type of work, working with people, location of work, and company reputation. These factors were followed by training, job security, opportunity for self-develop-ment, and working conditions. Next mentioned were freedom on the job, opportunity for advancement, challenge and responsibility, job title, and “other.”
To a large extent, the professors apparently deduced that students use cri-teria that are largely concrete, short term, and oriented to the present rather than the future. For example, financial compensation received the top ranking among the criteria, and type of work attained the next highest rank. It would appear that professors are not highly accurate in judging students’ desires regarding employment. A calculation of Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance, which assesses the extent to which members of two or more sets rank order-ings of variables in a similar manner (Winkler & Hays, 1975), substantiates this conclusion. The Kendall Coefficient Win this case was calculated as .19, with an average correlation variation of .12, indicating that only about 12% of the variables had similar rankings.
Columns 5 and 6 of Table 1 present the mean ratings and the associated ranks for the criteria as perceived by the corporate recruiters. These respondents granted the top rankings to opportunity for advancement, training, job security, challenge and responsibility, and finan-cial compensation. These criteria were followed by location of work, company reputation, type of work, and opportuni-ty for self-development. Freedom on the job, working conditions, “other,” job title, and working with people scored lowest.
The recruiters perceived that entry-level job seekers are oriented toward future goals, because they placed high ratings on variables such as opportunity for advancement, training, and chal-lenge and responsibility. At the same time, they placed less importance on short-term variables, such as job securi-ty, financial compensation, and location of work. Overall, there was greater agreement between students and recruiters than there was between stu-dents and professors. This premise is reinforced by a coefficient of concor-dance of .34 and an associated average correlation variation of .28. Apparently, the recruiters are more knowledgeable than professors in their perceptions of students’ criteria in seeking entry-level jobs, but they are still imperfect judges of these variables, because only about 28 of the criteria had similar rankings among the two groups.
I performed a Kruskal-Wallis analy-sis of variance by ranks to determine whether the distribution of values among the three groups was identical. The computed value of chi-square with two degrees of freedom was 8.1937, which is significant at the .01 level. It appears that the three groups differed significantly in the rank values assigned to the variables, which substantiates the conclusions of the coefficient of concor-dance tests.
I calculated Spearman Rank Correla-tion Coefficients between the three groups. The correlation between students and professors was rs= .10, that between students and recruiters was rs= .25, and that between professors and recruiters was rs= 31. Results of ttests for the inde-pendence of two variables, based on these coefficients, indicate that the rankings of each pair were not correlated significant-ly at the .05 level. The greatest agreement was between professors and recruiters, but both of these departed substantially from the rankings of the students.
Discussion
The results of this inquiry reveal that a sample of management students in the early 21st century place high priorities on entry-level criteria that are intangible and reflect higher order goals—goals that correlate with accomplishment, self-actualization, and self-fulfillment. Many criteria indicated in this study centered on long-term future goals and tended to be relatively abstract. Further, the stu-dents’ criteria were very similar to values found previously for the overall Genera-tion X grouping. On the other hand, sta-tus and financial compensation criteria were not rated highly. Variables such as job title, company reputation, working with people, and working conditions did not receive high priority designations.
Professors, to a large degree, were unable to identify accurately the criteria preferred by students. They concluded that students prefer relatively concrete, short-term, present-oriented criteria. Pro-fessors gave financial compensation the top ranking; in contrast, students placed this criterion eighth in importance. In turn, professors assigned much lower rankings than did students to variables such as freedom on the job, opportunity
for advancement, and challenge and responsibility. This set of stated prefer-ences suggests that the professors felt that management students are more inter-ested in short-term, concrete values and less oriented to long-term, intangible goals. These differences exist despite the fact that students and professors are in frequent contact on campus and profes-sors are in a position to monitor and influence student value formation through classes, advising, and informal contacts (Hoffmon & Kelley, 1991).
It is not clear just how professors acquire their perceptions about student job preferences. Perhaps they obtain these from discussions with students or from conversations overheard among the students themselves. Alternatively, they may receive input from television, newspapers, academic publications, and other media. Whatever the sources, it appears that professors are not gaining accurate impressions about this impor-tant area of knowledge.
The information in Table 1 shows that the recruiters agreed with the students to a larger degree about the criteria than did the professors, despite the fact that recruiters and students do not normally interact on a frequent basis. However, in their role of seeking applicants, recruiters do contact large numbers of students from various institutions, and this experience may allow them to col-lect considerable intelligence regarding criteria most valued by students. The recruiters placed high emphasis on opportunity for advancement, training, and challenge and responsibility. In contrast, they gave low rankings to working with people, job title, and working conditions. These patterns are somewhat in accordance with the evalu-ations of the students. However, recruiters were imperfect predictors of students’ preferences, and the correla-tion between the two sets of rankings was not substantial.
This inquiry provides insights into some of the major entry-level job crite-ria that college recruiters might
empha-size while endeavoring to entice man-agement students to their companies. Intangible long-term criteria that are related to growth and future success appear to be of major importance. From a societal perspective, this pattern may be desirable, as it suggests that students are assuming a long-term perspective, rather than myopically gravitating toward short-term benefits that might not prove useful over time.
The management professors who par-ticipated in the study apparently were somewhat out of touch with the career orientations of their students. This situ-ation may be due partly to a lack of fre-quent, informal contact between stu-dents and faculty members, inadequate perceptual processes, or a common pro-fessional propensity to engage in rhetoric rather than to listen to students. Management professors should become more diligent in listening for student values so that they might become more proficient in career counseling and effectively assisting industry in recruit-ing efforts.
There are several limitations associat-ed with this study. The measuring instrument was restricted to 14 vari-ables. Given that the “other” category was indicated by some students, other variables could be of substantial merit. In addition, this study did not address the issue of why students hold these job criteria and why professors apparently are not more successful in perceiving them. These topics would be useful tar-gets for future research.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. H., Stanley, S. R., & Parker, T. H. (1992). Student perceptions of marketing careers and career decision influences: A retail-ing example. Journal of Marketing Education, 16(3), 46–56.
Anonymous. (2003). Great expectations: What the future holds for young managers. Management Services, 47(1), 6–7.
Archer, E. (2002). Why skimping on recruitment efforts will cost you. AFP Exchange, 22(6), 138–140.
Barta, P. (2003, May 5). The economy: April’s employment data show third straight month of job cuts. The Wall Street Journal,A2.
Carroll, C. B., & Ponterotto, J. G. (1998). Educa-tion and family components of identity in the transition from school to work. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22(1), 29–53.
Carson, K. D., & Carson, P. P. (1998). Career commitment, competencies, and citizenship. Journal of Career Development, 6(1), 195–208. Collins, M. (1996). Who are they and what do they want? Journal of Career Planning & Employment, 57(1), 41–44.
Ellis, R. A., & Herrman, M. S. (1983). Under-standing career goals of college women: Intradimensional variation in sex-typed occupa-tional choice. Sociology and Social Research, 34(2), 41–58.
Gati, I. (1998). Using career-related aspects to elicit preferences and characterize occupations for a better person-environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52(3), 343–356. Gaylen, A., Chandler, N., Jansen, E., & Mero, N.
P. (2000). Women business owners in tradition-al and non-traditiontradition-al industries. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(3), 279–303.
Hoffmon, K. D., & Kelley, S. W. (1991). The edu-cation service encounter: The socialization of students. Journal of Marketing Education, 15(2), 67–77.
Kesner, I. (2002). Partner with academia to build your firm. Consulting to Management,13(1), 15–20.
Krell, E. (2002). Recruiting outlook: Creative HR for 2003. Workforce, 81(13), 40–45.
Leonard, B. (1999). Study examines keys to recruiting, retention. HR Magazine, 44(9), 32–42.
Lovett, W. (1999). Charting career goals. Scholas-tic Math Magazine, 19(9), 6–8.
Maher, K., & Silverman, R. E. (2002, April 2). Career journal: Business school applications soar. The Wall Street Journal,B10.
Montana, P., & Lenaghan, J. A. (1999). What motivates and matters most to Generations X and Y. Journal of Career Planning & Employ-ment, 59(4), 27–30.
Nagle, R., & Bohovich, J. (2000). What goes into graduates’ career decisions.Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 60(3), 24–30. Peterson, R. (1989). Perceptions of student
pro-fessional goals in entry-level positions. Journal of Business and Economic Perspectives, 15(3), 89–94.
Strout, E. (2000). Start recruiting grads now. Sales and Marketing Management, 152(3), 11–13. Vroom, V. H. (1966). Organizational choice: A
study of pre- and post-decision processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Prefer-ence, 1(2), 212–225.
Winkler, R. L., & Hays, W. L. (1975).Statistics: Probability ,inference, and decision.New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Young, R. A., & Chen, C. P. (1999). Annual review: Practice and research in career counsel-ing and development. The Career Development Quarterly, 48(2), 98–141.
Young, R. A., Antal, S., & Bassett, M. E. (1999). The joint actions of adolescents in peer conver-sations about career. Journal of Adolescence, 22(4), 527–538.
