Are university and labor market wal king together [629319]

Are university and labor market wal king together?
The need to work hand -in-hand
M.C. Riera Prunera1, Y. Blasco Martel2, L. Duque3, J. López Tamayo1, M. Pujol Jover4
mcriera -[anonimizat], [anonimizat], [anonimizat], [anonimizat], [anonimizat]

1Dep. de Econometría,
Estadística y E. Aplicada 2Dep. Historia e
Instituciones Económicas 3Dep. de Economía y
Empresa
4Dep. de Economía y
Empresa
Universitat de Barcelona Universitat de Barcelona Universidad Carlos III Universitat Oberta (UOC)
Barcelona, Spain Barcelona, Spain Madrid, Spain Barcelona, Spain

Abstract This article studies the acquisition level of basic and
transversal skills through a self -assessment made by the students
and the assessment made by the companies where students have
carried out internships during the final stages of their studies. To
do this we prepared and distributed two questionnaires, one for
the students who completed internships in a firm and another one
for the firms’ students’ tutors. To analyze the results we have
focused on procedures associated with the analysis of variance,
ANOVA. More specifically we have applied the SERVQUAL [1]
model. This model considers the presence of differences in terms
of expectations and perceptions between the two parties involved
in a provision of services. Identifying the main gaps in the
developme nt and assessment of the students’ skills becomes a key
issue, since it is crucial when determining not only their transition
to the labor market, but how to achieve the skills level students
must have when they start working and, therefore, their chances
of success or failure, the odds of a good performance in the
company, or their learning ability.
Keywords – gap analysis, instrumental competences,
interpersonal competences, professional competences, ANOVA test
I. INTRODUCTION
In the current environment, wh ere society demands vision,
entrepreneurship and generation of new ideas, the training of
college graduates is crucial. The new competence -based
learning model requires modern and valuable learning tools to
allow graduates to develop skills and becoming ac tive
constructors of knowledge rather than just passive receivers of
contents [2]. Reference [3] remark s the critical role of university
as a center of knowledge and innovation, highlighting its
profound importance in building a strong economy. Meanwhile,
[4] emphasizes the need to enrich the interaction between
university, business and government.
For this reason the acquisition of a solid and high degree of
competences is extremely important, since it facilitates the
transition of graduates into the labor market ([5], [6], [7]).
Reference [8] reinforce s this idea, highlighting that the speed at
which the graduates learn to develop their work is based on the
level and type of skills acquired. Reference [9] added that the
graduates, who learn to manage their own learning during their
time at university will better manage with their professional
duties with initiative, creativity and the necessary degree of
autonomy. There are numerous studies showing the point of view of
firms, both at a national level ([10] [11], [12], [13]) and at the
international level ([14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]). These
studies evaluate the satisfaction of employers with graduates,
and reveal that the latter do not always meet the expectations of
the former. This is usually not due to a lack of specific
knowledge of the profession by the graduates, but to a lack of
competencies, which sometimes turns out to be an
insurmountable barrier when applying what they have learnt to
a professional context. The [21] report for the Aust ralian
administration emphasizes this idea, concluding that those
graduates, who are rejected by the company, tend to be the ones
with lower skill levels. In fact, companies often prefer to hire
graduates rather than less qualified workers, just because th ey
are supposed to have better skills.
In this context, this paper aims at displaying that the
rapprochement between academia and enterprises still has a long
way to go, because there are strong conceptual and practical
differences between what university teaches their graduates and
what companies seek after and appreciate of the new graduates
who start working for them. Based on a case study, we will
analyze which the major discrepancies are between the training
skills firms require from scholars and the s kills and knowledge
students acquired before entering the labor market.
The analysis undertaken in this paper is based on subjective
measures (perceptions), an approach that is increasingly being
used in the higher education literature (e.g. [22], [23], [ 24], [25]).
Specifically, we deep into the four possible existing gaps among
the two groups inspired in the SERVQUAL model proposed by
[1].
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Next, we
explain the framework of analysis and methodology applied;
then we set out our case of analysis detailing the main findings
and discussing the results. Finally, we conclude.
II. FRAMEWORK
At the origin of the process of creation of a European Higher
Education Area (EHEA) stands the Tuning project, whose
objective was to tune or synchronize the European university
realities. The EHEA is the area where European Universities
have agreed on the convergence strategy that allows
homologation of higher education degrees in the European
territory. The process of convergence in higher education, also

known as the Bologna Process, is one of the objectives set by the
European Commission in Lisbon in 2000 (the Lisbon Strategy).
The degrees in the European university system, within the
framework of the EHEA, are based on the European Credit
Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS). The ECTS credits
favor the harmonization of European diplomas as well as the
mobility of students and professionals throughout the European
territory.
For comparability purposes it was necessa ry to establish a
minimum level of assessed competences all students should
reach at the end of their degree. The competences were defined
as:
"(…) a dynamic combination of cognitive and metacognitive
capacities, knowledge and understanding, interpersona l,
intellectual and practical, as well as ethical values. Fostering
these competences is the main purpose of all educational
systems (…). The competences are developed in all unit courses
and are evaluated in different phases of a course. They can be
divid ed into competences related to disciplines (specific to a
field of study) and generic competences (common to any degree
course) "([26], p.3).
Based on this framework, competences characterizing the
different degrees were defined and compiled in the differe nt
phases of the Tuning project ([26], [27]). At this point, each
national university context defined, in agreement with their
governments, their particular way of joining the EHEA. The
universities had to maintain a sufficient degree of autonomy to
keep t heir identity. This identity was characterized by the
competences they prioritized to develop, as well as by the degree
of acceptance of graduates when entering the labor market.
The European Parliament has monitored the implementation
of the Bologna process, issuing a resolution on April, 28th, 2015
(2015/2039 (INI)), pointing out the need to assess the progress
already made while inviting all the parts to go deeper into the
Process (basically with respect to quality assurance). That is,
involving gov ernments and universities largely and equipping
them with resources. It also points out that:
"The analysis so far made shows that almost one out of three
EU employers find it difficult to properly meet qualified
employees; thus, up to date, the Bologna re form has not been
very successful in terms of reducing the inadequacy of
qualifications in the EU (the gap between professional
qualifications and labor market demand is still high). This
mismatch has become a crucial challenge for Europe, covering
differe nt spheres of society, from productivity and efficiency of
enterprises to current and future young people well -being."
"Although the Bologna process has guided and motivated
educational reforms in most countries, in others it may be
perceived as a bureaucr atic burden due to poor communication
and misunderstanding of its true vision."
In this line, one of the current challenges of the EHEA
strongly associated with our work is to promote the
employability of university graduates (European Ministers
Responsibl e for Higher Education 2009, 2 -5). III. METHODOLOGY

The SERVQUAL (SERVice QUALity) model is based on
five discrepancies or gaps, the most relevant one being the
discrepancy customers see between what they expected and
what they finally perceived from the serv ice delivery. This main
difference comes as a result of the four remaining gaps: lack of
knowledge of the other party’s expectations, service
specifications as understood by the different employees in the
organization, different ways of communications that shape
customers’ expectations and resources available for delivering
the service as specified. We believe that it is possible to adapt
this model comparing tutors' and students’ perceptions of
required and acquired competences like some authors did,
cover ing different aspects on higher education (balancing
perceptions and expectations between students and faculty,
understanding perceptions at different levels of an institution,
comparing other stakeholders and employers perspectives,
developing specific me asures for postgraduate programs, etc.) as
reviewed by [28]. Furthermore, [29], identifies six service
quality dimensions that are relevant in higher education.
In this study we apply the SERVQUAL model to look at the
perspectives of two main actors in the higher education service:
students (direct customers of the service) and tutors (indirect
beneficiary in the job market side). One key aspect of our
approach is that we do not look at the service quality dimensions,
but at the competences developed at Uni versity. Our framework
considers 4 gaps. Gap A looks at the competences tutors observe
in interns, compared to what they expect to find. Gap B captures
what scholars think is the level of competences acquired during
their studies, compared to they think ar e being required by firms.
Gap C takes into account both perspectives and conducts the
related pair analysis in terms of expectations (competences
required at work). Finally, Gap D focuses on the dyad analysis
in terms of the level of competences shown at work. This last
gap is quite revealing since it shows the direct assessment of
competences’ perception. Figure 1 displays the conceptual
model we use for this dyad of perspectives.
FIGURE 1. FRAMEWORK FOR GAP ANALYSIS

Source: own elaboration

To undert ake our analysis we elaborated and distributed two
questionnaires: one for the University of Barcelona students who
do internships in a firm under the "Santander Internship
Program" and another one for the tutors those firms assigned to

each of the scholar s, ensuring that the same sets of competences
were directly comparable.
We analyzed the discrepancies corresponding to 38
competences grouped into three sets: instrumental (11),
interpersonal (12) and professional (15). The questionnaire for
the firms’ tu tors has included questions on the assessment of the
competence level of students. Regarding the questionnaire for
the students, they were asked about the skills they were required,
and the degree of application of the skills acquired during their
studies to the work they have developed at the firm. Out of 192
tutors and students, one hundred and fifty one tutors and eighty –
one students answered the questionnaire. Under the assumption
of maximum indeterminacy (p=q=0.5), and with a 95%
confidence level, the sample allows for a 3.69% error and a 8.3%
error in the estimates respectively. As both questionnaires were
anonymous we believe that no other type of bias is present
except for the non -response bias, as usual in most survey studies
(e.g. [30], [31]).
The questionnaire assessed each competence through a
quantitative Likert scale ranging from lowest (1) to highest (10)
perception. Tutors were asked to rate both the required level of
each competence in order to work in their firms, and the level
shown by the students at work. Students were asked to rate the
level at which each competence is required by the firm, as well
as the level to which they acquired that competence during their
studies.
The gap analysis was performed using the program SPSS
Statistics 2 3. We use the ANOVA test to evaluate the
discrepancies existing between mentors’ and scholars’
perceptions, and also to capture the opinion of each group with
respect to performance versus expectations (significance level
was set to 0.05 and variances betw een the two groups were
assumed unequal). In line with marketing literature
recommendations ([32]) we also checked for consistency of the
three sets of competences ([33]) in order to create overall indices
that will allow us to perform a general comparison within the
analysis of gap D.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIO N
Our results refer to four categories following the gaps
analyzed (see Table 1). For each set of competences, we detail
the most relevant discrepancies, based on the size of the
statistically significant differences.
Columns 5 and 6 in Table 1 show the divergence between
what tutors perceive from students' current level of competences
and the required level of abilities for the job (Gap A). Among
the instrumental and interpersonal competences, approximately
half of the disparities are found to be significant, but this value
increases up to two thirds when it comes to professional skills.
All significant discrepancies are found to be negative. This
means that from the tutors' perspective there is still some way to
go in order for the students to improve their level of competence
attainment. Regarding instrumental and interpersonal
competences, larger development is needed in analysis and
synthesis, organization and planning, knowledge to practice,
problem solving, autonomous work ability, native language oral
ability, critical skills, teamwork and work under pressure. With
respect to the professional competences, tutors consider that students have effectively achieved the required level in terms of
economic vocabulary, ability to make technical reports, macro –
environment knowledge, internationalization strategies and
government policies implications, whereas in the rest, they
should improve their level.
It is worth mentioning that there is a unique ability tutors
perceived as overachieved by students, namely “environmental
and social impact appreciation”.
Columns 7 and 8 of Table 1 display the differences perceived
by students between what they think is the standard the level of
competences achieved at university and the effectively required
level at the firm (Gap B). We find that students perceive there
exist discrepancies in 10 out of the 38 competences under
analysis. In 7 of them they consider they have not achieved the
level required at the firm: computer skills, knowledge
application into practice, ability to adapt to new situations,
initiative and entrepreneurship, firm internal knowledge,
international strategies knowledge and government policies
implications, thus mainly centered on profession al competences.
In contrast, they believe they are overqualified in general and
specific degree knowledge and multiculturalism appreciation.
Columns 9 and 10 of Table 1 illustrate the discrepancies
between students' and tutors' perceptions of skills requi red (Gap
C). In this case, only in 3 out of 38 cases differences are
statistically significant. Students consider they are required a
higher level than tutors really do in responsibility and decision
making. On the contrary, their perceived requirement is lower
than the one tutors effectively demand in specific degree
knowledge and foreign language knowledge.
Finally, columns 11 and 12 of Table 1, present the disparities
between what students perceive they have achieved at university
and what tutors observ e with respect to the standards of abilities
students show (Gap D). Scholars seem to underestimate their
level of skills achieved in the following abilities: foreign
language knowledge, knowledge application into practice,
business ethics, firm internal kn owledge and government
policies implications. Contrarily, they overestimate their
attainment in the ability to work autonomously and when
concluding and interpreting results. Note that all significant
discrepancies are focused on instrumental and professio nal
skills.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper studies the relationship between the skills
developed at university and those labour market demands based
on a gap model. Significant differences in the perception of
which the most important abilities are for a good deve lopment
of the professional carrier of a graduate student are found
depending on which group, students or tutors, make the
assessment.
The main conclusions from the gap analysis performed is
that (i) students are not taught all the specific knowledge that
apparently would be useful in the immediate future to
successfully join the labour market (gap A); (ii) students seem
to lack some degree of self -esteem and self -confidence in their
abilities and knowledge (gap B, where the major negative
divergences conce ntrate). This is in line with [34] and [35]. An
encouraging finding though is that both employers’ and students'

perceptions of required competences seem to work in the same
direction (gap C). Moreover, in terms of what they are required
at work, the asses sment of both sides shrinks quite a lot,
connoting the smallest disparities in the analysis.
We believe that university should specially concentrate its
efforts on boosting the capabilities whose differences are present
in most of the gaps. In order to do so a more direct and deeper
contact between university and firms is needed. Firms should
play an active role jointly with university managers at designing
some strategies, methodologies and contents in this line. For
instance, conferences, seminars and le ctures could be organized
as a requirement to successfully pass a subject. This type of
lectures should focus their attention specially on fostering team –
work and communication among graduates. Furthermore, direct
contact with firms under the form of inter nships and specific
collaboration should be introduced at early stages of the studies
to facilitate the necessary interaction between students and
firms. It would also help if the final projects undergraduates
must prepare were held at a specific firm. In short, it is important
that employers as well as university act reinforcing students’
self-confidence, which would certainly help them in terms of
better performing when entering the labour market.
Notwithstanding, we should first wonder what kind of labo ur
market we want to have, what kind of economy will lead us back
again to a stable growth path and decide which kind of college
education should our graduates be taught accordingly. Close
collaboration between business and academia would be
desirable in o rder for our graduates to receive the best possible
training, which could certainly help improving the productivity
of our economy. Following Bullard et al. (2014), university
curricula should prepare graduates for labour market providing
them the knowledg e, skills, abilities and behaviour that cover
not only firms but also societal needs. Secondly, businessmen
should also be required to think about the best profile of worker
as well as to make their complaints and demands more explicit
and doing it with a long-term vision. Whether the seeking of
immediacy and effectiveness could be at the cost of renouncing
to strict knowledge and cognitive advance is a question that
remains to be answered.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the help received t hrough
the project REDICE16 -1562: Labour and training needs and
requirements for graduates. Analysing the existing competence
gap on the basis of firm internships , funded by the Institut de
Ciències de l'Educació (ICE), Universitat de Barcelona, 2016.
The authors would also like to thank the Borsa de treball at
the University of Barcelona for their useful and valuable
collaboration in the questionnaires’ design and especially in
their distribution throughout the different faculties.
They also thank the memb ers of the group ECO2015 –
66782 -P: Economic Crises: Changes and Challenges. An
economic history perspective for their comments on previous
versions of the paper.
The usual disclaimer applies.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Parasuraman, V. Z. Zeithaml and L. Berry, “A Conceptual Model of
Service Quality and its Implications for Future Research”, Journal of
Marketing, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 41 -50, 1985.
[2] E. Serradell -López, A. Fitó Bertran, M. Pujol -Jover, V. Dalton, K.
Hempsall and A. B. Hernandez -Lara. Online Tools for Man agement
Skills Development, poster presented at the First UOC International
Research Symposium, Barcelona, December 18th, 2013.
[3] T. Munroe and M. Westwind, What Makes Silicon Valley Tick? The
Ecology of Innovation at Work, New York: Nova Vista Publishing, 2 009.
[4] H. Etzkowitz, “Innovation in Innovation: the Triple Helix of University –
Industry -Government Relations”, Social Science Information sur les
Sciences Sociales, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 293 -337, 2003.
[5] M. Salas Velasco, “Do higher education institutions make a difference in
competence development? A model of competence production at
university”, Higher Education, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 503 -523, 2014.
[6] S. Chillas, “Degrees of fit? Matching in the graduate labour market”,
Employee Relations, vol. 32, no. 2, pp.156 -170, 2010.
[7] G. Boccuzzo and M. Gianecchini, “Measuring young graduates’ job
quality through a composite indicator”, Social Indicators Research, vol.
122, pp. 453 –478, 2015.
[8] H, Heijke, C. Meng, and C. Ris, “Fitting to the Job: The Tole of Generic
and Vocationa l Competencies in Adjustment and Performance”, Labour
Economics, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 215 -229, 2003.
[9] S. Moore, and M. Murphy, Estudiantes Excelentes. 100 Ideas Prácticas
para Mejorar el Autoaprendizaje en Educación Superior. Madrid: Narcea,
2009.
[10] J. Cajide, C. Abeal, F. Barreiro, E. Zamora, A. Expósito and J. Mosteiro,
“Competencias Adquiridas en la Universidad y Habilidades Requeridas
por los Empresarios”, Revista de Investigación Educativa, vol. 20, no. 2,
pp. 449 -467, 2002.
[11] M. Marzo Navarro, M. Pedraja Ig lesias and P. Rivera Torres,
“Determinants of the Satisfaction of Firms with the Competencies of
University Students: a Spanish Case Study”, International Journal of
Training and Development, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 282 –292, 2008.
[12] M. Alcañiz -Zanón, O. Claveria -González and M.C. Riera -Prunera,
“Competencias en educación superior desde tres perspectivas diferentes:
estudiantes, empleadores y académicos”, Revista Iberoamericana de
Educación (RIE), vol. 66, no 2, pp. 1 -19, 2014.
[13] M. Alcañiz -Zanón, M.C. Riera -Prunera and O. Claveria -González. “La
formació competencial dels llicenciats en economia i empresa: una visió
des del seu entorn profesional”, Revista d’Innovació i Recerca en
Educació, vol. 6, no 2, pp. 64 –85, 2013.
[14] F. Karakaya and F. Karakaya, “Employer Expect ations from a Business
Education”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, vol. 7, no. 1, pp.
9-16, 1996.
[15] T.H. Willis and A.J. Taylor, “Total Quality Management and Higher
Education: the Employers’ Perspective”, Total Quality Management,
vol.10, no. 7, pp. 997 -1007, 1999.
[16] A.J. Hesketh, Recruiting an Elite? Employers’ Perceptions of Graduate
Education and Training”, Journal of Education and Work, vol.13, no. 3,
pp. 245 -271, 2000.
[17] R. G. Biesma, M. Pavlova, G.G. Van Merode and W. Groot, “Using
conjoint anal ysis to estimate employers preferences for key competencies
of master level Dutch graduates entering the public health field”,
Economics of Education Review, vol. 26, no. 3, 375 -386, 2007.
[18] R. Bridgstock, “The graduate attributes we've overlooked: Enhancing
graduate employability through career management skills”, Higher
Education Research & Development, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 31 -44, 2009.
[19] J.E. Crossman and M. Clarke, “International experience and graduate
employability: Stakeholder perceptions on the connectio n”, Higher
Education, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 599 -613, 2010.
[20] M. Branine and A, Avramenko, “A comparative analysis of graduate
employment prospects in european labour markets: A study of graduate
recruitment in four countries”, Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 69, no. 4,
pp. 342 -365, 2015.

[21] AcNielsen Research Services, Employer Satisfaction with Graduate
Skills. Research Report, http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv13863,
2000. Accessed November, 3rd, 2015.
[22] S.Tazreen, “An Empirical Study of Servqual as a Tool for S ervice Quality
Measurement”, Journal of Business and Management, vol.1, no. 5, pp. 9 –
19, 2012.
[23] A. Rasli, A, Shekarchizadeh and M. Jawad Iqbal, “Perception of Service
Quality in Higher Education: Perspective of Iranian Students of
Malaysian Universities”, I nt. Journal of Economics and Management, vol.
6, no. 2, pp. 201 –220, 2012.
[24] L.C. Duque and J.R. Weeks, “Towards a model and methodology for
assessing student learning outcomes and satisfaction, Quality Assurance
in Education, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 84 -105, 201 0.
[25] R. Arambewela and J. Hall, “A comparative analysis of international
education satisfaction using SERVQUAL”, Journal of Services Research,
vol. 6, Special Issue, pp. 141 -163, 2006.
[26] J. González and R. Wagenaar (ed), Tuning Educational Structures in
Europ e. Informe Final Fase I, Universidad de Deusto. Bilbao, 2003.
[27] J. González and R. Wagenaar, R. (ed), Tuning Educational Structures in
Europe II. La contribución de las universidades al proceso de Bolonia,
Bilbao, 2006.
[28] C. Zafiropoulos and V. Vrana, “Service quality assessment in a Greek
higher education institute”, Journal of Business Economics and
Management, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 33 -45, 2008. [29] A. Firdaus, “The development of HEdPERF: a new measuring instrument
of service quality for higher education”, Interna tional Journal of
Consumer Studies, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 569 -581, 2006.
[30] S. Lefever, M. Dal and A. Matthíasdóttir, “Online data collection in
academic research: advantages and limitations”, British Journal of
Educational Technology, vol. 38, pp. 574 –582, 200 7.
[31] D. D. Nulty, “The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys:
what can be done?”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol.
33, no. 3, pp. 301 -314, 2008.
[32] J.R. Rossiter, “The C -OAR -SE procedure for scale development in
marketing”, Int ernational Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 19,
pp.305 –335, 2002.
[33] L. J. Cronbach, “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of test”,
Psichometrica, vol.16, pp. 297 -334, 1951.
[34] A. Conchado, J.,M. Carot and M.C. Bas, “Competencies for knowledge
management: Development and validation of a scale”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, vol. 19, no. 4, 836 -855, 2015.
[35] J. Brachem and E.M.P. Braun, “Requirements higher education graduates
meet on the labor market”, Peabody Journal of Education, vol. 90, no. 4,
574-595, 2015.
.

TABLE I. TUTORS ’ AND SCHOLARS ’ PERCEPTIONS ASSESSME NT: MEAN AND GAPS OBSERV ED

Tutors Students GAP A GAP B GAP C GAP D
Competencesa Req. Obs. Req. Att. Diff. ANOV
A Diff. ANOV
A Diff. ANOV
A Diff. ANOV
A Instrumental (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
1 Analysis and synthesis 7,88 8,07 8,31 8,51 -,185 ,041** ,198 ,328 ,185 ,514 ,370 ,111
2 Organization and planning 7,90 8,13 8,41 8,48 -,227 ,023** ,074 ,752 ,238 ,423 ,395 ,134
3 General basic knowledge 7,98 8,03 7,96 8,64 -,057 ,497 ,679 ,003*** -,333 ,227 ,350 ,148
4 Specific degree knowledge 7,95 8,04 7,32 8,15 -,082 ,330 ,827 ,003*** -1,062 ,003*** -,160 ,469
5 Foreign language knowledge 7,70 7,54 7,04 6,81 ,155 ,160 -,222 ,425 -,802 ,033*** -1,123 ,001***
6 Computer skills 7,85 7,98 8,32 7,46 -,130 ,149 -,864 ,001*** 0,000 1,000 -,463 ,120
7 Knowledge application into practice 7,95 8,28 8,20 7,59 -,330 ,001*** -,605 ,024** -,259 ,407 -,617 ,031**
8 Problem solving 7,83 8,12 8,49 8,06 -,285 ,004*** -,432 ,143 ,222 ,452 -,111 ,684
9 Information management 8,16 8,27 8,63 8,53 -,098 ,235 -,088 ,696 ,222 ,450 ,138 ,613
10 Autonomous work ability 7,91 8,33 8,66 8,78 -,409 ,000*** ,125 ,601 ,288 ,261 ,700 ,007***
11 Decision making 7,70 7,85 8,19 8,35 -,186 ,076* ,139 ,617 ,238 ,413 ,375 ,147
Interpersonal
1 Catalan and/or Spanish oral
communication 8,38 8,53 8,58 8,74 -,152 ,046** ,256 ,234 ,132 ,687 ,367 ,172
2 Catalan and/or Spanish written
communication 8,29 8,39 8,71 8,74 -,137 ,092* ,128 ,552 ,382 ,266 ,494 ,070*
3 Critical and self -critical ability 7,93 8,10 8,14 8,35 -,189 ,034** ,205 ,406 ,120 ,724 ,380 ,189
4 Team work 8,16 8,48 8,35 8,11 -,304 ,001*** -,231 ,414 -,118 ,707 -,038 ,893
5 Leadership 7,08 7,11 6,94 7,18 -,011 ,924 ,218 ,476 -,280 ,447 -,167 ,626
6 Ability to work under pressure 7,51 7,74 8,23 8,16 -,211 ,046** -,090 ,744 ,627 ,089* ,557 ,069*
7 Ability to pass on knowledge 7,46 7,61 7,71 8,18 -,132 ,184 ,500 ,092* 0,000 1,000 ,551 ,065*
8 Negotiating skills 7,11 7,23 7,20 7,18 -,075 ,460 0,000 1,000 -,378 ,292 -,221 ,544
9 Appreciation of multiculturalism 7,94 7,71 7,29 8,01 ,176 ,051* ,831 ,005*** -,200 ,627 -,013 ,967
10 Ability to impose authority 6,98 6,89 6,63 6,65 ,108 ,310 ,077 ,799 -,211 ,603 -,418 ,266
11 Design and manage projects 7,45 7,51 7,68 7,34 -,048 ,661 -,286 ,317 -,120 ,751 -,342 ,331
12 Environmental and social impact 7,48 7,14 6,92 7,03 ,324 ,008*** ,160 ,636 -,178 ,698 -,474 ,231
Professional / Systemic
1 Ability to adapt to new situations 7,97 8,16 8,68 7,92 -,201 ,020** -,757 ,002*** ,581 ,071* -,096 ,702
2 Capacity to learn 8,26 8,48 8,73 8,62 -,222 ,013** -,110 ,637 ,301 ,343 ,247 ,337
3 Creativity 7,74 8,07 8,05 7,54 -,340 ,001*** -,500 ,057* ,027 ,937 -,260 ,423
4 Initiative and entrepreneurship 7,71 8,20 8,07 7,36 -,497 ,000*** -,671 ,008*** -,055 ,873 -,301 ,345
5 Self -demand & success concern 7,81 8,28 8,45 8,26 -,470 ,000*** -,189 ,449 ,274 ,434 ,384 ,209
6 Responsibility in decision making 7,62 7,99 8,51 8,07 -,385 ,001*** -,384 ,092* ,616 ,043** ,356 ,249
7 Economic vocabulary use 7,04 7,17 7,00 6,95 -,152 ,173 -,054 ,870 0,000 1,000 -,153 ,678
8 Conclude and interpret results 7,58 7,98 8,25 8,26 -,441 ,000*** -,014 ,955 ,311 ,319 ,753 ,011**
9 Ability to make technical reports 7,43 7,56 8,05 7,65 -,167 ,145 -,370 ,142 ,403 ,286 ,192 ,513
10 Business ethics 7,56 7,91 7,27 6,72 -,333 ,003*** -,569 ,058* -,608 ,102 -,831 ,023**
11 Global vision 7,40 7,75 7,73 7,69 -,379 ,000*** -,054 ,853 ,027 ,937 ,333 ,294
12 Firm internal knowledge 7,17 7,35 7,49 6,41 -,219 ,034** -1,081 ,001*** ,162 ,648 -,726 ,045**
13 Macroenvironment knowledge 7,04 7,05 6,95 6,49 -,066 ,544 -,446 ,118 -,189 ,621 -,542 ,145
14 Internationalization strategies 6,87 6,81 6,81 6,00 -,023 ,831 -,797 ,008*** ,068 ,877 -,653 ,114
15 Government policies implications 6,94 6,80 6,68 5,91 ,058 ,625 -,781 ,014** -,233 ,612 -,973 ,017**
a Competence names are taken from http://www.kent.ac.uk/careers/sk/skillsmenu.htm . *, **, *** shows if the difference is significant at 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively. n.s. stands for non -significant
difference. Source: own elaboration.