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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm

ET
61,5 Work-readiness integrated
competence model
Conceptualisation and scale development
568 Verma Prikshat
School of Management, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, UK
Received 14 May 2018
Revised 9 August 2018 Sanjeev Kumar
19 October 2018 School of Management Studies, Graphic Era University, Dehradun, India, and
6 December 2018
Accepted 8 January 2019 Alan Nankervis
School of Management, Curtin Business School, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to conceptualise graduate work-readiness (GWR) and to develop a
scale to measure it.
Design/methodology/approach – The methodology entailed the compilation of a literature review and the
conduct of qualitative interviews and a focus group to generate items. This study used the “resource-based
view” approach to conceptualise a multi-dimensional – “work-readiness integrated competence model
(WRICM)” – consisting of four main factors (namely, intellectual, personality, meta-skill and job-specific
resources), with a further ten sub-dimensions. Further, a series of tests were performed to assess its reliability
and validity.
Findings – A final 53-item WRICM scale covering four dimensions and ten sub-dimensions of GWR was
developed based on the perceptions of 362 HR professionals and managers from seven Asia-Pacific countries.
The ten sub-dimensions covering 53 work-readiness skills reflect the perceptions of stakeholders regarding
the work-readiness of graduates. The scale was found to be psychometrically sound for measuring GWR.
Research limitations/implications – Though the WRICM model is based on the inputs of different
stakeholders of GWR (employers, educators, policy makers and graduates), the development of the WRICM
scale is based on the perspectives of industry/employers only.
Practical implications – The WRICM model has implications for education, industry, professional
associations, policy makers and for graduates. These stakeholders can adapt this scale in assessing the work-
readiness of graduates in different streams of education.
Originality/value – The authors believe that the WRICM model is the first multi-dimensional construct
that is based on a sound theory and from the inputs from graduate work-readiness stakeholders from seven
Asia-Pacific countries.
Keywords Scale development, Graduate work-readiness, Work-readiness construct, Work-readiness scale,
Work-readiness model
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In the wake of contemporary requirements from employers, graduate work-readiness
(GWR) has emerged as an important criterion for employment and has become increasingly
demanded in the development of university graduates’ capabilities (Cavanagh et al., 2015;
Hager and Holland, 2006). Graduates are expected to exit their studies in work-ready mode
and with demonstrable levels of employability (Clarke, 2018). There has been growing
interest in conceptualising GWR during the past few years, accompanied by the
development of several measurement instruments to underpin the GWR construct
(Caballero et al., 2011; Cavanagh et al., 2015; Coetzee, 2014; Hambur et al., 2002; Jollands et al.,
Education + Training 2012; Litchfield et al., 2010; Raftopoulous et al., 2009; Walker et al., 2015). As a construct,
Vol. 61 No. 5, 2019
pp. 568-589
GWR is still in its early stages of development and there is both a lack of clarity and
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0040-0912
consistency regarding what is meant by work-readiness, and also with respect to the general
DOI 10.1108/ET-05-2018-0114 skills and attributes that demonstrate it (Cabellero and Walker, 2010). Given the public
policy significance of the topic, it is surprising that the concept remains largely undefined Work-readiness
and flexible, nor is it fully integrated or contextualised within a learning process (Burgess integrated
et al., 2018). Thus, there is a need to provide a valid conceptualisation and to develop an competence
associated measurement framework.
Extant GWR measures have been developed and validated in country-specific studies model
(Caballero et al., 2011; Coetzee, 2014; Hambur et al., 2002; Raftopoulous et al., 2009; Walker et al.,
2015), yet it has not been measured in the context of a specific region (e.g. the Asia-Pacific in 569
this case). It is worthwhile therefore to propose a measure of GWR for such a region, as the
countries included in this study share similarity in terms of high growth rates; significant
movements of cross-border trade, labour and capital; and most important of all, there have been
large flows of students across borders to access tertiary qualifications (Burgess et al., 2018).
Based on these observations, this study posits a work-readiness integrated competence
model (WRICM) based on a sound theoretical framework, and further systematically
develops a WRICM scale to measure GWR, and to provide an initial assessment of the
exploratory scale’s psychometric properties. The focus of the study is on graduates who
have completed tertiary education programmes, and the discussion therefore focusses on
pre-job entry and graduates who are seeking their first full-time job in industry. The main
purpose for proposing such a model and scale stems from the fact that there is no uniform
model or scale for accurately documenting GWR within the context of escalating and
changing needs in education and practice. GWR can always be considered as outcome
oriented, and the goal is to produce graduates who have effective knowledge and
competence that can be utilised in practical work settings. Although examples of
competency-based assessment are more prevalent in the medical and nursing literature (i.e.
Objective Structured Clinical Examination and Competency Outcomes and Performance
Assessment Model) which assess graduates against a “performance situation”, there is no
similar framework for measuring the work-readiness of graduates from a broad diversity of
disciplines. Considering these observations, a robust work-readiness framework is
warranted that can capture the readiness levels of graduates and can inform future
research to further come up with performance situation-based assessment measures. Thus,
this research proposes the WRICM scale as an effective framework for the full range of core
competencies essential for graduates to be considered “work-ready”. The WRICM
framework has the potential to subsequently create performance-based assessment
measures, similar to those used in medical and nursing contexts that can inform different
stakeholders about the actual levels of work-readiness levels based on the WRICM.
The paper begins with a review of the literature on GWR and discusses various models
and taxonomies of GWR and associated competencies observed in the extant literature,
together with a consideration of the different measures of GWR reported in earlier studies.
The following section explains the development of the proposed WRICM. The paper then
describes how the qualitative research was conducted in parallel with the literature review
to identify the factor structure of the WRICM framework, and explains the procedures
followed to refine the initial pool of 93 items into the proposed 10-item WRICM construct.
A series of tests were performed to assess its reliability and validity, as well as the
unidimensionality of its constituent dimensions. The final section highlights the usefulness
of the WRICM framework and scale for researchers and managers and concludes with
recommendations for future research.

2. Review of literature
2.1 Graduate work-readiness
The extent to which graduates are work-ready is suggested to be indicative of potential job
performance, success or promotion and career advancement (Atlay and Harris, 2000;
Casner-Lotto and Barrington, 2006). There is a range of terms used in the literature to
ET describe the notion of GWR, including “graduate employability”, “work-preparedness”,
61,5 “transferable skills”, “key competencies”, “generic attributes” and “graduateness” (Cabellero
and Walker, 2010; Litchfield et al., 2008). These terms allude to the extent to which
graduates possess certain skills, knowledge and attributes that contribute to their
employability, and enable them to be ready for and successful in the work environment
(Kizito, 2010; Walsh and Koetzee, 2010). The GWR construct has been observed to be both
570 different and complementary to more general notions of employability (Loughborough
University, 2016), and extant research has cautioned that it should not be dismissed as a
low-level construct, or as a merely a substitute rather than a complement to employability
(Caballero et al., 2011). For the sake of clarity, an employable graduate is one who possesses
a certain set of credentials which match the employer’s required role and person
specifications and has the potential to develop further (Dacre Pool et al., 2014), whereas a
work-ready graduate has the potential to perform at the required level consistently with
minimum supervision and to contribute value to the organisation (Gardner and Liu, 1997).
Previous research has observed that graduates who are work-ready and have the
requisite competencies are better prepared for a seamless transition into post-graduation
employment and long-term career success (Cavanagh et al., 2015; Clark, 2013; Finn, 2017;
Jackson, 2016; Velasco, 2014). Not only does the literature about GWR represent an
educator’s perspective but it also focusses on best practices and issues identified by
employers. To date, much research has been conducted in establishing various graduate
work-ready competencies/skills that employers seek (Ashman et al., 2008; Jackson, 2016;
Male et al., 2010; Peng et al., 2016). The possession of relevant competencies – namely,
knowledge, attributes, skills, abilities and other attributes – are manifest in graduate
employability through the performance of tasks in specific work contexts which result in
improved job performance (Coll and Zegwaard, 2006; Gow and McDonald, 2000; Jackson,
2009; Spowart, 2011; Teijeiro et al., 2013). Work-ready graduates are deemed to have
acquired these competencies to ensure industry sustainability and high productivity in
conditions of intensified global competition (Fenwick and Hall, 2006).
Although there is a consensus amongst concerned stakeholders (educators, employers
and graduates) on the importance of identifying the work-readiness competencies of their
graduates, the same cannot be said for which graduate competencies are the most important
(Bridgstock, 2009; Daniels and Brooker, 2014; Holmes, 2013). Several studies have focussed
on detailed breakdowns and taxonomies of particular work-readiness competencies
required to enhance graduates’ employability (Burnett and Jayaram, 2012; Casner-Lotto and
Barrington, 2006; Griesel and Parker, 2009; Lowden et al., 2011). Moreover, different
stakeholders attribute value differently, and vary in terms of the skills, capabilities and
competencies articulated by employers as being indicative of GWR (Bridgstock, 2009;
Caballero et al., 2011; Cavanagh et al., 2015; Green et al., 2009, Hager and Holland, 2006; Wye
and Lim, 2009). It is easy enough to compile lists of GWR competencies, but it is quite a
different matter to conduct the research needed to determine whether these competencies
are the actual work-readiness attributes sought by graduates and employers to seamlessly
integrate them into the workplace. Due to disparities in listed competencies in previous
literature (Bridgstock, 2009) and their origins, and a very few attempts to identify the
commonalities, limitations and deficiencies between the various lists proposed by different
researchers, it is worthwhile to point out the need for a valid GWR model, with a clear set of
related competencies and sound theoretical foundations.

2.2 Measurement of graduate work-readiness

Extant research reports very limited evidence for a specific measure of GWR (Caballero
et al., 2011; Coetzee, 2014; Hambur et al., 2002; Raftopoulous et al., 2009; Walker et al., 2015).
Hambur et al. (2002), for example, developed a scale – the Graduate Skills Assessment
(GSA) – for the measurement of generic skills acquired by graduates through their Work-readiness
university experience and which may be relevant to university achievement and future integrated
employment. Raftopoulous et al.’s (2009) Work-readiness skills scale was based around the competence
competencies outlined by employers and graduates (oral and written communication,
self-discipline, time management, interpersonal skills and teamwork, problem-solving skills model
and positive work ethics) in the Fasset Sector ( finance, accounting, management-consulting
and other related financial services organisations) of South Africa. Caballero et al. (2011) 571
subsequently developed a comprehensive measure of the attributes and characteristics of
work-readiness in graduate contexts. Four factors, namely, personal characteristics,
organisational acumen, work competence and social intelligence were identified as the
attributes and characteristics of work-readiness and they further quantified them in
terms of a scale – the work-readiness scale (WRS). Coetzee’s (2014) Graduate Skills and
Attributes Scale (GSAS) comprised an eight-factor theoretical framework based on Coetzee
(2012) which clustered eight graduate skills and attributes into three holistic, overarching
attitudinal domains of personal and intellectual development; scholarship, global and moral
citizenship; and lifelong learning. Further, based on the findings of Walker et al. (2013)
and the 64-item WRS developed by Caballero et al. (2011), Walker et al. (2015) further
tested the original WRS and confirmed the theoretical constructs from previous literature
(Caballero et al., 2011; Walker et al., 2013) and the validity of the revised WRS-GN (graduate
nurse population).
All the above scales have the potential to systematically measure GWR, but they suffer
from some limitations. For example, the GSA does not assess the personal attributes and
personality traits that may be associated with implementing these generic skills. Coetzee’s
(2014) GSAS was predominantly limited to black and female early-career participants in the
economic and management sciences field in a South African open and distance-learning
(ODL) higher education institution. Similarly, Cabellero and Walker (2010) WRS and Walker
et al.’s (2015) WRS-GN samples mainly included graduate engineers and graduate nurses,
while Coetzee’s (2014) GSAS was predominantly limited to early-career participants in the
arts field in a South African ODL higher education institution.
Another salient limitation of the measurement of GWR concerns the evaluation of
requisite work-readiness competencies by the education stakeholders. Although these
stakeholders have actively and continuously engaged in the process of redesigning the
course curriculum for different educational streams to implement the competency-based
outcome-focussed curriculum for preparing work-ready graduates, there is no set of
mutually agreed work-readiness competencies or uniformity in assessing them. Thus,
keeping in view this shortcoming, and the inability of the above-mentioned scales to be
generalised for other disciplinary fields, educational, student, age, race or gender groups,
this research proposes a new scale – the WRICM – based on the resource-based view (RBV )
theory, that can be operationalised in the contexts of different disciplines and different
countries or a specific region.

3. The work-readiness integrated competence model (WRICM)

This study conceptualises GWR in the context of strategic management theory using the
“RBV”. It has been posited in earlier research that people are strategically important to firm
success, as they are an internal source of competitive advantage (Wright et al., 2001). The
human resources of a firm are observed as the pool of human capital under the firm’s control
in a direct employment relationship (Wright et al., 1994). Further, the RBV suggests that
organisations can create competitive advantage by acquiring or developing resources that
are rare, valuable and hard to imitate and replace (Barney, 1991). The Finch et al. (2016)
study, following Barney (1991) and Teece et al. (1997), extended this notion further and
suggested that employability can be viewed as the complex integration and application of
ET five specific resources and dynamic capabilities, namely, intellectual, personality, meta-skill,
61,5 job-specific and integrated dynamic capabilities. Based on Finch et al.’s (2016) categorisation
of employability along the RBV, we conceptualise that GWR can be defined as an integrated
dynamic competence that requires the reconfiguration, synthesis and integration of four
resources/dimensions – namely, intellectual, personality, meta-skill and job specific – that
need to be channelled by graduates into a holistic, compelling and personal narrative that
572 appeals to potential employers. We propose this model as a “WRICM” that may serve as a
platform for further research into GWR.
Further, the WRICM is proposed as a multi-dimensional model comprising four main
factors (dimensions) with ten sub-dimensions covering different skills, derived from a
review of the literature and based on interviews and focus groups. The main four factors/
dimensions are termed as intellectual, personality, meta-skill and job-specific dimensions.
This study further suggests that intellectual resources comprise foundation and cognitive
skills, and personality resources include innovation and creativity, leadership and
self-management skills. In a similar vein, this study views meta-skills as consisting of
information technology (IT), teamwork, political, communication and systems-thinking
skills, whereas job resources contain core skills. Figure 1 shows the conceptualisation of our
WRICM. The section after Figure 1 discusses the four main dimensions and sub-dimensions
in detail.

3.1 Intellectual resources

Intellectual resources are referred to as cognitive skills that are complex, and involve
decision making, problem solving, reasoning and knowing how to learn from
previous situations (Reid and Anderson, 2012). Earlier research has demonstrated a
strong relationship between intellectual resources and employability across a variety
of occupations and contexts (Hinchliffe and Jolly, 2011; Scherbaum et al., 2012; Schmidt
and Hunter, 2004; Stiwne and Jungert, 2010), thus it appropriately fits as one of the
dimensions of GWR.

Information
Cognitive skills
technology skills
Teamwork and
political skills

Foundation skills Intellectual Communication

Resources skills
Meta-skill
Resources System thinking
Innovation and Work-readiness skills
creativity skills Integrated
Personality Competence
Leadership Resources
skills
Job-Specific
Resources
Self-Management
skills
Figure 1.
Work-readiness Core business skills
integrated competence
model (WRICM)
3.1.1 Foundation skills. Foundation skills is a term that has been described in the extant Work-readiness
literature to describe literacy and numeracy as part of a suite of skills linked to integrated
employability (Black and Yasukawa, 2010). Most vocational and higher education courses
underpin these foundation skills and employers expect graduates to be proficient in these
competence
basic skills to participate in modern workplaces and contemporary life (Durrani and Tariq, model
2012; SCOTESE, 2012). Foundation skills are necessary for increasing productivity in a
highly competitive, globalised economy, and thus it is promoted extensively by 573
governments, industry and skills organisations (Black et al., 2015).
3.1.2 Cognitive skills. Given the World Economic Forum’s (2016) observations that the
highest levels of skills stability between 2015 and 2020 are likely to be found in the
media, entertainment and information sector, whereas a large amount of skills disruption
is expected to happen in the banking sector, industry, infrastructure and mobility (World
Economic Forum, 2016), it is argued that the future workforce must have the capacity to
deal with more cognitive tasks (Frey and Osborne, 2013). Cognitive skills such as critical
thinking, problem solving, decision making and strategic thinking are the skills that a
graduate is required to master in order to establish and sustain competent performance in
the complex and unpredictable environment of modern-day workplaces.

3.2 Personality resources

The importance attached to personality traits by employers as an indicator of future
performance, contributions and career success (Hogan et al., 1996; Wellman, 2010) warrants
it to be included as an important dimension of GWR.
3.2.1 Innovation and creativity skills. Innovation and creativity skills involve the ability
to be original and inventive, and to apply lateral thinking and to re-conceptualise roles in
response to changing demands related to success (Evers et al., 1998, p. 121). Extant research
has highlighted that creativity and innovation have become increasingly important in the
workplace (Casner-Lotto and Barrington, 2006). Thus, a need exists for graduates to have
these skills to adapt to constant change situations at modern-day workplaces.
3.2.2 Leadership skills. Leadership skills include the ability to motivate others to achieve
organisational goals and are widely acknowledged as critical in graduates (Casner-Lotto and
Barrington, 2006; Archer and Davison 2008; Schermerhorn, 2008). Although there is
international debate about whether leadership skills can be developed in the classroom (Posner,
2009), it has also been observed in earlier research that stakeholders consider leadership to be a
critical skill for graduates to accomplish job performance (Rosenberg et al., 2012).
3.2.3 Self-management skills. Research has demonstrated that graduates with
well-developed career self-management skills experience higher levels of subjective and
objective career success after graduation (Bridgstock, 2011). Self-management skills have
been referred to as the non-technical skills necessary for getting, keeping and doing well on
a job (de Guzman and Choi, 2013; Jackson and Chapman, 2012).

3.3 Meta-skills resources

Meta-skills can also be considered as a dimension of GWR, as recent research has noted these
skills to be important predictors of employability (CCCE, 2014; EIU, 2014; Finch et al., 2012).
3.3.1 Information technology (IT) skills. IT skills include the ability to select procedures,
equipment and tools to acquire and evaluate data (SCANS, 1991). An increasingly
knowledge-intensive industry environment demands graduates who are always at the front
of the “technology innovation curve” (Collet et al., 2015). Moreover, in the wake of a gradual
decline in the number of skilled and semi-skilled workers in favour of the specialised
workforce that is competent in IT and informatics (Ghaith, 2010), IT skills have become vital
for graduates.
ET 3.3.2 Teamwork and political skills. Changing models of economic efficiency have
61,5 placed more emphasis on key skills including teamwork and political skills (Brown, 1999).
It is suggested that succeeding in and managing stressful organisational environments,
because of the increased social and interpersonal requirements, is at least partially due to
the good teamwork and political skills possessed by many executives (Perrewe et al., 2000;
Stevens and Campion, 1994). To work effectively together, graduates must possess
574 specific knowledge, skills and attitudes, such as the skill of monitoring each other’s
performance, knowledge of their own and teammate’s task responsibilities and a positive
disposition towards working in a team (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995; Salas et al., 2005).
Moreover, organisations are often seen as being composed of individuals and groups who
pursue their own sometimes incompatible goals, leading to organisational conflict, which
is considered inherent and neither “good” nor “bad” (Lee and Piper, 1986). Thus, teamwork
and conflict-resolution or internal political skills become an important ingredient for a
work-ready graduate. Thus, teamwork and political skills become an important ingredient
for a work-ready graduate.
3.3.3 Communication skills. Effective communication skills are an extremely important
issue for effective organisational behaviour, relationships and work processes (Conrad
and Newberry, 2012). In order to prepare future leaders, educators need to ensure that
graduates have the necessary communication skills to begin their career (Lolli, 2013).
Moreover, communication skills are ranked as very important by the overwhelming
majority of employers in the recruitment, job success and promotion of graduates
(McMurray et al., 2016).
3.3.4 System-thinking skills. Systems-thinking skills include the ability to understand
and operate within social, organisational and technological systems (Rosenberg et al.,
2012). These skills involve designing and suggesting modifications to systems and
explaining the interaction of systems in the context of the global economy (Senge, 2000).
These skills are reflections of graduates’ system-thinking ability in seeing the “world
view” or to be able to see things holistically and as interconnected (Maani and Maharaj,
2004). Hence, system-thinking skills can be categorised as an intermediate work-readiness
asset for graduates.

3.4 Job-specific resources

Finally, the inclusion of job-specific resources as an important dimension of this model is
based on the fact that employers have indicated in previous research that the graduates
must possess the minimum proficiencies required to perform a specific role (Bhaerman and
Spill 1988, cited in Finch et al., 2016).
3.4.1 Core business skills. The term “core business skills” is used to describe the
transferable skills which underpin competent performance in all fields (Gibbons-Wood and
Lange, 2000). In our study “core business skills” is used encapsulate the essential practical
skills of a business in which the graduate intends to find an employment. Considering the
employment needs of graduates, encapsulated in the core business skills of a specific
industry, this becomes an important attribute of GWR.

4. Scale development
This study employed a rigorous approach using both quantitative and qualitative
methodology; and further, through factor loadings, construct reliability, average variance
extracted and correlation matrix, the scale was developed. To ensure a strong conceptual
framework and ensuing scale, this research followed a three-pronged approach. This
comprised a review of the literature (to generate an initial pool of items), semi-structured
interviews and focus groups. All the respondents ( from seven countries) used for generating
the initial items were purposively selected based on their awareness of GWR issues, and on Work-readiness
the basis of their position and experience in academia, industry and government. This integrated
ensured that the list of chosen items/competencies was robust enough and represented the competence
true work-readiness dimensions needed by the employers.
model
4.1 Item generation
The first phase comprised the generation of items as per Churchill (1979), based on an 575
extensive review of the literature concerning work-readiness studies from 2006 to 2016. Five
research databases, namely, ProQuest, Informit, Emerald journals, together with internet
resources (Google and Google Scholar), were searched for publications related to work-
readiness. The terms, “work-readiness competencies”, “graduate competencies”, “work-ready
graduates” and “work-readiness skills” were searched for to ensure coverage of relevant
studies. Only those studies that focussed on the work-readiness/employability or
unemployability of graduates were used for finding skills associated with work-readiness.
The second phase comprised conducting semi-structured interviews and focus group
discussions in Australia during March and April 2016, to reveal the specific work-readiness
skills deemed necessary for entering the workforce. In total, 19 participants were purposively
sampled from academia (higher and vocational education), employers/industry, policy makers
and graduates from Australian universities. There were 7 individual interviewees (4 from
Sydney and 3 from Perth), and 12 participants who participated in focus group discussions in
Melbourne, Australia. The participants were selected on the basis of their position and
experience in academia, industry and government. All interviews and focus groups were
recorded and transcribed, analysed and converted into items. Based on these two phases more
than 100 items were shortlisted for graduate work-readiness skills (GWRS).
Further extensive thematic analysis was conducted by using an iterative process that
involved moving between the different items, and an emerging structure of corresponding
themes following three key steps (Locke, 2003; Miles and Huberman, 1999). In the first step,
provisional categories and first-order codes were developed via open coding (Locke, 2003).
As theoretical categories were created, data were checked to determine whether the codes
fitted the emerging abstractions. Where this was not apparent the “discrepant data” were
reviewed and categories were revised accordingly. This process was continued until all
authors agreed on the thematic categorisation. The second step involved refining the first-
order categories/codes that allowed for the identification of the second-order themes that
were non-overlapping (Gioia and Thomas, 1996). The second-order themes were created
based on existing literature around similar ideas, issues or observations on GWRS/
competencies. Finally, to provide a coherent picture, all the second-order items were merged
into ten aggregated competencies.
In the final third phase, the conceptualisation of the WRICM model with probable
alignment of 100 shortlisted skills/items along the ten sub-dimensions of the model was
presented in a workshop of regional researchers in Vietnam in 2016. The workshop
comprised GWR stakeholder participants from seven countries (namely, Australia, India,
Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Taiwan). Based on the stakeholders’
discussion and expert comments, a total of 93 items were shortlisted and aligned with the
ten sub-dimensions of the WRICM model.

4.2 Questionnaire formulation and content validity

The objective of this step was to formulate a questionnaire and ensure its content validity.
In total, 93 GWRS items were shortlisted based on the above-mentioned phases. A review
of these final items shortlisted under the ten sub-dimensions was undertaken to avoid
redundancy among items as well as exceptionally lengthy items, multiple negatives,
double-barrelled items, colloquialisms and jargon (DeVellis, 2016). This process resulted in
ET retaining a total of 77 items and these items were subsequently transformed into statements
61,5 in the form of a questionnaire. All items were coded on a seven-point Likert scale ranging
from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The survey was pilot tested with ten experts
from industry, academia and government to validate the instrument. For best possible
results, due care was taken to select experts who were well placed to provide expert
commentary on the current state of graduates. They were required to comment on the
576 meaningfulness, relevance and clarity of the scales. Based on the experts’ observation
various statements in the questionnaire were refined and improved to accurately address a
work-readiness skill.

4.3 Item purification, reliability and validity assessment

To determine the factor structure of GWRS items and purify the measurement tool, this
research collected data from 362 HR executives/middle-level management executives with
the help of research partners from respective country partners in the seven countries
(Australia, India, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Taiwan). Table I shows the
demographic information of the 362 responses generated.
Further, the factorability of each data set was established by examining the correlation
matrix, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and the Bartlett test of
sphericity (Coakes, 2013). The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure verified the sampling
adequacy for the analysis, KMO ¼ 0.822, which was well above the acceptable limit of 0.5
(Field, 2013). The Bartlett test of sphericity tests the null hypothesis to check that the
original correlation matrix is an identity matrix. Although the sample size was smaller, it
was still found to be significant (o0.001). This proved that the data set was suitable for
factor analysis.
In order to transform the GWRS items into linear components, and to extract a small
number of latent variables ( factors) from many observed variables (77 GRWS items),
principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was conducted using IBM SPSS
20. PCA serves well for minimising correlation across factors and maximising within the
factors (Hair et al., 1998). In total, 13 factors were extracted as per the MINEIGEN criterion,
which means that the eigenvalues of all the factors should be greater than 1. Further, output
was examined for communality score for 77 items and the items that had less than 0.50
communality score were eliminated. A total of seven items were removed. Factor analysis
was conducted on the remaining items. The resultant factor loadings were examined for low
factor loading and high cross-loadings. Items with factor loading o0.50 were removed, and
items loading on more than one factor were supposed to have a difference loading of at least
0.20 to be considered distinctive. The choice regarding factor loadings of greater than ±0.5
was not based on any mathematical proposition but related more to practical significance
(Abdullah, 2006). As per Hair et al. (2006, p. 152), factor loadings of 0.5 and above were

No. of respondents (country wise) Nature of respondents’ organisation

Country Number Percentages Public 58 16%

Australia 52 14.33 Private 274 76%
India 56 15.43 Multi-nationals 30 8%
Indonesia 50 13.77 362
Malaysia 51 14.05 Experience of respondents (years)
Singapore 52 14.33 0–5 84 23%
Taiwan 50 13.77 5–10 213 59%
Table I. Vietnam 51 14.05 10–15 42 12%
Demographic 362 99.72452 15 and above 23 6%
information 362
considered significant at p ¼ 0.05 with a sample size of 120 respondents (n ¼ 362 in this Work-readiness
study). Items were included in the factor with the highest loading only if the items were integrated
distinctive (Hair et al., 1998), otherwise variables were removed from the subsequent competence
analysis. The series of exploratory factor analysis were conducted until there were
no items left with ambiguous loadings. The final analysis resulted in a ten-factor solution, model
accounting for 70.784 per cent of the variance shared among the remaining 53 items
(see Table AI). Table II summarises the ten-factor solution along with loadings and 577
uniqueness of the items that measure each factor.

4.4 Dimension and reliability

To validate the dimensionality of the WRICM, this study performed confirmatory factor
analysis using IBM Amos 20. The results confirm the dimensionality of the 53-item,
ten-dimension scale (CMIN ¼ 3,069.387), relative χ2 (CMIN/df ¼ 2.40), root mean square error
of approximation ( ¼ 0.06) and comparative fit index ( ¼ 0.86). Further, the validity and
reliability were examined to check the psychometric properties of the individual constructs
(DeVellis, 2016; Reise et al., 2000). The reliability of each scale was assessed by calculating
Cronbach’s α composite reliability and average variance extracted. Reliability analysis
revealed that the overall scale had good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s α value of
0.770. The ten factors had good internal consistency with a Cronbach’s α value between 0.86
and 0.94. All constructs surpass the critical levels of 0.70 and 0.50 for composite reliability
and AVE, respectively (see Table III).

4.5 Construct validity

All factor loadings were statistically significant and were greater than 0.6, indicating
convergent validity. Discriminant validity is attained if the square root of average variance
extracted for each factor is greater than the correlation between that construct and other
constructs in the model (Chau, 1997; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). This study satisfied
this criterion.

5. Discussion
The objective of this study was to develop a theory-based model for GWR and a scale to
measure it. To achieve this objective, the study extended and refined the theoretical
framework of Finch et al. (2016) and developed the WRICM. The proposed WRICM
comprised four main dimensions: intellectual, personality, meta-skill and job specific. These
dimensions were further categorised into ten sub-dimensions comprising multiple work-
readiness skills based on an extensive review of the literature together with the interviews
and focus group discussions. The intellectual dimension included foundation and cognitive
skills; personality resources involved innovation and creativity, leadership and self-
management skills; meta-skills consisted of IT, teamwork and political, communication and
systems-thinking skills, whereas job resources contained core business skills. A series of
tests suggests that the scale exhibits internal consistency, reliability and construct validity.
Overall the WRICM scale appears to be conceptually sound and psychometrically valid.
This investigation explored the multi-dimensional nature of GWR and proposes it as an
integrated dynamic competence that requires the reconfiguration, synthesis and integration
of four dimensions – namely, intellectual, personality, meta-skill and job specific – that need
to be channelled by graduates into a holistic, compelling and personal narrative that appeals
to potential employers. The WRICM proposed in this study overcomes two of the key
limitations of previous work-readiness models, namely, the absence of a multi-dimensional
model based on sound theoretical underpinnings, and the observed disparities regarding the
stakeholders of GWR across different competencies mentioned in the literature. First, it is
ET Rotated component matrix
61,5 Component
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Communalities

CBS_2 0.815 0.722

CBS_1 0.814 0.700
CBS_4 0.802 0.662
578 CBS_6 0.796 0.666
CBS_10 0.791 0.668
CBS_3 0.781 0.663
CBS_7 0.781 0.662
CBS_8 0.780 0.665
CBS_5 0.755 0.612
CBS_9 0.735 0.632
CS_2 0.866 0.780
CS_1 0.860 0.787
CS_3 0.836 0.749
CS_4 0.795 0.659
CS_5 0.776 0.625
CS_6 0.759 0.667
CS_8 0.747 0.600
CS_7 0.743 0.596
CS_9 0.678 0.527
ICS_1 0.906 0.878
ICS_3 0.885 0.838
ICS_2 0.871 0.779
ICS_4 0.867 0.799
ICS_5 0.849 0.781
SMS_3 0.810 0.679
SMS_1 0.792 0.662
SMS_5 0.787 0.645
SMS_9 0.782 0.643
SMS_4 0.708 0.551
SMS_7 0.688 0.503
LS_1 0.849 0.761
LS_2 0.837 0.764
LS_4 0.788 0.753
LS_3 0.781 0.677
LS_5 0.686 0.519
STS_3 0.886 0.797
STS_1 0.866 0.780
STS_2 0.853 0.776
STS_4 0.850 0.775
TPS_4 0.881 0.832
TPS_2 0.837 0.744
TPS_5 0.803 0.682
TPS_6 0.786 0.657
CMS_1 0.810 0.813
CMS_2 0.809 0.768
CMS_3 0.768 0.729
CMS_4 0.717 0.641
ITS_1 0.906 0.834
ITS_2 0.861 0.771
ITS_3 0.853 0.813
FS_1 0.866 0.811
FS_2 0.847 0.757
FS_3 0.811 0.724
Table II. Eigenvalues 8.653 6.574 4.206 3.889 3.334 2.508 2.420 2.264 1.988 1.740
Factor loadings and % age of variance 13.076 10.986 7.779 6.850 6.497 5.966 5.485 5.107 4.825 4.329
communalities Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalisation
Construct No. of Items Cronbach’s α CR AVE CBS CC SM TPS IC STS GC ITS FS LA

Foundation skills 3 0.833 0.841 0.640 0.800

Core business skills 10 0.939 0.939 0.608 −0.312 0.780
Cognitive skills 9 0.925 0.926 0.584 0.126 −0.070 0.765
Self-management skills 6 0.860 0.861 0.511 0.003 −0.032 −0.099 0.715
Innovation and creativity 5 0.940 0.940 0.758 0.127 −0.067 0.290 −0.081 0.871
System-thinking skills 4 0.90 0.900 0.693 −0.130 0.146 0.073 −0.055 0.034 0.833
Teamwork and political skills 4 0.864 0.867 0.624 −0.001 0.089 −0.077 −0.246 0.079 0.139 0.790
Communication skills 4 0.862 0.864 0.615 0.092 −0.525 0.154 0.086 0.083 0.004 −0.128 0.784
Information Technology skills 3 0.876 0.876 0.702 0.007 0.054 0.035 0.016 0.222 0.205 0.033 0.043 0.838
Leadership skills 5 0.876 0.878 0.593 0.169 −0.360 0.122 −0.067 −0.071 −0.163 −0.127 0.178 −0.211 0.770
Notes: CR, construct reliability; AVE, average variance extracted. Value on the diagonal of the correlation matrix is the square root of AVE
competence

579
integrated
Work-readiness

extracted and
model

correlation matrix
Measurement model:
Table III.

average variance
construct reliability,
ET based on the RBV of strategic management theory; and second, its ten sub-dimensions
61,5 situated under four main dimensions outline the 53 most important reported skills/
competencies that are required by graduates to be work-ready. This model has the potential
to assess the work-readiness of graduates across different nationalities, as it has been
framed based on inputs form seven country stakeholders, although cross-cultural validation
might be necessary to establish its currency.
580
6. Implications
The WRICM has implications for education, industry, professional associations, policy
makers and for graduates themselves. The refinement of existing work-ready skills in the
literature through qualitative methodology, and further development of the WRICM and the
associated WRICM scale has the potential to guide practitioners, and rule out existing
variations in how the competencies/skills that produce work-ready graduates are envisaged
by administrators, taught by teaching staff and understood by graduates (Barrie, 2006;
Curzon-Hobson, 2004; Green et al., 2009; Tymon, 2013). These stakeholders can further
adapt the scale in assessing the work-readiness of graduates in different disciplines and
educational streams. Given that the WRICM serves as a diagnostic tool at different levels of
analysis, GWR can be assessed at the third-order, second-order and first-order levels. The
use of WRICM-based course curriculum and subsequent assessment of graduates at
different levels through performance-based assessment has the capacity to identify
competence levels and deficiencies. The assessment of WRICM-based competencies (i.e.
personality, intellectual, meta-skills or job specific) at different levels of education can
encourage its stakeholders to review courses including the review of salient competency
outcomes and interactive learning strategies, and can help in establishing solid competency
performance assessments and other evaluations. Moreover, employers can identify the
work-readiness of graduates at entry levels with the help of WRICM-based assessment, and
if needed they can design specialised skills training programmes for improving GWR.

7. Limitations and conclusion

There are number of limitations of this study which are relevant for future research. The
first limitation of this research pertains to the fact that the WRICM is supported by a solid
literature review and qualitative methodology, but the development of the WRICM scale is
based largely on the perspectives of industry/employers. The authors recognise that the
development of a GWR measurement scale will be useful for GWR stakeholders, but
understand that further assessment instruments based on the ten competencies of WRICM
accompanied by actual work performance situations will be needed in order to validate its
practical value. Further research in exploring the options for developing sound
performance-based methods for assessing the requisite competencies of WRICM is
necessary for more concrete assessment of the work-readiness of graduates.
Placing graduates in different performance situations pertaining to each competency of
WRICM at different levels (pre-graduation and post-employment) will ensure the
effectiveness of the proposed model. However, it should be noted that both educational
and industry stakeholders will need to enhance their capacity-building processes so as to
accurately assess the graduates’ requisite competencies in practical performance situations.
Another possible limitation stems from the fact that graduate competencies in this research
have been measured based on the perceptions of the HR executives/middle-level executives.
The development of an appropriate assessment instrument based on actual work
performance situations reflecting the WRICM competencies can overcome this limitation.
Future research should concentrate on a more comprehensive scale that includes the
perspectives of all concerned stakeholders of GWR (e.g. educators, policy makers, graduates
and even parents in some cases). Second, future studies might consider developing this scale
based on specific industries to measure GWR levels more accurately in different disciplines Work-readiness
and workplace contexts. To conclude, GWR is a crucial factor in facilitating the transition of integrated
graduates from education to work. This study offers a refined, focussed and theoretically competence
sound multi-dimensional GWR model that offers researchers and practitioners a solid
foundation upon which further studies can be based. The study also presents a conceptually model
sound and psychometrically valid WRICM scale.
581
References
Abdullah, F. (2006), “The development of HEdPERF: a new measuring instrument of service quality for
the higher education sector”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 569-581.
Archer, W. and Davison, J. (2008), “Graduate employability: what do employers think and want?”, The
Council for Higher Education and Industry, London.
Ashman, P.J., Scrutton, S., Stringer, D., Mullinger, P.J. and Willison, J. (2008), “Stakeholder perceptions
of chemical engineering graduate attributes at the University of Adelaide”, Proceedings of the
CHEMECA 2008 Conference, Newcastle.
Atlay, M. and Harris, R. (2000), “An institutional approach to developing students’ ‘transferable’ skills”,
Innovations in Education and Training International, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 76-84.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Barrie, S.C. (2006), “Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates”, Higher
Education, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 215-241, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6384-7
Bhaerman, R. and Spill, R. (1988), “A dialogue on employability skills: how can they be taught?”,
Journal of Career Development, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 41-52.
Black, S. and Yasukawa, K. (2010), “Time for national renewal: Australian adult literacy and numeracy
as ‘foundation skills’ ”, Literacy and Numeracy Studies, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 43-57.
Black, S., Yasukawa, K. and Brown, T. (2015), “The literacy and numeracy ‘crisis’ in Australian
workplaces: discursive rhetoric vs production floor realities”, Journal of Education and Work,
Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 607-630.
Bridgstock, R. (2009), “The graduate attributes we’ve overlooked: enhancing graduate employability
through career management skills”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 31-44.
Bridgstock, R. (2011), “Skills for creative industries graduate success”, Education + Training, Vol. 53
No. 1, pp. 9-26.
Brown, P. (1999), “Globalisation and the political economy of high skills”, Journal of Education and
Work, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 233-251.
Burgess, J., Cameron, R., Dhakal, S. and Brown, K. (2018), “Introduction: applicant work-readiness and
graduate employability challenges in the Asia Pacific”, in Cameron, R., Dhakal, S. and Burgess, J.
(Eds), Transitions from Education to Work: Workforce Ready Challenges in the Asia Pacific,
Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 3-15.
Burnett, N. and Jayaram, S. (2012), “Skills for employability in Africa and Asia”, paper prepared for the
Innovative Secondary Education for Skills Enhancement (ISESE) Project, Results for
Development Institute, Washington, DC, October.
Caballero, C.L., Walker, A. and Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. (2011), “The Work Readiness Scale (WRS):
developing a measure to assess work readiness in college graduates”, Journal of Teaching and
Learning for Graduate Employability, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 41-54.
Cabellero, C.L. and Walker, A. (2010), “Work readiness in graduate recruitment and selection: a review
of current assessment methods”, Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 13-25.
ET Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Tannenbaum, S.I., Salas, E. and Volpe, C.E. (1995), “Defining competencies and
61,5 establishing team training requirements”, in Guzzo, R.A., Salas, E. et al. (Eds), Team Effectiveness
and Decision Making in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 333-380.
Casner-Lotto, J. and Barrington, L. (2006), “Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on
the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century US Workforce”,
Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Washington, DC.
582 Cavanagh, J., Burston, M., Southcombe, A. and Bartram, T. (2015), “Contributing to a graduate-centred
understanding of work readiness: an exploratory study of Australian undergraduate students’
perceptions of their employability”, The International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 278-288.
CCCE (2014), “Preliminary survey report: the skill needs of major Canadian employers”, Canadian
Council of Chief Executives, Toronto.
Chau, P.Y. (1997), “Reexamining a model for evaluating information center success using a structural
equation modeling approach”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 309-334.
Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
Clark, H. (2013), “Work Readiness Standards and Benchmarks: the key to differentiating America’s
workforce and regaining global competitiveness”, ACT, Iowa City, IA, available at: www.act.
org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/Work-Readiness-Standards-and-Benchmarks.pdf
(accessed 7 July 2018).
Clarke, M. (2018), “Rethinking graduate employability: the role of capital, individual attributes and
context”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 43 No. 11, pp. 1923-1937.
Coakes, S.J. (2013), SPSS: Analysis Without Anguish: Version 20.0 for Windows, John Wiley & Sons
Australia, Milton.
Coetzee, M. (2012), “A framework for developing student graduateness and employability in the
economic and management sciences at the University of South Africa”, in Coetzee, M., Botha, J.,
Eccles, N., Holtzhausen, N. and Nienaber, H. (Eds), Developing Student Graduateness and
Employability: Issues, Provocations, Theory and Practical Guidelines, Knowres, Randburg,
pp. 119-152.
Coetzee, M. (2014), “Measuring student graduateness: reliability and construct validity of the
Graduate Skills and Attributes Scale”, Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 33 No. 5,
pp. 887-902.
Coll, R. and Zegwaard, K. (2006), “Perceptions of desirable graduate competencies for science and
technology new graduates”, Research in Science and Technological Education, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 29-58.
Collet, C., Hine, D. and du Plessis, K. (2015), “Employability skills: perspectives from a knowledge-
intensive industry”, Education + Training, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 532-559.
Conrad, D. and Newberry, R. (2012), “Identification and instruction of important business
communication skills for graduate business education”, Journal of Education for Business,
Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 112-120.
Curzon‐Hobson, A. (2004), “The marginalization of higher learning: an interpretation of current tertiary
reform policy in New Zealand”, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 211-224.
Dacre Pool, L., Qualter, P. and Sewell, P.J. (2014), “Exploring the factor structure of the CareerEDGE
employability development profile”, Education + Training, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 303-313.
Daniels, J. and Brooker, J. (2014), “Student identity development in higher education: implications for
graduate attributes and work-readiness”, Educational Research, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 65-76.
de Guzman, A.B. and Choi, K.O. (2013), “The relations of employability skills to career adaptability
among technical school students”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 199-207.
DeVellis, R.F. (2016), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Vol. 26, Sage publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Durrani, N. and Tariq, V.N. (2012), “The role of numeracy skills in graduate employability”, Education Work-readiness
& Training, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 419-434. integrated
EIU (2014), “Closing the skills gap: companies and colleges collaborating for change”, Economist competence
Intelligence Unit, London.
model
Evers, F.T., Rush, J.C. and Berdrow, I. (1998), The Bases of Competence: Skills for Lifelong Learning and
Employability, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Fenwick, T. and Hall, R. (2006), “Skills in the knowledge economy: changing meanings in changing 583
conditions”, Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 571-574.
Field, A. (2013), Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics and Sex and Drugs and Rock “N” Roll,
4th ed., Sage, Los Angeles, CA, London and New Delhi.
Finch, D., Nadeau, J. and O’Reilly, N. (2012), “The future of marketing education: a practitioner’s
perspective”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 54-67.
Finch, D.J., Peacock, M., Levallet, N. and Foster, W. (2016), “A dynamic capabilities view of
employability: exploring the drivers of competitive advantage for university graduates”,
Education + Training, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 61-81.
Finn, K. (2017), “Relational transitions, emotional decisions: new directions for theorising graduate
employment”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 419-431.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: Algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 382-388.
Frey, C.B. and Osborne, M. (2013), “The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to
computerization?”, Oxford University, Oxford, available at: www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/
downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf (accessed 18 February 2018).
Gardner, P.D. and Liu, W.-Y. (1997), “Prepared to perform? Employers rate workforce readiness of new
grads”, Journal of Career Planning & Employment, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 32-56.
Ghaith, G. (2010), “An exploratory study of the achievement of the twenty-first century skills in higher
education”, Education + Training, Vol. 52 No. 6, pp. 489-498.
Gibbons-Wood, D. and Lange, T. (2000), “Developing core skills – lessons from Germany and Sweden”,
Education & Training, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 24-32.
Gioia, D.A. and Thomas, J.B. (1996), “Identity, image, and issue interpretation: sensemaking during
strategy change in academia”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 370-403.
Gow, K. and McDonald, P. (2000), “Attributes required of graduates for the future workplace”, Journal
of Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 373-396.
Green, W., Hammer, S. and Star, C. (2009), “Facing up to the challenge: why is it so hard to develop
graduate attributes?”, Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 17-29.
Griesel, H. and Parker, B. (2009), Graduate Attributes: A Baseline Study on South African Graduates
From the Perspective of Employers, South African Qualifications Authority, Pretoria.
Hager, P.J. and Holland, S.S. (2006), Graduate Attributes, Learning and Employability, 6th ed.,
Springer, Dordrecht.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.,
Prentice Hall, NJ.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Vol. 5, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 207-219.
Hambur, S., Rowe, K. and Luc, L.T. (2002), “Graduate skills assessment, Australian Council of
Educational Research, Higher Education Group, Department of Education, Science and
Training”, ©Commonwealth of Australia 2002, ISBN 0 642 77294 0.
Hinchliffe, G.W. and Jolly, A. (2011), “Graduate identity and employability”, British Educational
Research Journal, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 563-584.
ET Hogan, R., Hogan, J. and Roberts, B.W. (1996), “Personality measurement and employment decisions:
61,5 questions and answers”, American Psychologist, Vol. 51 No. 5, p. 469.
Holmes, L. (2013), “Competing perspectives on graduate employability: possession, position or
process?”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 538-554.
Jackson, D. (2009), “Profiling industry-relevant management graduate competencies: the need for a
fresh approach”, International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 85-98.
584 Jackson, D. (2016), “Skill mastery and the formation of graduate identity in bachelor graduates:
evidence from Australia”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 1313-1332.
Jackson, D. and Chapman, E. (2012), “Non-technical skill gaps in Australian business graduates”,
Education + Training, Vol. 54 Nos 2/3, pp. 95-113.
Jollands, M., Jolly, L. and Molyneaux, T. (2012), “Project-based learning as a contributing factor to
graduates’ work readiness”, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 143-154.
Kizito, N. (2010), “Negotiating meaning around of graduateness in South African higher education:
practices and dilemmas in designing 21st century curricula”, 4th Annual Conference on the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch Central, Stellenbosch,
11–12 May.
Lee, B. and Piper, J.A. (1986), “How views about the nature of management can affect the content of
management education programmes: the advance of the political approach”, Management
Education and Development, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 114-127.
Litchfield, A., Frawley, J. and Nettleton, S. (2010), “Contextualising and integrating into the curriculum
the learning and teaching of work‐ready professional graduate attributes”, Higher Education
Research & Development, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 519-534.
Litchfield, A.J., Nettleton, S.C. and Taylor, T.L. (2008), “Integrating work-ready learning into the
curriculum contextualised by profession”, WACE Asia Pacific Conference, E-Proceedings,
ACEN, pp. 329-336.
Locke, K. (2003), Sage Series in Management Research: Grounded Theory in Management Research,
Sage Publications, doi: 10.4135/9780857024428.
Lolli, J.C. (2013), “Interpersonal communication skills and the young hospitality leader: are they
prepared?”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 295-298.
Loughborough University (2016), “The Loughborough University graduate attributes”, available at:
www.lboro.ac.uk/students/graduate-attributes/ (accessed 9 April 2018).
Lowden, K., Hall, S., Elliot, D. and Lewin, J. (2011), “Employer’s perceptions of the employability
skills of new graduates”, Research commissioned by the Edge Foundation, University of
Glasgow, Glasgow.
McMurray, S., Dutton, M., McQuaid, R. and Richard, A. (2016), “Employer demands from business
graduates”, Education + Training, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 112-132.
Maani, K.E. and Maharaj, V. (2004), “Links between systems thinking and complex decision making”,
System Dynamics Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 21-48.
Male, A., Bush, M. and Chapman, S. (2010), “Perceptions of competency deficiencies in engineering
graduates”, Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 55-678.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1999), Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Peng, L., Zhang, S. and Gu, J. (2016), “Evaluating the competency deficits between Master of
Engineering graduates and industry needs in China”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 41 No. 3,
pp. 445-461.
Perrewe, P.L., Ferris, G.R., Frink, D.D. and Anthony, W.P. (2000), “Political skill: an antidote for
workplace stressors”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 3, p. 115.
Posner, B. (2009), “Understanding the learning tactics of college students and their relationship to
leadership”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 386-395.
Raftopoulous, M., Visser, D. and Coetzee, S. (2009), “Work-readiness skills in the Fasset Sector”, Work-readiness
SA Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-8. integrated
Reid, J.R. and Anderson, P.R. (2012), “Critical thinking in the business classroom”, Journal of Education competence
for Business, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 52-59.
model
Reise, S.P., Waller, N.G. and Comrey, A.L. (2000), “Factor analysis and scale revision”, Psychological
Assessment, Vol. 12 No. 3, p. 287.
Rosenberg, S., Heimler, R. and Morote, E.S. (2012), “Basic employability skills: a triangular design 585
approach”, Education + Training, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 7-20.
Salas, E., Sims, D.E. and Burke, C.S. (2005), “Is there a ‘big five’ in teamwork?”, Small Group Research,
Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 555-599.
SCANS (1991), “Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS), ‘What Work
Requires of Schools’ ”, National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Technology
Administration, US Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA.
Scherbaum, C.A., Goldstein, H.W., Yusko, K.P., Ryan, R. and Hanges, P.J. (2012), “Intelligence 2.0:
reestablishing a research program in I-O psychology”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 128-148.
Schermerhorn, J. (2008), Management, 9th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J. (2004), “General mental ability in the world of work: occupational
attainment and job performance”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1,
pp. 162-173.
SCOTESE (2012), “National Foundation Skills Strategy for Adults”, Standing Council on Tertiary
Education, Skills & Employment, Canberra.
Senge, P. (2000), A Fifth Discipline Resource: Schools that Learn, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Spowart, J. (2011), “Hospitality students’ competencies: are they work ready?”, Journal of Human
Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 169-181.
Stevens, M.J. and Campion, M.A. (1994), “The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork:
implications for human resource management”, Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 503-530.
Stiwne, E.E. and Jungert, T. (2010), “Engineering students’ experiences of transition from study to
work”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 417-437.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 509-533.
Teijeiro, M., Rungo, P. and Freire, M.J. (2013), “Graduate competencies and employability: the impact of
matching firms’ needs and personal attainments”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp. 286-295.
Tymon, A. (2013), “The student perspective on employability”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 38
No. 6, pp. 841-856, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.604408.
Velasco, M.S. (2014), “Do higher education institutions make a difference in competence development?
A model of competence production at university”, Higher Education, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 503-552.
Walker, A., Storey, K.M., Costa, B.M. and Leung, R.K. (2015), “Refinement and validation of the work
readiness scale for graduate nurses”, Nursing Outlook, Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 632-638.
Walker, A., Yong, M., Pang, L., Fullarton, C., Costa, B. and Dunning, A.M.T. (2013), “Work readiness of
graduate health professionals”, Nurse Education Today, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 116-122.
Walsh, A. and Koetzee, B. (2010), “Reconciling graduates and work-based learning”, Learning and
Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 36-50.
Wellman, N. (2010), “The employability attributes required of new marketing graduates”, Marketing
Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 908-930.
World Economic Forum (2016), “The future of jobs”, available at: www.weforum.org/docs/WEF_
Future_of_Jobs.pdf (accessed 18 April 2017).
ET Wright, P.M., Dunford, B.B. and Snell, S.A. (2001), “Human resources and the resource-based view of
61,5 the firm”, Journal of management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 701-721.
Wright, P.M., McMahan, G.C. and McWilliams, A. (1994), “Human resources and sustained competitive
advantage: a resource-based perspective”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 301-326.
Wye, C.K. and Lim, Y.M. (2009), “Perception differential between employers and undergraduates on the
importance of employability skills”, International Education Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 95-105.
586
Further reading
Hager, P. and Holland, S. (Eds) (2007), Graduate Attributes, Learning and Employability, Vol. 6, Springer
Science & Business Media, Berlin.
Valerie G. Ward Consulting Ltd (2017), “Employment Readiness Scale™”, available at: www.
employmentreadiness.com/ (accessed 18 March 2018).

Corresponding author
Verma Prikshat can be contacted at: [email protected]
Dimensions Sub-dimensions S. no. Code Skills list/items Statements

Job specific Core business 1 CBS_10 Working under pressure Ability to cope up with work pressure
skills 2 CBS_1 Commercial awareness Understating of the industry (in which graduates intend to work) Appendix
3 CBS_2 Organisational awareness Understanding of people–organisation relationship, and the social systems
that exist and develop in an organisation
4 CBS_3 Knowledge of industry Prior understanding/awareness of nature of industry
operations/prior exposure
5 CBS_4 Adaptability Ability to change or be changed to fit or work better in different situations
6 CBS_5 Attitude/Aptitude Tendency to respond positively towards a certain idea/situation
7 CBS_6 Management skills Ability to manage, inspire, motivate and engage
8 CBS_7 Professional ethics Ability to demonstrate corporate standards of behaviour
9 CBS_8 Multi-tasking Ability to perform more than one task/activity over a short period
10 CBS_9 Goal/Task Management Capacity of successfully managing a goal/task through its life cycle
Meta-skills Communication 11 CMS_1 Written communication Ability to write clearly, concisely, accurately and logically
skills 12 CMS_2 Verbal communication Proficiency in face-to-face conversations, telephone conversations, ability to
participate and give presentations
13 CMS_3 Language skills Ability to understand and make the most effective use of language
14 CMS_4 Giving and receiving feedback Capacity to provide useful information to other people and receiving
information that will help to learn more effectively
Information 15 ITS_1 ICT literacy Ability to use digital technology, communication tools, and/or networks to
technology define access, manage, integrate, evaluate and create value
skills 16 ITS_2 Ethical issues surrounding Ability to use digital technology ethically and legally to function in a
the use of technology knowledge organisation
17 ITS_3 IT hardware knowledge Knowledge about general networking, operating systems, new hardware,
web-based technologies and wireless technology
System- 18 STS_1 Big picture Ability to view a broad, overall view or perspective of an issue or problem
thinking skills 19 STS_2 Out of the box thinking Ability to think differently, unconventionally, or from a new perspective
20 STS_3 Socio-technical system Awareness of both social and technical aspects of a system
awareness
21 STS_4 Social/Psychological outcomes Understanding that work systems produce both physical products/services
and social/psychological outcomes
Teamwork and 22 TPS_2 People/Interpersonal skills Ability to moderate responses, empathising, building relationships of and
political skills productive interactions
23 TPS_4 Social skills/intelligence Able to network and get along well with others

(continued )
competence

587
integrated
Work-readiness

model

Table AI.

and statements
Final skills list/items

for WRICM
 ET
61,5

588

Table AI.
Dimensions Sub-dimensions S. no. Code Skills list/items Statements

24 TPS_5 Negotiating/Conflict-resolution Ability to compromise or agreement while avoiding argument and dispute
skills
25 TPS_6 Emotional intelligence Capacity to be aware of, control, and express one’s emotions and to handle
interpersonal relationships judiciously and empathetically
Intellectual Cognitive skills 26 CS_1 Problem solving Using generic or ad hoc methods, in an orderly manner, for finding solutions to
problems
27 CS_2 Critical thinking Skillful in conceptualising, applying, analysing, synthesising evaluating
information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience,
reflection, reasoning or communication, as a guide to belief and action
28 CS_3 Analytical abilities Ability to visualise, articulate, conceptualise or solve both complex and
uncomplicated problems by making decisions
29 CS_4 Decision-making skills Ability to make a good decision based on weighing the positives and
negatives of each options/alternatives that are sensible given the available
information
30 CS_5 Learning skills Ability to use language, numbers, images and other means to understand and
use the dominant symbol systems of an organisation
31 CS_6 Evaluation skills Skills to make critical judgement and coming to reasoned conclusions based
on available evidence
32 CS_7 Convergent reasoning Ability to find a single best solution to a problem
33 CS_8 Diagnosing capabilities Knowledge and experience required in identifying and understanding cause-
and-effect relationships between symptoms and their underlying sources
34 CS_9 Lateral thinking Solving problems through an indirect and creative approach, using reasoning
that is not immediately obvious and involving ideas that may not be
obtainable by using only traditional step-by-step logic
Foundation 35 FS_1 Numeracy Ability to reason and to apply simple numerical concepts
skills 36 FS_2 Literacy Ability to access, understand, analyse and evaluate information, make
meaning, express thoughts and emotions, present ideas and opinions
37 FS_3 Formal qualifications Basic qualifications necessary for an employment
Personality Innovative and 38 ICS_1 Innovative and creativeness Ability to use imagination or original ideas to produce something new for
creativity skills organisation
39 ICS_2 Enterprising Ability to show initiative and resourcefulness for accomplishing different tasks/
activities
40 ICS_3 Change management Ability to accept, adapt and sustain change quickly

(continued )
Dimensions Sub-dimensions S. no. Code Skills list/items Statements

41 ICS_4 Willingness to learn new things Always ready to learn, grasp new approach/ways of doing things
42 ICS_5 Idea generation Ability of creating, developing, and communicating ideas which are abstract,
concrete or visual
Leadership 43 LS_1 Logical thinker Ability to clearly move from one thought/idea to another
skills 44 LS_2 Visionary Ability to envision and plan for future
45 LS_3 Influencing others Ability to change minds, shape opinions and move others to act
46 LS_4 Relationship management Ability to supervise and maintain relationships in internal organisation as
well as with external stakeholders
47 LS_5 Initiative Ability to assess and initiate things independently
Self- 48 SMS_1 Personal presentation Ability to convey a positive image to organisation members and to the
management stakeholders
skills 49 SMS_3 Positive self-esteem Ability to portray a healthy self-esteem and notion of high self-value
50 SMS_4 Self-motivation Ability to do what needs to be done without influence from other people or
situations
51 SMS_5 Self-confidence A sense of belief or trust in own ability
52 SMS_7 Time management Ability to exercise conscious control of time spent on specific activities,
especially to increase effectiveness, efficiency or productivity
53 SMS_9 Self-regulation Ability to monitor and control own behaviour, emotions, or thoughts, and
altering them in accordance with the demands of the situation
competence

589
integrated
Work-readiness

model

Table AI.