Developing 'employagility’: the 3Es case for live-client learning
Introduction
Graduates contribute to, and benefit “themselves, the workforce, the community and the economy” (Yorke, 2004:410) by actively engaging in work related learningexperiences, such as live client projects. Kennedy et al (2001, p. 146) agree “educators need to put students into situations to practice interpersonal, informational and decisional skills”. Accordingly, Wright et al, (p. 43, 2010) assert working patterns have changed, so “employers should collaborate more with local education and training providers”, to ensure courses are fit for purpose, reinforcing the need for Higher Education Institutions to provide opportunities to practice their learning, in situations reflecting the workplace and generate ‘career ready’, employable professionals (Quality Assurance Agency, 2009). This point is supported by Hellyer & Lee (2012, p. 3) where employers expect graduates to be ‘oven-ready’.
Rationale
Universities “have a role in the development of graduate employability other than CV and interview training” (Dept. Business Innovation & Skills, Graduate Recruitment to SMEs, 2012), which can be embedded into courses of study. Much has been written about these opportunities (Brooks, 2013; Little & Harvey, 2006; Mandillaras, 2004; Morse, 2006; Walsh & Byrne, 2013) far less attention is given to evidence from client project learning opportunities (Wellman, 2010), with less still in SME context (Harris & Deacon, 2011). It is asserted that the nature of live client projects provide specific outcomes for SME employers, students (engaged) and educators, which may differ from those gainedin the traditional placementMoreover, the ongoing contact this type of student project provides between the Engaged, Employers and Educators (the 3Es), afforded by a ‘consultancy’ style opportunity for students. This research therefore seeks to explore the benefits and limitations oflive client projects from thesethree perspectives.
Some evidence exists of the linkage between entrepreneurial education and preparedness for SME employment (Kewin, Hughes and Taylor, 2010), or “the marketing/entrepreneurship interface” (Stokes, 2000); the employability specifically of marketing graduates, (Stephens et al, 2010), or the marketing practice capabilities of SMEs, (Harris & Deacon,2011). WhilstRae (2007) makes the connection between education and small business employability, his work does not concentrate on marketing students, and there are few who appear to develop a synthesis of all 3 key actor perspectives. This is supported by Wellman (2010), who posits that no previous research has attempted to seek “the opinion of all parties (employers, practitioners, early career graduates and faculty)”, p. 913. Therefore, this paper attempts to fill this gap and theliterature to date highlight the lack of dialogue between the 3Es.
The UK government set a target of 40% of adults tograduate by 2020 (Helyer, 2011), and the National Skills Strategy – Skills for Growth (2009) aim is to ensure that universities respond to demands from SMEs. This corresponds to findings of Helyer et al, (2011), where employers showed a willingness to input into course design and the Confederation of British Industry, (CBI), 2013, found 47% of UK businesses were collaborating with HEI’s to provide real life projects. In sum 3Estakeholder relationships are ad-hoc and weak. Therefore, is the ‘employability’ focus (Bowers-Brown & Harvey, 2004) offering limited outcomes to 3Es ?
Moving Employability forward
Yorke & Knight’s seminal USEM model (2004) outlined the key student outcomes of an effective HEI employability curriculum: Understanding (subject skills and knowledge), Skilful Practices (deployment), Efficacy Beliefs (personal skills and qualities) and Meta-Cognition (self-awareness and reflection). They identified the need for graduates to use these skills in larger or small businesses context, , arguing it will enhance graduate employability with SMEs (Yorke & Knight, 2004). Claiming skills must be learned and encouraged at undergraduate level and embedded into the curriculum, whilst McLarty (2005 , p.42) suggests HEIs need “to focus more on defining experiential generic skills, rather than relying on core skills and transferable skills, which may be too inconsequential to be effective in SMEs”. Therefore, does this necessitate developing ‘agility’ rather than ‘ability’?
The future for employability - developing ‘Employagility’?
Evidently, the QAA amongst other bodies, wish to secure the full engagement of academic staff with the employability agenda, ensuring it is perceived as an integral part of the whole HE learning experience, hence the appropriateness of this research paper; to consider the issue from multiple-perspectives, something that existing literature has not consistently achieved to date, as supported by (Wellman, 2010).
The authors of the current paper argue that universities can more closely match the needs of SMEs and enhance mutual understanding, by actively adopting collaborative relationships between all three main stakeholder groups to develop appropriate ‘agile’ skills to support life-long learning which will benefit them if they encounter a range of roles over the course of their working lives (Lowden et al, 2011;Brooks & Everett, 2008).Skills to be included in higher education curriculum were identified by Helyer, Lee & Evans’ through a large-scale regional survey of businesses in the UK (2011, p.20). They found leadership and management; business development; sales; communication; finance (in context); marketing; IT; legal issues; innovation and creativity and commercial awareness were lacking, yet demanded by SMEs. The authors capture this debate in the term “Employagility”, arguing this type of ‘agile’ capability could be a necessary addition to the value-added outcomes of the existing value chain of Higher Education, as proposed by Pathak & Pathak, (2010, p. 170).
Hence, the current investigation will answer the call from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) for students to “develop and demonstrate work-relevant skills through their courses” (2009, p. 24). Moreover, primary data findings will be examined, to evaluate the values and benefits of live-client projects in business education, considering how they enable students to begin their journey, not only of employability, but more precisely, “employagility”.
In relation to providing principles for an ‘engaging’ curriculum, Barnett & Coate, (2004,p. 134). commend live client project activities adopted by educators, explaining how these allow students to perceive their own knowledge gains, making their ‘own claims on the world... in personal acts of knowing”. They suggest that curriculum-in-action canprovide each student with a part to play,creating informed and committed individuals. Further, Marks & Huzzard (2010) contend real life problem solving situations such as live client projects, provide the necessary exposure for students to gain targeted employability skills, enabling “work-ready employees”. Therefore, this paper asserts using live client projects will encourage skills development and learning through active involvement,challenging traditional modes of learning.
Lopez & Lee (2005 , p.180) refer to Smith & VanDoren’s (2004) four standards for effective reality-based learning: (1) “the purpose of each activity is student learning,” (2) “the student is co-responsible for learning in each activity,” (3) “the activity draws on knowledge and skills beyond the classroom and discipline, “and (4) the activity “ensures transferability of learning from the activity to outside the classroom”. This reinforces the need to assess skills, competencies, attitudes and knowledge before, during and after the project.
Defining ‘Live-Client Project’for the current research
This research focuses on live client projects, as recognised by Ardley & Taylor, (2010); Elam & Spotts, (2004); and Kennedy et al, (2001), for providing enhanced opportunities for students to engage in deeper learning.
“When incorporated into the curriculum, client-sponsored projects have the added advantage of being consistent with students’ perceptions…that is, they appear interactive, real-world and creative” (Bove & Davies, 2009 , p.231). Utilisation of a ‘real’ context, where students are faced with the responsibility of meeting the needs of an existing organisation, and where their efforts could provide tangible value for the firm, serves to improve student motivation, enjoyment and engagement (Barnett & Coate, 2004). Exploring how ‘real-world’ problem-based learning, such as found in live client project, Zsididsinet al, (2013) found direct, personal input from businesses in student projects, enabled students, working in groups, to collaboratively develop solutions for wide-ranging/multiple problems.
Hencelive client projects are defined for the current research as activities where students are directed by an organisation to work on a current or potential business problem or project either as individuals or in a group.
The challenge of‘Trialogue’
Bove & Davies (2009 , p.230) explain how live client projects help universities bridge the theory-application gap. Further, Stern & Tseng (2002) argue that it is in marketing courses where this issue is perhaps most acute, hence the sample focus of this paper (Guest et al, 2006). Live client projects actively involve the student, educator and client in the process (McGrath & O’Toole, 2012)There is a lack of research which “switches the dialogue to include all stakeholders”. (Ashford-Rowe et al,2009; Bove & Davies, 2009; Elam & Spotts, 2004.) Wellman (2010) supports the need for research which encompasses perspectives from all parties,
Live client project have the ability to meet the requirement for trialogue as they offer all 3 stakeholders; Educators, Engagers (their students) and Employers, (subsequently referred to as the ‘3Es’), the opportunity for collaboration (Herrmann, 2013). Further, live client projects can provide insight into areas educators have found difficult to convey in the classroom, such as the need for marketing students to study consumer law, or finance, and vice-versa.Equally, such projects have been found to enhance engagement and motivation (Savery, 2006), giving students experiences that will be valuable in future job applications, and even provide networking opportunities for securing future roles (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006).
De la HarpeRadloff (2006) discuss challenges of implementing these learning opportunities and suggest Educators need to gain ‘buy-in’ for live client project from Educators. Culpin & Scott (2012 , p.1), found “the use of the live case study was an excellent method for improving knowledge and understanding of strategy” for the Engagers. Specifically, working with smaller firms, particularly social enterprises and non-profits, can be especially beneficial for students, as it exposes them to the realities of work. Lopez & Lee (2005, p. 230) agree live client projects“help facilitate reciprocal learning between students and the organisation… [as] workers may be marketing novices or lack marketing training”.
Critical self-reflection is a skill demanded by employers, hence live client projects can facilitate the development of self-awareness through exposure to employer expectations of accountability for performance in project tasks (Jamal et al, 2014). Further, Kearney, (2013) contends that students are significantly and detrimentally disengaged from thereflection process by traditional forms of learning.
This paper contributes to extant work by moving forward a range of debates as follows:
- Explores the value of live client projects as both an alternative to traditional placements and an opportunity for students to provide higher level, strategic input to SMEs in particular.
- Identifies potential rewards (benefits) and risks (drawbacks) of increased collaboration between educators, employers and students to facilitate work-related learningactivities (Herrmann, 2013). Suggests how these activities can be implemented effectively,and extending the discussion ofemployability.
- Introducesthe concept of ‘employagility’; that ‘learning by doing’ assists in developing ‘agile’ students and graduates, who are focussed on being employed but are also equipped with the skills and attitude to react to the changing business and working environments they may face in the future.(Figure 1)
Knibbs (2013) proposed the ‘3Es model of employability’ as a tool to illustrate the roles for each key stakeholder. The ‘Competence-Employagility continuum’ extends the discussion to employagility.
Figure 1:3Es model of ‘Competence-Employagility continuum’Fletcher-Brown, Knibbs and Middleton, 2014 (adapted from Knibbs, 2013).
Methodology: the 3E perspective
Sample
The university selected was a convenience sample with a growing student population (>24,000), where the researchers chose to focus on undergraduate marketing courses, featuring a newly introduced, live-client project. The Engagers were tasked with forming a group to identify and source their own client independently from the local area. The project involved engaging with the client to analyse their current business situation, consider a marketing issue, design an appropriate primary data collection instrument, collect the data, analyse it and report their recommendations to the client via a formal presentation. This would be in front of an audience consisting of the teaching team, other students and the client.The group report required each member to provide a short reflective statement about their individual use and development of skills, knowledge and attributes, applied to the task. The SMEswho provided the live client projects were the Employers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Educators who were selected from across the UK and formed a convenience sample .
The authors analysed primary data from the implementation of a new live client project to validate how this type of learning experience directly contributes to development of ‘employagility’with undergraduate students on a marketing course at a UK university. The qualitative data collected from all 3 stakeholdersprovided valuable insights for improved employer engagement; curriculum design; and skills development.
Data collection
The needs, expectations, views and experiences of members of all 3Es (Employers, Educators, Engagers) were systematically gathered through a triangulation of methods
Engagers: Ina core "Marketing Research and Planning" module, second year Undergraduates from three Marketing courses who had undertaken a live client group projectwere asked to produce a reflective statement which answered the following questions:
- What skills and knowledge were needed in order for you to complete this task? How could these skills/knowledge be useful in a real Marketing job?
- How would you rate your own level of skill/knowledge in the above aspects at the start of the project and how do you rate them at the end? How do you intend to fill any gaps in your skills/ knowledge in the future?
- What were your own strengths and weaknesses in your contribution to the team effort for this project?
- What were the best and worst aspects of dealing with the client/finding out about the company for this project?
- What will you do differently as a member of a group in the future?
- Any other comments for the marker to consider(these could include supporting statements from the client company about your project)
a)85 Engagerreflection reports were used to generate a list of key outcomes as cited by students themselves (ie learning of skills, application of knowledge, development of aptitudes). In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted witha small sample of the same students (2, to provide deeper insights)
b) Employers (4 SMEs and 1 larger firm) who had facilitated live-client projectsviews were sought from both smaller and larger firms in order to provide a control group sample (Guest et al, 2006), in order to identify any new insights which may point towards differing needs for the SME specific context, and
c) 5 respondent University Educators who have delivered forms of live client projects activities in their business courses were selected and recruited from around the British Isles, for the purposes of reducing the potential for single case institution sample bias (O’Reilly & Parker, 2013)
Human research ethics approval was granted by the authors’ UniversityFaculty Ethics Committee.
Data Analysis
Once all interviews had taken place and student reports had been reviewed, the recordings were transcribed. Hsieh & Shannon, (2005)suggest a summative approach to qualitative content analysis starts with identifying and quantifying certain words with the purpose of understanding the contextual use of the word. Therefore the most frequently cited words from all 3Es were identified and quantified to produce thematic categories, then compared against existing research for purposes of validity and generalisability. The interview transcripts were thematically analysed using the same technique as the student reports, where semantically important verbatim comments, were categorised. Following guidelines from McGrath & O’Toole (2012) on undertaking action research in an SME environment, the lists were then combined into one table to identify the most commonly cited items from all three stakeholder groupsusing a weighting in order that the different numbers of respondents from each method and sample did not influence the outcomes.Following Saldana (2009), the authors undertook a thematic content analysis of discourse held with each of the 3Es which resulted in creating a tally from each repeated mention of these key outcomes (see table 1 below for details). The authors felt it critical to the generation of newinsights thatthemes were allowed to organically present themselves in this way, rather than starting from those already established in the literature. This, according to Guest, McQueen and Namey (2012) can enable more naturalistic and reliable inductive data generation.
Critical findings
Table 1:Cumulative analysis of 3 Es findings(following McGrath and O’Toole, 2012)
Top 10 recurring themes from cumulative 3E responses / Correlation with previously published research1 / Experience realbusiness/ business processes / Zsidisinet al, (2013) - considers "real-world" projects in Supply chain management
2 / Improve team working skills - includes delegation / Thomas (2014), yet McLarty (2005) - warns this aspect may however have over-rated importance
3 / Use innovative thinking / Corkill (2008) - explores agenda for "change", Jones et al (2000), Helyer et al (2011) - cite need for entrepreneurial creativity and innovation respectively
4 / Apply marketing skills / Bove & Davies (2009) - cite marketing consulting and research skills development, Helyer (2011) - reviews "skills gap"
5 / Prestigious, add to my CV, get a job / Yorke & Knight (2007), Holdenet al (2007) - review employability agenda
6 / Improve communication skills / Kennedy et al (2001) - include discussion of interpersonal communications and negotiation development, Elam & Spotts (2004) - focus on communications LCPs
7 / Learn about “myself”/ strengths & weaknesses / Chandler et al (2013) - explores the role of reflection and feedback, Brooks (2013) - considers the role of previously placed students as mentors
8 / Apply marketing knowledge / Elam & Spotts (2004) - review the learning opportunities of LCPs, McLarty (2000)
9 / Illustrate professionalism, etiquette, manners and maturity / Bromley et al (2013) - considers development of professionalism
10 / Time-management /organisation skills / Lopez & Lee (2005) - explore how "workable" LCPs are for all involved, for all 3 Es especiallyEducators
In sum,the findings broadly confirm and support existing evidence and produce additional valuable insight into the benefits and risks of live client projects(see Table 2) that had hitherto not been researched from 3E perspectives. This paper therefore contributes to the extant work on live client projects.