Work-readiness integrated competence model

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.

Developing skills in higher education for post-pandemic work

“…While it is not yet possible to determine the pandemic's impact on particular skill areas within specific workplaces or occupations, its implications for conceptual knowledge areas that underpin workplace readiness, as well as the impact of such knowledge areas on the frameworks that describe work-readiness in general, can already be assessed. Following Prikshat et al (2019), the current paper conceptualises the term workplace readiness as the ability of graduates to consistently perform at a required level, without considering the specific requirements of an individual work environment in which graduates may enter. As a result, workplace readiness is distinctly different, but complementary to, the concept of employability, because employability is focused on the match between the skills and knowledge of a given graduate, and the requirements of a particular employment opportunity (Gardner and Liu 1997).…”

“…Kraiger et al (1993) postulated that individuals (such as students, graduates, or work-force participants changing their career) need to develop cognitive, skill-based and affective knowledge to be prepared for entry into the world of work. Evaluating workplace readiness through the lens of a knowledge framework, as opposed to an evaluation through the lens of a work readiness and competency framework (for example, see: Prikshat et al 2019Prikshat et al , 2018, allows the current paper to provide conceptual guidance about post-pandemic work environments, without requiring the identification of pandemic induced changes to the sub-dimensions that underpin work readiness and competency assessments (for details on the complexity of such actions, see: Markowitsch et al 2009). However, to assist users of work-readiness and competency frameworks in the application of the current paper in their contexts, linkages between the knowledge areas of Kraiger et al (1993), and the work-readiness integrated competence model proposed by Prikshat et al (2019) are outlined throughout the remainder of this section.…”

“…Evaluating workplace readiness through the lens of a knowledge framework, as opposed to an evaluation through the lens of a work readiness and competency framework (for example, see: Prikshat et al 2019Prikshat et al , 2018, allows the current paper to provide conceptual guidance about post-pandemic work environments, without requiring the identification of pandemic induced changes to the sub-dimensions that underpin work readiness and competency assessments (for details on the complexity of such actions, see: Markowitsch et al 2009). However, to assist users of work-readiness and competency frameworks in the application of the current paper in their contexts, linkages between the knowledge areas of Kraiger et al (1993), and the work-readiness integrated competence model proposed by Prikshat et al (2019) are outlined throughout the remainder of this section. Given the changing nature of work during the pandemic, the way in which knowledge in the areas described by Kraiger et al (1993), as well as the competency dimensions and sub-dimensions of Prikshat et al (2019) are identified, structured and attained has changed considerably.…”

“…However, to assist users of work-readiness and competency frameworks in the application of the current paper in their contexts, linkages between the knowledge areas of Kraiger et al (1993), and the work-readiness integrated competence model proposed by Prikshat et al (2019) are outlined throughout the remainder of this section. Given the changing nature of work during the pandemic, the way in which knowledge in the areas described by Kraiger et al (1993), as well as the competency dimensions and sub-dimensions of Prikshat et al (2019) are identified, structured and attained has changed considerably.…”

Effect of COVID-19 on acquisition of employable skills among national service personnel in Ghana

“…These learned skills are better enhanced, and other more specific employable skills learned through the mandatory national service. These acquired and required employable skills learned (Prikshat and Nankervis, 2019) to catalyse and propels these service personnel into the exo-system where organisations and industries are located for employment. The first three systems-micro-system, mesosystem and exo-system are all superimposed by the macro-system or environment consisting of the political, economic, sociocultural, technological factors at the national and the international levels.…”