Priming The Project Talent Pipeline Examining Work

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/339538491
Priming the Project Talent Pipeline: Examining Work Readiness in

Undergraduate Project Management Degree Programs
Article in Project Management Journal · February 2020

DOI: 10.1177/8756972820904220
CITATIONS READS
17 654
2 authors:
Jessica Borg Christina M. Scott-Young

University of Melbourne RMIT University
20 PUBLICATIONS 113 CITATIONS 60 PUBLICATIONS 907 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Jessica Borg on 15 March 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Borg & Scott-Young 2020
Please cite as:

Borg, J., & Scott-Young, C. (2020). Priming the project talent pipeline: Examining work readiness in
undergraduate project management degree programs, Project Management Journal, 51(2), 165–180.
The published document can be accessed via: https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820904220
Priming the Project Talent Pipeline: Examining Work

Readiness in Undergraduate Project Management Degrees
Jessica Borg and Christina M. Scott-Young
Abstract
Undergraduate education is emerging as a direct pathway into the previously deemed

accidental profession of project management. We introduce the concept of graduate work
readiness and explore whether undergraduate project management degrees are imparting
the necessary work readiness attributes. Documentary analysis of twelve Australian
bachelor programs identified that many (but not all) of the work-ready attributes taught are
consistent with those sought by industry. The results revealed that graduates’ work
readiness profiles vary according to university employer reputation. The findings suggest
the need for a more industry-consultative approach to the way universities prepare their
graduates for the project-based workplace.
Keywords
graduate work readiness, project management careers, undergraduate project
management degrees, career pathways, accidental career
Introduction
There has been limited research on project management careers (Bredin & Söderlund, 2013;
Keegan, Ringhofer, & Huemann, 2018), but interest is growing (Chipulu, Ojiako, Williams, &
Akkermans, 2017), with recent calls by scholars (Akkermans, Keegan, Huemann, & Ringhofer,
2020) for more extensive research in the area. Project management has traditionally been
viewed as an ‘accidental profession’ (Darrell, Baccarini, & Love, 2010; Pinto & Kharbanda,
1997; Richardson, Earnhardt, & Marion, 2015) with individuals finding themselves “rolling
into the profession” (Havermans, Van der Heijden, Savelsbergh, & Storm, 2019, p. 346), with
the role of project manager often “thrust upon [them] rather than being sought” (Pinto &
Kharbanda, 1995, p. 216). The typical project career entry mode has been a gradual process
through working in a specialized role in another discipline (e.g., engineering, health, business,
and software development) with project management competencies developed over time
through informal learning and experience working on projects (Marion, Richardson, &
1
Earnhardt, 2014). However a recent report by the Australian Institute of Project Management
(AIPM) and KPMG (2018, p. 16) has challenged the status quo: “accidental project managers
are not the right solution for managing important investments …only 23% of Australian
projects and programs [are] delivering to full success.”
While project management remains an accidental profession for many (Havermans et
al., 2019; Richardson et al., 2015), this is not necessarily true for younger members of the
project workforce. With the development of project management as a recognized profession
(Bredin & Söderlund, 2013), formal tertiary undergraduate education has emerged to provide
a career pathway of choice for many of today’s younger generation (Lloyd-Walker, Crawford,
& French, 2016; Ramazani & Jergeas, 2015). Although this is only a relatively recent
development, there are now 274 project management bachelor degrees offered around the
world, including 130 in the United States, 93 in Europe, 36 in Oceania, 10 in Asia, and 2 in
Africa (Study Portal, 2019). As work in all industry sectors becomes more project-oriented
(Konstantinou, 2015), new graduates with project management bachelor degrees can provide
a much needed alternative source of talent to address the projected 33% increase in project
management roles over the next decade (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2017).
Recent calls to examine career entry routes into the project management profession
(Chipulu et al., 2017; Klein & Aubry, 2017) and how project managers’ careers evolve
(Akkermans et al., 2020), highlight that investigation of this new undergraduate degree
pathway is timely. A ‘chosen’ career in project management accessed through the higher
education route comes with a unique challenge (not found in the traditional accidental career
entry route) in terms of work readiness; in other words, the extent to which graduates with
undergraduate project management degrees are prepared for work. To be work ready, graduates
need to have a set of transferable values, behaviors and skills that enable them to smoothly
transition into the workforce and contribute to the development of their profession (Verma,
Nankervis, Priyono, Salleh, Connell, & Burgess, 2018). Therefore, it is critical that higher
education institutions prepare their project management graduates to be work ready.
In line with this, the main objective of this research is to explore how Australian higher
education institutions are preparing their undergraduates for work in the project management
profession by analyzing the work-readiness attributes they embed in their degrees. Moreover,
in accordance with recent recommendations that there is much to be gained from the integration
of project management and careers research (Akkermans et al., 2020), we draw upon the
careers, higher education, and project management streams of literature to frame our study.
Literature Review
Graduate Work Readiness
Policy makers have begun to recognize that work-ready graduates represent critical human
capital for developing national economic prosperity and for contributing to the wider global
economy (Azevedo, Apfelthaler, & Hurst, 2012; Tomlinson, 2017). Scholarly research defines
graduate work readiness as the extent to which graduates are perceived to possess the skills
and attributes that render them prepared for success in the workplace (Caballero & Walker
2010; Caballero, Walker, & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, 2011). A work-ready graduate is one who is
well-prepared to transition into employment post-graduation (Spanjaard, Hall, & Stegemann,
2
2018) and is able to meet their employers’ expectations by performing their role effectively
(Andrews & Higson, 2008). Work readiness is a concept that is neither industry nor discipline
specific (Raftopoulous, Coetzee, & Visser, 2009). The higher education literature assigns a
number of labels to work readiness, including: work preparedness, graduate employability,
transferable skills, key competencies, and generic attributes (Caballero & Walker, 2010;
Nettleton, Litchfield, & Taylor, 2008; Washer, 2007). Cavanagh, Burston, Southcombe, and
Bartram (2015) assert that often these terms are used interchangeably and appear to share the
same meaning; however, to avoid conceptual overlap, this study will confine itself to the
concept of work readiness. For employers, the term work readiness describes an encompassing
mix of the necessary values, behaviors, and skills that facilitate an individual’s successful
transition into the workplace (Business Council of Australia [BCA], 2016; Hora, 2017;
Raftopoulous et al., 2009). This definition is consistent with those used in the academic
literature (e.g., Caballero & Walker 2010; Caballero et al., 2011) and is the definition adopted
for this study.
Matching theory has been used to explain the process by which graduate work readiness
operates in the labor market (Mason, Williams, & Cranmer, 2009). Viewing work readiness
through the lens of matching theory, graduate work readiness is seen as a function of whether
the skills possessed by graduates match the skills required by the labor market. In the event of
a mismatch between graduates’ skills and employers’ needs, graduates may then experience
what Mason et al. (2009) term as labour market failure, which is essentially the inability of
graduates to effectively exercise their knowledge in the workplace and be considered work
ready. Conversely, a good match between graduates’ work readiness competencies and
employers’ requirements translates into recent graduates’ ability to secure employment,
enabling them to successfully implement the skills, knowledge, and abilities, which they
developed in higher education (Mason et al., 2009). In the context of the role of universities in
fostering work readiness, matching theory implies that the quality of employer–graduate
matches in the labor market should be improved for graduates who receive an education that
adequately prepares them for the contemporary workplace.
The Role of Higher Education in Work Readiness

A major reason why students undertake higher education studies is to develop the skills
required for well-paying employment (Jackson, 2014; Su, 2014). Higher education institutions
play an instrumental role in equipping graduates with work-ready skills and lifelong learning
attributes that they can continue to apply throughout their entire career (Jackson, 2014; Savage,
Davis, & Miller, 2010). Over the last two decades, there has been a growing opinion that the
primary role of higher education is to service industry’s need for work-ready employees (Huq
& Gilbert, 2013). Employers are increasingly calling for the inclusion of practical work
readiness skills into the academic curriculum to achieve a closer alignment between the work-
ready skills they require and those instilled in graduates (Cavanagh et al., 2015). Yet, studies
indicate there is often a gap between the skills employers are looking for in their entry-level
practitioners and the skills possessed by graduating students (Molla & Cuthbert, 2015),
pointing to the reality that many graduates entering the current workforce are not work ready.
This phenomenon is observed worldwide and across all fields of study, including project
3
management (Chipulu et al., 2013; Pant & Baroudi, 2008). Given the increasing number of
students enrolling in university degrees and the highly competitive nature of the labor market,
the inability of graduates to meet the demand of the workplace is of pressing concern.
Therefore, the work readiness of graduates transitioning from university into the world of work
is a topical issue that warrants further research (Cranmer, 2006; Holden & Hamblett, 2007;
Wood, Psaros, French, & Lai, 2015).
Graduate Competencies and Work Readiness Attributes

While the emphasis in the careers literature lies mainly on the on-going management of an
individual’s career once they are working, it can be argued that the first step in a career is
making the initial transition into the workplace, suggesting that work readiness is an essential
prerequisite. Career competencies are defined as encompassing knowledge, skills, and abilities
central to career development, which can be influenced by the individual (Akkermans,
Brenninkmeijer, Huibers, & Blonk, 2013). This is consistent with the definition of work
readiness as encompassing a range of values, behaviors, and skills (BCA, 2018), suggesting an
overlap between career competencies and work readiness attributes.
There are various career theories and models that seek to explain the nature of
contemporary careers including career self-management (Kuijpers & Scheerens, 2006;
Akkermans et al., 2013; Lent & Brown, 2013), career construction theory (Savickas, 2002),
the protean career model (Hall, 2004), the boundaryless career model (Arthur & Rousseau,
1996), and the self-directed career management model (Hirschi, 2012). These career theories
represent some of the most “dominant perspectives in the careers literature in terms of citations
and general impact” (Akkermans et al., 2020, p. 3). Shared across these perspectives is an
emphasis on the responsibility of the individual in managing his or her own career, with the
models illustrating a range of competencies and attributes that assist in the individual’s own
endeavor of career management (Savickas, 2011). It is considered that career self-management
behaviors and career competencies are not linked to a specific job or profession; but are
transferable to different work contexts (Kuijpers & Scheerens, 2006), which aligns with the
concept of work readiness attributes being transferable across disciplines (Raftopoulous et al.,
2009).
Career construction theory (Savickas, 2002) conceptualizes that career development is
driven by the person’s ability to be adaptable and, therefore, posits that the ability to adapt to
the work environment translates into individuals who are better able to prepare themselves for
the future and for the pursuit of their career goals (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). Adaptability is
recognized to be an essential competence for employees as they navigate the challenges posed
by the dynamic nature of 21st-century work environments (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008). The
attribute of adaptability is also emphasized by the protean career conception (Hall, 2004) and
the emphasis it places on identity resources, which encompass the trait of adaptability alongside
self-awareness. We see linkages between career competencies and work readiness attributes,
with self-awareness and adaptability considered key behaviors necessary for an individual’s
work readiness (BCA, 2016) as well as for their ongoing career development (Hirschi,
Herrmann, & Keller, 2015; Hirschi & Valero, 2015).
4
The boundaryless career framework (Sullivan & Arthur, 2006) advocates for identity
resources, which relate to the value component of work readiness attributes (i.e., an
individual’s honesty, respect, and level of accountability). Moreover, the framework focuses
also on the social and human capital resources of knowing why, knowing how and knowing
whom, which can be linked to the skills component of work ready attributes (i.e. knowing how
in terms of utilising one’s technical and problem solving skills to navigate workplace matters).
Furthermore, other frameworks such as the chaos theory of careers (Pryor & Bright, 2007)
advocate for the consideration of the individual’s broader personal characteristics, including
optimism, flexibility, and curiosity, which are closely linked with work readiness behavioral
attributes (i.e., flexibility is considered a key behavior necessary for an individual’s ability to
be successful in their transition to work) (BCA, 2016). The careers literature posits that such
competencies may assist an individual to navigate in a career filled with uncertainty (Pryor &
Bright, 2007).
While the focus in the careers literature is on career navigation and on-going
management, we assert that the transition from university to work is also characterized by
uncertainty and observe synergies in the competencies required for on-going career
development and the attributes that make an individual work ready. The careers literature
brings forth an additional repertoire of career competencies for the contemporary individual to
consider (Akkermans et al., 2013) in addition to the work-ready attributes identified by
employers (BCA, 2016). While the careers literature tends to focus more on career
development after an employee has entered the workforce, we believe there is a need for a
greater focus on initial work-ready attributes, which are key to successfully navigating the first
career development step (i.e., transition into the workforce). We suggest there is an alignment
between career competencies identified in the careers literature and the work-readiness
attributes studied in the higher education literature and argue that career competencies and
work-readiness attributes are linked concepts.
Graduate Work Readiness in the Context of Project Management

A review of the extant literature reveals that the business discipline is home to most of the
research on graduate work-ready competencies (e.g., Azevedo et al., 2012; Cavanagh et al.,
2015; Jackson, 2014; Wood et al., 2015), although this topic has been explored across a number
of other disciplines (e.g., Masole & van Dyk, 2016; Pheko & Molefhe, 2017). However, there
is a research gap in the context of undergraduate project management education (Borg, Scott-
Young, & Turner, 2017a; Borg, Turner, & Scott-Young, 2017b). It has been highlighted that
by designing and delivering project management degrees with clearly identifiable outcomes
(Mengel, 2008), educators can play a role in contributing to the development of knowledge
within the project management discipline (Berggren & Söderlund, 2008) and, in the process,
can better prepare new entrants to the project management profession.
Over the past decade, with the growing professionalization of project management
(Bredin & Söderlund, 2013), attention has increasingly turned to identifying project
management competencies (e.g., Saunders, Pacheco do Vale, Nunes, & Carvalho, 2018), which
are the relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) that enhance role performance (Ulrich,
Younger, Brockbank, & Ulrich, 2012). In terms of project manager competencies, scholars
5
argue that in addition to project-specific technical knowledge and skills, project practitioners
also require a range of interpersonal or ‘soft’ competencies (Scott-Young & Samson, 2008).
Among these competencies are leadership, problem solving (Hölzle, 2010; Müller & Turner,
2010), emotional intelligence (Müller & Turner, 2010), communication, social skills,
negotiation skills, and professionalism (Skulmoski & Hartman, 2010). It is notable that many
of these competencies resemble the general knowledge, skills, and abilities identified in the
careers literature (Akkermans et al., 2013; Forrier, Sels, & Stynen, 2009). In that literature,
career competencies and career resources (including psychological resources, career identity
resources, social resources, and human capital resources) are considered key in assisting
individuals to manage their careers (Hirschi, 2012; Paradnike, Endrulaitiene, & Bandzeviciene,
2016).
Although project management researchers have identified a range of project manager
competencies (Marion et al., 2014; Müller & Turner, 2010; Nijhuis, Vrijhoef, & Kessels, 2018)
and employer requirements (Ahsan, Ho, & Khan, 2013; Chipulu et al., 2013; Gruden & Stare,
2018), these studies have not framed their findings in terms of the concept of work readiness.
By neglecting to do so, these studies have failed to acknowledge the link made in the careers
literature between the possession of attributes by individuals and the impacts that such
competencies have on the management of those individuals’ careers. It is deemed crucial that
employees acquire relevant competencies, which can aid them in successfully managing their
work and careers (Akkermans, Schaufeli, Brenninkmeijer, & Blonk, 2013) and therefore it is
important that research considers the relevance of competencies to an individual’s ability to
thrive in the workplace. However, a recent critique of the human capital view of work readiness
asserts that it has overly focused on individual agency, largely ignoring context (Akkermans,
Seibert, & Mol, 2018). In contrast to the careers literature’s focus on individual agency in career
development, the higher education literature on work readiness focuses more on the macro–
level institutional role in fostering individual careers.
To date, there are few known project management studies that adopt the concept of
graduate work readiness. Although Borg et al. (2017a; 2017b) investigated project
management undergraduates’ work readiness, their focus was on the students’ perspective, not
on the requirements of the employer, nor specifically on the role of higher education in
preparing work-ready graduates. Recently, project management scholars have observed that
when recruiting project practitioners, employers place as much (Marion et al., 2014), if not
more (Chipulu et al., 2013) importance on generic and transferable competencies that are
strategic to business development, as they do on technical project management knowledge and
expertise. Studies of job advertisements for project manager positions in different countries
have confirmed that technical expertise is only one of the many competencies required (Ahsan
et al., 2013; Chipulu et al., 2013; Gruden & Stare, 2018). Moreover, employers’ dissatisfaction
with the work readiness of today’s emerging graduates highlights two issues: (1)field-specific
knowledge and technical skills alone are not enough to label graduates work ready; (2)
graduates need to develop capacities in addition to their technical knowledge to equip them to
deal with the complexity and stressors of the modern workplace (Masole & van Dyk, 2016).
However, there are concerns that project management educators may still be focusing more on
developing ‘hard’ technical skills (Pant & Baroudi, 2008), creating a shortfall in the ‘soft’
competencies required by industry (Chipulu et al., 2013). This perceived misalignment is the
6
focus of the current study, which explores how well the current supply side of graduate
competencies developed in undergraduate project management education matches the demand
side of employers’ requirements.
This study also addresses the paucity of literature on project management graduates’ work
readiness (Borg et al., 2017a; 2017b). In doing so, we attempt to bridge the project
management, higher education, and careers literature by drawing on the concept of graduate
work readiness and career competencies to explore the work-ready competencies embedded in
undergraduate project management degrees. Initiatives to develop work-readiness
competencies in students can only be successful if they meet the needs of industry so it is
essential to consider how well such competencies match employers’ perceived requirements
(Raftopoulous et al., 2009). Specifically, this study aims to determine whether the graduate
work-ready attributes developed in bachelor of project management degrees are in accordance
with the work-ready values, behaviors and skills currently sought by employers. The research
questions are as follows:
1. Which work-ready competencies are being taught in undergraduate project
management degree programs?
2. How do these work-ready competencies align with those required by employers?
3. How do these work-ready competencies align with those identified more broadly in the
extant higher education and careers literature?
4. How do these work-ready competencies align with literature-identified project manager
competencies?
Methodology
Research Context
Guided by Tomlinson’s (2017) and Bridgstock’s (2017) emphasis on the importance of
considering a range of labor market and educational contexts, this study is situated in a less
studied region of the world: Australia. This research site has been selected for a number of
reasons. Firstly, there is a strong labor market for project practitioners in Australia, particularly
in the infrastructure and construction sectors (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2016),
which are being stimulated by government economic and immigration policies. Secondly,
Australia has a thriving tertiary education system, which offers many internationally accredited
project management degrees (MacAuley & Urdaneta, 2016) and has a growing reputation for
project management research. Thirdly, work-readiness skills have assumed great prominence
in recent political and business discourse in Australia (BCA, 2018), resulting in universities
now being required to provide evidence of developing generic graduate attributes and
employability as a condition of retaining ongoing government funding (Daniels & Brooker,
2014). As a consequence of this increased national focus, in 2019 eight Australian universities
were ranked in the top 100 in the world in Quacquarelli Symonds’ (QS) (2019) measure of
student employability and were outstanding performers in terms of their reputation with
employers.
7
Sample
The selection criteria for inclusion in this study were all undergraduate degrees offered onshore
in Australia and designed to prepare students for careers in project management. A search of
Study Portal (a searchable online platform that catalogues tertiary education courses) in
January 2019 identified 12 bachelor of project management degrees offered by 10 universities
(labeled A–J in Table 2). All Australian states were represented in the sample, with the
exception of Tasmania, which had no offering in this category. The length of the degree
programs varied between three and four years of full-time study.
Work-ready Values, Behaviors and Skills in Undergraduate Project Management Curricula

Consistent with the understanding that the identity of a university can be defined through its
documents (Owen, 2014), materials relating to the selected undergraduate programs were
collected to provide insight into the learning outcomes of the project management degrees and
the values, skills, and knowledge being taught to students. Documents were identified online
in the public domain from the websites of the respective universities and took the form of (1)
student course guides, (2) student program handbooks, (3) course learning outcomes, (4) unit
guidelines, (5) unit assessment information, and (6) course accreditation information.
Work-ready Values, Behaviors, and Skills Required by Employers

The Work Ready Guide developed by the Business Council of Australia (BCA, 2016) was used
as the framework (Table 1) for the employer-based work-readiness skills and competencies
against which to assess the alignment of the work-readiness attributes embedded in the selected
undergraduate project management programs. This Australian BCA framework was adopted
in response to Bridgstock (2017) who advocates for the use of locally relevant content to avoid
de-contextualized generic lists of desired individual skills and capabilities that may not be
relevant in a particular research context. The BCA framework represents the most recent
Australian government-endorsed initiative to identify work readiness requirements for new
entrants in the Australian workforce. In developing these guidelines, the BCA (2016) brought
together chief executives from the largest companies operating in Australia, including major
infrastructure and construction companies such as Transurban, Bechtel, Brookfield, Downer,
Hanson, Lendlease, Mirvac, Stockland, GPT, and Fletcher Building. The BCA’s (2016) work-
ready framework outlines the minimum expectations that Australian businesses have of an
individual’s work readiness when they apply for a job. The framework identifies seven values,
nine behaviors, and eight skills that contribute to work readiness, making for a total of 24
required work-ready attributes, definitions of which are provided in the appendix at the end of
this article. The BCA (2016) framework does not specify whether employers place more
emphasis on any of the three subsets (values, behaviors, or skills), nor does it rank the values,
behaviors, and skills in any order of priority. Moreover, while the framework does not
explicitly distinguish between the soft-skill and hard-skill aspects of the attributes, it is evident
that the attributes identified as ‘values and behaviors’ correspond to soft skills, whereas those
categorized as ‘skills’ correspond to hard skills, with the exception of problem solving, which
entails both soft-skill and hard-skill elements. In Table 1, the attributes identified by (S)
8
correspond to soft skills and those with (H) are hard skills. The work-ready attributes included
in the framework are not industry-specific, but are identified instead as transferable enterprise
skills necessary for a successful transition into the Australian workforce at large (BCA, 2016).
Table 1. Work-Ready Attributes Required by Australian Employers
Work Ready Attributes
Values Behaviors Skills

Accountability (S) Adaptable (S) Business literacy (H)
Continuous improvement (S) Authentic (S) Critical analysis (H)
Honesty (S) Business minded (S) Data analysis (H)
Knowledge acquisition (S) Collaborative (S) Digital technology (H)
Respect (S) Customer focused (S) Literacy (H)
Tolerance (S) Flexible (S) Numeracy (H)
Work ethic (S) Globally aware (S) Problem solving (S/H)
Self-aware (S) Technical skills (H)
Resilient (S)
S = soft skills; H = hard skills
Source: Business Council of Australia (2016)
Graduate Outcomes
Some countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia collect graduate employability
statistics to determine on-going government funding to their universities (Tomlinson, 2017).
However, these statistics merely reflect the success of graduating students in securing any type
of job (not necessarily in their chosen career or at their corresponding skill level) and also fail
to provide any information on the success of students’ transition into the workplace
(Tomlinson, 2017). We posit that a better proxy measure for graduate work readiness is a
degree’s reputation with employers. To determine the quality of graduating project
professionals, each undergraduate degree’s employer reputation ranking (both worldwide and
for Australia) was obtained from the QS (2019) World University Rankings by Subject (see
Table 2). These rankings were derived from a global survey of 42,000 graduate employers
worldwide who were asked to identify the subject disciplines from which they recruit and to
name up to 10 domestic and 30 international institutions that they considered produced
excellent graduates (QS, 2019).
Data Analysis
The collected program-related documents were analyzed using the directed content analysis
technique (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). When implementing this approach, the process starts with
using a theory or existing research results, as guidelines for developing the initial research
codes (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The values, behaviors, and skills identified in the BCA Work
Ready Guide (2016) served as the 24 codes for classifying the learning outcomes and course
objectives in the collected program documents. Information within the documents was assigned
9
codes corresponding to one or more of the work-ready attributes within the Work Ready Guide.
Codes were then reviewed and discussed by the authors to eliminate researcher bias. The
documents were then analyzed to explore how consistent each university’s learning outcomes
were with the BCA (2016) set of values, behaviors, and skills. The frequency of the appearance
of each code in each of the undergraduate programs was recorded as well as the distribution of
work-ready attributes (codes) embedded holistically across all twelve degree programs. The
work-ready attributes embedded in the undergraduate project management degrees were then
compared with the work-ready attributes identified by four previous studies conducted by
Harvey (2000), Dacre Pool and Sewell (2007), Cavanagh et al. (2015), and Lippman, Ryberg,
Carney, and Moore (2015).
Results
The unique characteristics of each undergraduate project management degree program are
presented in Table 2, which lists: the university identifier code, degree type, faculty, university
cluster membership, employer reputation ranking, and the minimum guaranteed entry score for
admission into each degree program.
10
Table 2. Sample Characteristics

Employer
Reputation Employer
Ranking Reputation Entry
University Faculty/ University (QS— Ranking Score/100
Identifier Degree Type Accreditation Department Cluster World) (QS— Aus) (2018)
Bachelor CM CIOB; RICS; Built Environment
A (Honors) AIQS; AIB (4) (BE) ATN Top 10 1 80
Bachelor PM BE
A (Honors) RICS; PMI(2) ATN Top 10 1 75
Bachelor Architecture
B (Honors) AIB (1) and BE - 51–55 5 60
Architecture
C Bachelor AIB (1) and BE G8 21–25 2 86
Bachelor Engineering
D (Honors) None (0) and Science - - - NA
AIQS; RICS;
E Bachelor BQS (3) Design and BE ATN 51–55 4 70
Bachelor Science and
F (Honors) AIB (1) Environment ATN 121–125 7 81
Engineering and
G Bachelor PMI (1) IT G8 21–25 3 86
Bachelor Engineering and
G (Honors) PMI (1) IT G8 21–25 3 86
H Bachelor AIPM (1) Business and Law - - - 70

Bachelor Architecture,
I (Honors) AIB (1) Building, Design - 81–85 6 75
J Bachelor AIB (1) Design and BE - - - 60
KEY:
Accreditations
Australian Institute of Building (AIB) Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB)
Australian Institute of Chartered Surveyors (AIQS) Project Management Institute (PMI)
Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM) Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)
Board of Quantity Surveyors (BQS)
University cluster membership
Group of Eight (Go8)—highest ranking ‘sandstone’ universities
Australian Technical Network (ATN)—more recent ‘red brick’ technically-based universities
Each of the ten universities offered one undergraduate degree, with the exception of
University A, which offered bachelor with embedded honors degrees in two different
disciplines (construction management, project management) and University G, which offered
both a bachelor and an honors degree. All but one of the 12 degrees (University D) were
accredited by one or more international or locally based professional bodies, including the
Project Management Institute (PMI), the Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM),
the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), the Chartered Institute of Building
(CIOB), and the Australian Institute of Building (AIB). The construction degree at University
A was accredited by four professional bodies, the bachelor degree at University E held three
different accreditations, and the honors degree in project management at University A was
accredited by two international professional bodies. The remaining degrees were accredited by
one professional body only, with the exception of University D, which held none.
11
Figure 1 presents a stacked bar chart showing the comparative frequency (in percentage
format) of the work-ready values, behaviors, and skills, which were incorporated into each
university’s respective undergraduate project management degree program(s). The percentages
were calculated based on the total number of work-ready values, behaviors, and skills
embedded in the learning outcomes of each degree, as per the number of codes categorized as
either ‘value,’ ‘behavior,’ or ‘skill.’ The universities are presented in accordance with their
employer reputation ranking, noting that for universities H, D, and J, no employer ranking was
found.
Values Behaviours Skills
14%
25%
33% 38%
44% 43%
50% 50%
58% 57%
57%
11%
44% 29%
67%
14% 25%
57% 38%
25%
44%
29% 29% 25% 29%
22%
17% 13%
8% 5%
A C G E B I F H D J
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR NR NR
Employer reputation rank
KEY:
NR = Not Ranked
Figure 1. Emphasis on Work-ready Values, Behaviors, and Skills by Employer

Reputation Rank Order.
Table 3 shows the top three work-ready values, behaviors, and skills that were being
instilled across the entire sample of undergraduate degree programs. In order of highest
ranking, the top three values identified were being committed to (1) knowledge acquisition, (2)
respect, and (3) work ethic. The top three behaviors were (1) globally aware, (2) collaborative,
and (3) self-aware, while the top three work ready skills were (1) critical analysis, (2) literacy,
and (3) problem solving.
Table 3. Top Three Work-Ready Attributes by Frequency Mentioned in Learning

Outcomes
Rank Values Behaviors Skills

1 Knowledge acquisition Globally aware Critical analysis
2 Respect Collaborative Literacy
12
3 Work ethic Self-aware Problem solving
Table 4 lists the work-ready values, behaviors, and skills embedded in the
undergraduate project management courses across all ten universities, in order of ranking
according to highest prominence. Table 4 compares all rankedvalues, behaviors, and skills
against one another.
Table 4. Ranking of the Top Work-Ready Attributes Across all Project Management
Degrees
Rank Values Behaviors Skills

1 Critical analysis
2 Globally aware
3 Literacy
4 Knowledge acquisition
=5 Collaborative Problem solving
7 Business literacy
8 Technical skills
=9 Respect Self-aware Digital technology
=12 Work ethic Business minded Data analysis
=15 Continuous improvement Customer focused
17 Numeracy
In order of highest ranking, the work-ready values, behaviors, and skills embedded in
the degrees were critical analysis, globally aware, literacy, knowledge acquisition,
collaborative and problem solving, business literacy, technical skills, respect, self-aware and
digital technology, work ethic, business minded and data analysis, continuous improvement
and customer focused, and numeracy. All 17 of these work-readiness attributes were
embedded in all 12 degree programs across all ten universities. The results show that all eight
work-readiness skills (business literacy, critical analysis, data analysis, digital technology,
literacy, numeracy, problem solving, technical skills) were also embedded in all degree
program deliveries. However, the results reveal that neither the values of accountability,
honesty, and tolerance nor the behaviors of being adaptable, authentic, flexible, and resilient
were embedded in any of the programs.
Table 5 compares the work-readiness attributes identified in the current study with
findings from four previous studies. There are consistencies between the work-ready attributes
valued by industry in other studies and those identified in this study; however, the current
research has identified a much broader and complex range of work-ready attributes.
13
Table 5. Ranking of Work-Readiness Attributes Compared to Other Studies
Work-Readiness Work-Readiness
Attributes Linked to Attributes Embedded
Work-Readiness (WR) Attributes Valued by Employers Employment/ in Project
Performance Management
(15–29 year olds) Bachelor Degrees
Harvey (2000) Dacre Pool and Cavanagh et al. Lippman et al. This study (2019)
Sewell (2007) (2015) (2015)
*Communication *Adaptable *Effective *Social skills *Critical analysis
*Teamwork *Independent communication *Higher order *Globally aware
*Interpersonal *Cooperative *Adaptability thinking skills *Literacy
skills *Manage and *Commitment *Self-control *Knowledge
*Intellectual lead others *Will to learn *Positive self- acquisition
abilities *Communicate *Time concept *Collaborative
*Ability to learn effectively management *Hard working *Problem solving
*Manage time *Interpersonal *Teamwork *Business literacy
*Utilize new and skills *Positive attitude *Technical skills
emerging *People skills *Self-motivation *Respect
technologies *Integrity/ethics *Self-aware
*Digital technology
*Work ethic
*Business minded
*Data analysis
*Continuous
improvement
*Customer focused
*Numeracy
Discussion
This study investigates an emerging new project management career pathway: the
undergraduate degree. Around the world, school leavers (Lloyd-Walker et al., 2016; Pant &
Baroudi, 2008; Ramazani & Jergeas, 2015) and employers (Ahsan et al., 2013; Gruden & Stare,
2018) are growing the demand for bachelor of project management degrees. Although not
currently explored in the project management literature (Borg et al., 2017a; 2017b), graduate
work readiness is a critical issue for both careers researchers and for international bodies such
as the United Nations (UN), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), national governments, employers, educators, as well as for students and their parents
(Tomlinson, 2017). We explored the work-readiness attributes embedded in the learning
outcomes of 12 Australian bachelor of project management degrees. Given the expectation that
work-ready project management graduates entering the workforce are able to successfully
adjust and thrive in fast-paced and often complex project environments (Benhart & Shaurette,
2014), it is encouraging that all 12 undergraduate degree programs emphasized learning
outcomes, which reflect a wide range of work-ready attributes required by employers (BCA,
2016). Our results suggest that universities are heeding the recommendation of Bandaranaike
and Willison (2015) by embedding work readiness into current pedagogy at least to some
extent, and are integrating work-readiness attributes into their program learning outcomes.
14
We also examined how well the work-ready attributes taught in Australian bachelor of project
management degrees align with the work-ready attributes required by Australian employers.
The weighting given to these attributes (values, behaviors, and skills) varied according to the
university’s reputation with employers. An observed trend emerged, with the highest
employer-ranked universities giving greater attention to the ‘softer’ work-ready attitudinal and
relational behaviors rather than to the technical, business-related work-ready skills. This
finding confirms previous research on the increasing importance that employers are placing on
soft transferable skills in the high-tech 21st-century workplace (Lippman et al., 2015; OECD,
2018; Pant & Baroudi, 2008). It is notable that many of the work-readiness skills that were
prominent in all universities’ project management curricula align closely with recognized
project manager competencies. The top three work-ready behaviors (globally aware,
collaborative, and self-aware) are all related to emotional intelligence (Müller & Turner, 2010)
and social skills (Skulmoski & Hartman, 2010), which are both regarded as important for
project managers. Two of the top three work-ready values (respect and work ethic) are
attributes related to professionalism, another necessary project manager competency
(Skulmoski & Hartman, 2010). Two of the top three work-ready skills (critical analysis and
problem-solving) reflect Müller and Turner’s (2010) and Hölzle’s (2010) emphasis on the
importance of these cognitive skills for project managers. Overall, our findings suggest that the
generic work-readiness attributes embodied in Australian undergraduate project management
degrees are aligned with the ‘soft’ skills requirements for project managers (Scott-Young &
Samson, 2008) in today’s project-centric workplaces.
On the surface, our findings suggest that most of the universities in our sample are
making promising headway in developing work-ready emerging project practitioners, thereby
increasing the likelihood that their graduates will find work in the project field. However, when
adopting the lens of matching theory (Mason et al., 2009), our findings show that there are
evident mismatches between some of the attributes appraised by industry and those embedded
in the degree programs. The absence of some key attributes in the undergraduate project
management degrees, coupled with the inconsistencies of program learning attributes across
universities, suggest that there is still more that universities can do to (1) incorporate a wider
range of work-ready attributes into their curricula and (2) to establish consistencies between
project management bachelor degree programs offered nationwide.
Non-embedded Work-Ready Values May Affect Career Development

A number of key work-ready values and behaviors were missing from university curricula.
Behaviors such as being authentic and resilient, which have been identified as crucial for the
future Industry 4.0 workforce (OECD, 2018) were not embedded in any of the undergraduate
programs. Moreover, the behaviors of being flexible and adaptable, which are key
competencies in the careers literature for contributing to an individual’s career development
(Hall, 2004; Pryor & Bright, 2007) and career outcomes (Hirschi et al., 2015) were also
missing. This is particularly concerning, given that the conceptualization of career
development is a function of an individual’s ability to be both adaptable and flexible (Hirschi,
2012; Savickas, 2012), with career construction theory positing that adaptable individuals are
better equipped to pursue their career goals (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). Furthermore, research
15
shows that students with higher levels of adaptability are better able to address the challenges
associated with career development as opposed to students who exhibit low levels of
adaptability (Hirschi & Valero, 2015). This suggests that the absence of these competencies
may not only pose negative impacts on graduates’ university-to-work transitions, but may also
hinder their on-going career development.
Looking at the results holistically, Australian undergraduate project management
degrees are placing less emphasis on work=ready values than skills and behaviors. This is a
cause for concern given the recent ethical crises experienced in projects around the world (for
example, the Siemens’ bribery case which saw bribes being paid to government officials in
Asia, Africa, Europe, the Middle East and the Americas) and the future ethical challenges and
uncertainties posed by artificial intelligence and the new digital era of work (Schwab, 2016).
For half the universities, work-ready values were the least prominent area of focus. This may
be attributed to the intangible nature of values, making them hard to quantify and thus perhaps
a challenge to integrate into course learning outcomes. This apparent lack of focus on work
readiness values across five of the ten universities is concerning, given that work-readiness
values stand alongside the work readiness behaviors and skills that contribute to an individual’s
overall work-readiness (BCA, 2016). These results suggest that some universities need to
increase their focus on integrating work-readiness values into their course learning outcomes,
not only to assist graduates in their initial transition to work, but to enable individuals to
successfully manage their careers in the long term.
Work-Readiness Attributes are Contextual and Changing

The results of this study lend credence to Tomlinson’s (2017) view that work-readiness
attributes may be specific to particular geographic locations. Our findings suggest that the
social context in which a university is located influences the work-readiness attributes that
educators embed in their undergraduate degree programs. For example, global awareness (an
understanding of cross-cultural interactions and openness to working with other nationalities)
was identified as the top work-readiness behavior across all universities. This result may be
influenced by the diverse nature of Australia’s highly multicultural workforce. Almost half
(49%) of the Australian population were either born overseas or have at least one parent who
was born outside Australia (ABS, 2016). Moreover, many of the largest employers in Australia
are multinational companies with operations around the world, so global awareness is a highly
desirable graduate attribute.
When compared with previous studies (Dacre Pool & Sewell, 2007; Cavanagh et al.,
2015; Harvey, 2000; Lippman et al., 2015), our results suggest that work-ready skills vary by
both the country context and the era in which studies are conducted. These findings confirm
the need to study work readiness in different regional contexts (Lippman et al., 2015;
Tomlinson, 2017) and also highlight that time is an important element for future consideration.
It appears that work-readiness skills required in the current highly dynamic 21st-century
environment are rapidly expanding and changing, suggesting the need for research on this topic
to be regularly updated. If educators are to maintain the currency of their initiatives to develop
work-ready attributes needed in the contemporary workplace, greater dialogue and ongoing
16
collaboration between employers and educators will be critical to ensure that the project
management curriculum meets the changing needs of both students and employers.
Study Limitations and Future Research

It must be noted that this study was limited by the nature of the documentary data collected,
which in turn was limited to the data available online and accessible to the public at the time
of the study. Another limitation is that the BCA’s (2016; 2018) work-ready framework
identified generic, transferable values, behaviors, and skills required by all Australian workers,
rather than occupation-specific competencies. However, our comparison of the attributes with
project manager competencies identified in the project literature (Hölzle, 2010; Müller &
Turner, 2010; Skulmoski & Hartman, 2010) reveals that there are similarities. Furthermore,
there is a tendency now to regard the transferable, generic skills identified in frameworks like
the BCA’s (2016) to be more relevant to graduate work readiness in the current new digital era
than occupation-specific knowledge, which has an increasingly shorter half-life (Thijssen, Van
der Heijden, & Rocco, 2008).
A further limitation of the study is that from our data, we could not measure whether
or not the graduates of the degrees in our sample actually possess the work-ready values,
behaviors, and skills espoused in their degrees. All we can ascertain is that our examination of
curricular documents suggest that undergraduates are being taught these attributes; however,
we do not know whether they have actually acquired them or whether their work readiness has
been assessed. To counter this limitation, we used the QS (2019) employment reputation for
each university as an imperfect proxy of whether employers are recruiting these graduates and,
by inference, that their positive evaluations confirm that the graduates possess the requisite
work- ready attributes.
While our study considers the work-ready attributes required by project management
graduates seeking to transition into professional roles in projects, we were unable to take into
account how much life and work experience is also related to career success for project
professionals, because our study only considered one possible entry point into the project
management career. Obviously, there is likely to be a gap between the levels of life and work
experience of young new graduates compared with experienced workers “rolling into the
profession” from the workplace (Havermans et al., 2019, p. 346). It is recommended that future
studies consider this important variable alongside other work-readiness attributes.
While the results of this study cannot be generalized to all undergraduate project
management degrees across the world, they are representative of the work-readiness attributes
embedded in Australian degrees and can therefore serve as a basis for comparison. These
findings cannot be generalized to master of project management degrees, as most students in
those degree programs have earned a bachelor’s degree and have already been in the workforce,
thus acquiring many of the required work-ready attributes through their prior employment
experiences. Future research could compare the work-readiness attributes embedded in project
management bachelor and master degree curricula.
Although this study has focused solely on the integration of work-ready attributes in
university curricula, it is important to note that, as advocated by Borg, Scott-Young, and Turner
(2019), in order to develop work-ready project management practitioners, there needs to be
17
closer collaboration among key stakeholders, including universities, students, and employers,
recognizing that this “involves a major (but necessary) departure from the traditional educator-
only approach to curricula design” (Borg et al., 2019, p. 59). In light of this, it is recommended
that future research focus on gaining a holistic, system-wide understanding of graduate work
readiness from the perspectives of the multiple stakeholders with a special interest in graduate
work readiness. This would represent a step toward addressing on-going research
recommendations for a closer alignment among the stakeholder perspectives of work readiness
(Borg et al., 2019; Manthe & Smallwood, 2007; Mason et al., 2009). Future studies may wish
to employ alternative research methods such as in-depth interviews or quantitative surveys to
triangulate the perspectives of project management employers, policy makers, students,
graduates, and university educators. Temporal designs to study the actual transition from the
university environment into the project management profession would also add valuable
insight into individuals’ attainment of work-readiness skills. Through adopting the perspective
of individual agency from the careers literature, a more integrated understanding of the ecology
of the project career development system may be attained.
Conclusion
In this study, we have focused on a new development in the project management career
pathway: the emergence of the bachelor of project management degree. We have argued that
undergraduate tertiary education in project management may take the ‘accident’ (Pinto &
Kharabhanda, 1995) out of project management careers, by producing knowledgeable, work-
ready graduates who can swiftly transition into their chosen profession and who are better-
prepared to avoid many of the ‘accidents’ that occur in project management practice. To
explore this seldom researched alternative project career pathway, this study focused on
graduate work readiness, a topic of growing interest to the higher education literature, and also
the government, employer, educator, and student stakeholder groups. By bridging the project,
higher education, and careers literatures, this study has answered the special issue’s call to
advance the theory and practice of project management career development. Our study has
looked beyond the careers literature’s dominant micro-level perspective of individual agency
in graduate work-ready resource acquisition, to consider the macro-level perspective of tertiary
education providers as expressed in universities’ undergraduate project management degree
curricula.
The uniqueness of the present study lies in its focus on comparing the graduate work-
readiness skills and competencies that are developed in undergraduate project management
degrees with an up-to-date, pre-established and context-relevant framework of transferable
work-ready skills and competencies required by employers in the 21st-century workplace
(BCA, 2016). Using the lens of matching theory, this research explored whether industry-
required work-ready values, behaviors, and skills are being embedded in undergraduate project
management curricula and learning outcomes. In doing so, the findings generated from this
research extend our understanding of the particular professional attributes that universities are
developing in today’s project management undergraduate students. We have also identified
that educators should continuously consult with key stakeholders to ensure their curricula
remain responsive to current project workplace needs.
18
Moreover, reflecting Akkermans et al.’s (2020) call for greater dialogue between the
project management and careers literatures, this study integrates the concept of graduate work-
readiness attributes with existing research on project management and career competencies.
The focus of the careers literature has traditionally been on equipping the individual with
competencies to navigate their own careers, rather than on the role of educational institutions
or employers. We suggest that as the transition from university-to-work is the first step in the
career journey, work-readiness attributes and career competencies are not totally separate
concepts and we have identified some synergies. The careers literature could benefit from a
greater consideration of the institutional eco-system, within which career development is
fostered, by including the roles played by both educators and employers. Equally, the higher
education literature could learn from the careers literature to give greater consideration to
individual agency when studying work readiness. Both streams of literature could benefit from
considering the roles of partnerships among students, employers, and educators in fostering
work readiness and career competence for sustained career development in project
management across the entire employment lifespan.
As work readiness in the project management profession remains an area where little
research has been undertaken, this study represents a step forward in understanding how
universities are catering for, and can continue to cater to, the work-readiness requirements of
both industry and students. It is acknowledged that work-ready graduates are paramount to
meeting the growing global demand for project professionals (Project Management Institute,
2017) and also for stimulating economic development (Tomlinson, 2017). Given that graduate
work readiness continues to be a matter of worldwide concern, it is recommended that further
research be undertaken to better understand how universities and industry can partner together
to foster the work readiness of project management students. Such research will assist industry
to prime the project talent pipeline to meet its ever-expanding demand for project management
practitioners. It is hoped that the contribution of this study, coupled with our suggestions for
future research in work readiness, will provide significant benefits to educators, industry, and
the growing project management profession at large.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully thank the Editor, the Special Issue Editors, and the anonymous
reviewers for their invaluable comments and feedback.
References
Ahsan, K., Ho, M., & Khan, S. (2013). Recruiting project managers: A comparative analysis
of competencies and recruitment signals from job advertisements. Project Management
Journal, 44(5), 36–54.
Akkermans, J., Brenninkmeijer, V., Huibers, M., & Blonk, R. W. B. (2013). Competencies
for the contemporary career: Development and preliminary validation of the career
competencies questionnaire. Journal of Career Development, 40(3), 245–267.
19
Akkermans, J., Keegan, A., Huemann, M., & Ringhofer, C. (2020). Crafting project
managers’ careers: Integrating the fields of careers and project management. Project
Management Journal, (in press), published online 7 November 2019.
Akkermans, J., Seibert, S., & Mol, D. (2018). Tales of the unexpected: Integrating career
shocks in the contemporary careers literature. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology,
44(1), 1–10.
Akkermans, J., Schaufeli, W. B., Brenninkmeijer, V., & Blonk, R. W. B. (2013). The role
of career competencies in the job demands—resources model. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
83(3), 356–366.
Andrews, J., & Higson, H. (2008). Graduate employability, ‘soft skills’ versus ‘hard’ business
knowledge: A European study. Higher Education in Europe, 33(4), 411–422.
Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1996). The boundaryless career as a new employment
principle in the boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational
era. Oxford University Press.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2016). Migration, Australia, 2015-16.

<http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/>.
Australian Institute of Project Management and KPMG (2018). The state of play in project
management: Australian project management survey. <https://kpmg.australian-project-
management-survey-2018>.
Azevedo, A., Apfelthaler, G., & Hurst, D. (2012). Competency development in business
graduates: An industry-driven approach for examining the alignment of undergraduate
business education with industry requirements. The International Journal of Management
Education, 10(1), 12–28.
Bandaranaike, S., & Willison, J. (2015). Understanding emotional work readiness in the
workplace. Paper presented at the 19th WACE World Conference on Cooperation and Work-
Integrated Education, Kyogo Sangyo University, Kyoto Japan, 18–21 August.
Benhart, B., & Shaurette, M. (2014). Establishing new graduate competencies: Purdue
University's construction management curriculum restructuring. International Journal of
Construction Education and Research, 10(1), 19–38.
Berggren, C., & Söderlund, J. (2008). Rethinking project management education: Social
twists and knowledge co-production. International Journal of Project Management, 26(3),
286–296.
Borg, J., Scott-Young, C., & Turner, M. (2017). ‘Student Work Readiness: Evaluating A
New Model’, Paper presented at the European Academy of Management Conference (EURAM
2017), Glasgow, Scotland, 21 - 24 June 2017.
Borg, J., Turner, M., & Scott-Young, C. (2017). Fostering Student Work Readiness—A
University Case Study (pp. 351–360). Proceedings of the 41st Australasian Universities
Building Education Association Conference (AUBEA 2017), Melbourne, Australia, 3–5 July.
20
Borg, J., Scott-Young, C. M., & Turner, M. (2019). Smarter education: Leveraging
stakeholder inputs to develop work ready curricula. In Uskov., Howlett R., & Jain L. (eds)
Smart education and e-learning: Smart innovation systems and technologies (pp. 51–61).
Springer.
Bredin, K., & Söderlund, J. (2013). Project managers and career models: An exploratory
comparative study. International Journal of Project Management, 31(6), 889–902.
Bridgstock, R. (2017). The university and the knowledge network: A new educational model
for twenty-first century learning and employability. In Tomlinson, M., & Holmes, L. Graduate
employability in context: Theory, research and debate (pp. 339-358). Palgrave Macmillan.
Business Council of Australia (BCA). (2016). Being work ready: A guide to what employers
want. Business Council of Australia. <www.beingworkready.com.au>
Business Council of Australia (BCA). (2018). Future-proof Australia’s future post-
secondary education and skills system (reform plan). Business Council of Australia.
https://cloudfront.net/bca/pages//attachments/original>
Caballero, C., & Walker, A. (2010). Work readiness in graduate recruitment and selection:
A review of current assessment methods. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate
Employability, 1(1), 13–25.
Caballero, C. L., Walker, A., & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. (2011). The work readiness scale
(WRS): Developing a measure to assess work readiness in college graduates. Journal of
Teaching & Learning for Graduate Employability, 2(2), 41–54.
Cavanagh, J., Burston, M., Southcombe, A., & 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, 13(3), 278–288.
Chipulu, M., Neoh, J. G., Ojiako, U., & Williams, T. (2013). A multidimensional analysis
of project manager competences. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 60(3), 506–
517.
Chipulu, M., Ojako, U., & Williams, T., & Akkermans, J. (2017). Career paths and career
systems for project managers. Project Management Journal, 48(6), 3–4.
Cranmer, S. (2006). Enhancing graduate employability: Best intentions and mixed outcomes.
Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 169–184.
Dacre Pool, L., & Sewell, P. (2007). The key to employability: Developing a practical model
of graduate employability. Education & Training, 49(4), 277–289.
Daniels, J., & Brooker, J. (2014). Student identity development in higher education:
Implications for graduate attributes and work-readiness. Educational Research, 56(1), 65–76.
Darrell, V., Baccarini, D., & Love, P. (2010). Demystifying the folklore of the accidental
project manager in the public sector. Project Management Journal, 41(5), 56–63.
21
Forrier, A., Sels, L., & Stynen, D. (2009). Career mobility at the intersection between agent
and structure: A conceptual model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
82(4), 739–759.
Fugate, M., & Kinicki, A. (2008). A dispositional approach to employability: Development
of a measure and test of implications for employee reactions to organizational change. Journal
of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 81(3), 503–527.
Gruden, N., & Stare, A. (2018). The influence of behavioural competencies on project
performance. Project Management Journal, 49(3), 98–109.
Hall, D. T. (2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 65(1),1–13.
Harvey, L. (2000). New realities: The relationship between higher education and employment.
Tertiary Education and Management, 6(1), 3–17.
Havermans, L., Van der Heijden, B. I., Savelsbergh, C., & Storm, P. (2019). Rolling into
the profession: Exploring the motivation and experience of becoming a project manager.
Project Management Journal, 50(3), 346–360.
Hirschi, A. (2012). The career resources model: An integrative framework for career
counsellors. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 40(4), 369–383.
Hirschi, A., Herrmann, A., & Keller, A. C. (2015). Career adaptivity, adaptability, and
adapting: A conceptual and empirical investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 87(1), 1–
10.
Hirschi, A., & Valero, D. (2015). Career adaptability profiles and their relationship to
adaptivity and adapting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88(1), 220–229.
Holden, R., & Hamblett, J. (2007). The transition from higher education into work: Tales of
cohesion and fragmentation. Education & Training, 49(7), 516–585.
Hölzle, K. (2010). Designing and implementing a career path for project managers.
International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 779–786.
Hora, M. T. (2017). Beyond the skills gap. National Association of Colleges and Employers.
http://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/trends-and-predictions /beyond-theskills-gap/
Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative
Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
Huq, A., & Gilbert, D. H. (2013). Enhancing graduate employability through work-based
learning in social entrepreneurship. Education & Training, 55(6), 550–572.
Jackson, D. (2014). Factors influencing job attainment in recent bachelor graduates: Evidence
from Australia. Higher Education, 68(1), 135-153.
Keegan, A., Ringhofer, C., & Huemann, M. (2018). Human resource management and
project based organizing: Fertile ground, missed opportunities and prospects for closer
connections. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 121–133.
22
Klein, G., & Aubry, M. (2017). From the editors: Introducing the special issue on
megaprojects—“Symbolic and sublime.” Project Management Journal, 48(6), 3–4.
Konstantinou, E. (2015). Professionalism in project management: Redefining the role of the
project practitioner. Project Management Journal, 46(2), 21–35.
Kuijpers, M. T., & Scheerens, J. (2006). Career competencies for the modern career. Journal
of Career Development, 32(4), 303–319.
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2013). Social cognitive model of career self-management:
Toward a unifying view of adaptive career behavior across the life span. Journal of Counselling
Psychology, 60(4), 557–568.
Lippman, L.H., Ryberg, R., Carney, R., & Moore, K.A. (2105). Workforce connections.
Child Trends Publication, 2015-24.
Lloyd-Walker, B., Crawford, L., & French, E.L. (2016). Rethinking researching project
management: Understanding the reality of project management careers. International Journal
of Managing Projects in Business, 9(4), 903–930.
MacAuley, S., & Urdaneta, A. (2016). Mastering project-organising: A report on Programs

in Australia and New Zealand, Prepared for the ANZAM Project-Organising SIG, Australian
and New Zealand Academy of Management.
Manthe, M., & Smallwood, J. (2007). The appropriateness of built environment tertiary
education. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 5(2), 102–119.
Marion, J. W., Richardson, T. M., & Earnhardt, M. P. (2014). Project manager insights:
An analysis of career progression. Organizational Project Management, 1(1), 53–73.
Masole, L., & van Dyk, G. (2016). Factors influencing work readiness of graduates: An
exploratory study. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 26(1), 70–73.
Mason, G., Williams, G., & Cranmer, S. (2009). Employability skills initiatives in higher
education: What effects do they have on graduate labour market outcomes? Education
Economics, 17(1), 1–30.
Mengel, T. (2008). Outcome-based project management education for emerging leaders—A
case study of teaching and learning project management. International Journal of Project
Management, 26(3), 275–285.
Molla, T., & Cuthbert, D. (2015). The issue of research graduate employability in Australia:
An analysis of the policy framing (1999–2013). Australian Educational Researcher, 42(2),
237–256.
Müller, R., & Turner, R., (2010). Leadership competency profiles of successful project
managers. International Journal of Project Management, 28(5), 437–448.
Nettleton, S., Litchfield, A., & Taylor, T. (2008). Engaging professional societies in
developing work ready graduates. 31st Annual International HERDSA Conference.
Nijhuis, S., Vrijhoef, R., & Kessels, J. (2018). Tackling project management competence
research. Project Management Journal, 49(3), 62–18.
23
OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills education 2030.

<https://www.oecd.org/education/2030>
Owen, G. (2014). Qualitative methods in higher education policy analysis: Using interviews
and document analysis. The Qualitative Report, 19(52), 1–19.
Pant, I., & Baroudi, B. (2008). Project management education: The human skills imperative.
International Journal of Project Management, 26(2), 124–128.
Paradnike, K., Endriulaitiene, A., & Bandzeviciene, R. (2016). Career self-management

resources in contemporary career frameworks: A literature review. Organizacijø Vadyba:
Sisteminiai Tyrimai, 76, 91–106.
Pheko, M. M., & Molefhe, K. (2017). Addressing employability challenges: A framework for
improving the employability of graduates in Botswana. International Journal of Adolescence
and Youth, 22(4), 1–15.
Pinto, J. K., & Kharbanda, O. P. (1995). Lessons for an accidental profession. Business
Horizons, 38(2), 41–51.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (2017). Project management job growth and
talent
gap 2017–2027.Newtown Square, PA.
Pryor, R. L., & Bright, J. H. (2007). Applying chaos theory to careers: Attraction and
attractors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(3), 375–400.
Quacquarelli Symonds (QS). (2019). World university rankings by subject.
<https://www.topuniversities.com/rankings/subject-rankings>
Raftopoulous, M., Coetzee, S., & Visser, D (2009). Work-readiness skills in the Fasset
Sector. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(1), 119–126.
Ramazani, J., & Jergeas, G. (2015). Project managers and the journey from good to great:
The benefits of investment in project management training and education. International
Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 41–52.
Richardson, T. M., Earnhardt, M. P., & Marion, J. W. (2015). Is project management still
an accidental profession? A qualitative study of career trajectory. SAGE Open, 5(1), 1–10.
Saunders Pacheco do Vale, J. W., Nunes, B., & Carvalho, M. M. (2018). Project managers'
competences: What do job advertisements and the academic literature say? Project
Management Journal, 49(3), 83–97.
Savage, S., Davis, R., & Miller, E. (2010). Professional education in built environment and
design: Final report prepared forThe Australian Learning and Teaching Council, Queensland
University of Technology, Canberra.
Savickas, M. L. (2002). Career construction: A developmental theory of vocational behavior.
In Career choice and development (4th ed.) (pp. 149–205), ed. D. Brown. Jossey-Bass.
24
Savickas, M. L. (2011). New questions for vocational psychology: Premises, paradigms, and
practices. Journal of Career Assessment, 19(3), 251–258.
Savickas M. L., & Porfeli E. J. (2012). Career adapt-abilities scale: Construction, reliability,
and measurement equivalence across thirteen countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3),
661–673.
Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution. World Economic Forum: Cologny/
Geneva, Switzerland.
Scott-Young, C. M., & Samson, D. (2008). Project success and project team management:
Evidence from capital projects in the process industries. Journal of Operations Management,
26(6), 749–766.
Skulmoski, G. J., & Hartman, F. T. (2010). Information systems project manager soft
competencies: A project-phase investigation. Project Management Journal, 41(1), 61–80.
Spanjaard, D., Hall, T., & Stegemann, N. (2018). Experiential learning: Helping students to
become ‘career-ready.’ Australasian Marketing Journal, 26(2), 163–171.
Study Portal. (2019). <https://www.bachelorsportal.com>.
Su, Y. (2014). Self-directed, genuine graduate attributes: The person-based approach. Higher
Education Research & Development, 33(6), 1208–1220.
Sullivan, S. E., & Arthur, M. B. (2006). The evolution of the boundaryless career concept:
Examining physical and psychological mobility. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 19–
29.
Thijssen, J. G. L., Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., & Rocco, T. S. (2008). Toward the
employability–link model: Current employment transition to future employment perspectives.
Human Resource Development Review, 7(2), 165–183.
Tomlinson, M. (2017). Graduate employability in context: Charting a complex, contested and

multi-faceted policy and research field. Chapter 1 in Tomlinson, M., & Holmes, L. Graduate
employability in context: Theory, research and debate. (pp. 1-40), Palgrave Macmillan.
Ulrich, D., Younger, J., Brockbank, W., & Ulrich, M. (2012). HR from the outside in: Six
competencies for the future of HR. McGraw-Hill.
Verma, P., Nankervis, A., Priyono, S., Salleh, N., Connell, J., & Burgess, J. (2018).
Graduate work readiness challenges in the Asia-Pacific region and the role of HRM. Equality,
Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 37(2), 121–137.
Washer, P. (2007). Revisiting key skills: A practical framework for higher education. Quality
in Higher Education, 13(1), 57–67.
Wood, L. N., Psaros, J., French, E., & Lai, J. W. M. (2015). Learning experiences for the
transition to professional work. Cogent Business & Management, 2(1), 1–16.
25
Appendix: Defining the Attributes in the Work Ready Guide
Value, Behavior, Work-Ready Definition of Attribute

or Skill Attribute [As Assigned by the BCA (2018, p. 41)]
Value Accountability Accepts responsibility for own actions and their impact on the
business and others.
Value Continuous Has high standards and consistently tries to improve own
improvement performance and the performance of the business.
Value Honesty Straightforward behavior with no deceit and cheating. Is

trustworthy, fair, and sincere.
Value Knowledge Develops understanding, skills, and expertise. Is committed to

growth and learning.
Value Respect Takes into account other peoples’ feelings, wishes, or rights.
Value Tolerance Willingness to recognize and respect differences and the beliefs,
habits, and practices of others.
Value Work ethic Diligent and committed to the business.
Behavior Adaptable Is open to new ideas and concepts and proactively changes the way
they work to stay effective in new work settings.
Behavior Authentic Is true to own personality and values, while still working within the
business’s expectations.
Behavior Business-minded Understands all employees are responsible for business success and
therefore looks for opportunities to make the business better.
Behavior Collaborative Shares knowledge and learning, works cooperatively with others,
and works to build agreement to achieve an outcome for the
business or client.
Behavior Customer focused Understands who the customer is, what their needs are, and actively
works to improve their experience.
Behavior Flexible Effectively handles unexpected situations or last-minute changes.
Behavior Globally aware Has an awareness and understanding of global interactions and is
open to working with other nationalities and cultures.
Behavior Self-aware Knows own strengths, talents, and passions. Recognizes areas for
learning and development and learns from their mistakes. Has a
good understanding of their role in the business.
Behavior Resilient Bounces back when things do not go as planned. Does not dwell on
failures, learns from them or their own mistakes and moves
forward.
26
Skill Business literacy Ability to apply knowledge of the business environment and work
processes/tasks to manage situations and achieve good outcomes.
Skill Critical analysis Can evaluate a situation/proposal, identify possible outcomes,

assess pros and cons. and determine the right approach based on
desired outcome.
Skill Data analysis Collect and review data to identify trends, answer questions, and
test assumptions.
Skill Digital technology Ability to use information and communication technology.
Skill Literacy Ability to learn, read, write, and communicate verbally.
Skill Numeracy Ability to reason and apply numerical concepts and calculate
numbers or amounts.
Skill Problem solving Ability to ﬁnd solutions to simple through to complex issues.
Skill Technical skills Speciﬁc to the job and gained through formal education.
Author Biographies
Mrs. Jessica Borg is currently completing her PhD within the School of Property,
Construction and Project Management at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Having
successfully delivered a number of high-profile projects within the Melbourne CBD, she
brings relevant industry experience to her research endeavors. Jessica was awarded the
prestigious Women in Project Management Scholarship, awarded by the Project Management
Institute (PMI) in recognition of her achievements in industry and academic study. Jessica’s
research focuses on exploring work readiness within the context of project management and
the built environment industry. She is particularly interested in graduate work readiness, the
transition from education to the workplace, employability, and career paths within the project
management discipline. Jessica can be contacted at jessica.borg@rmit.edu.au.
Dr. Christina Scott-Young is a clinical psychologist and academic who researches in the
fields of project teamwork, leadership, work readiness, resilience, well-being, and diversity.
Christina is currently Associate Professor at RMIT University, having previously held
academic positions at Pennsylvania State University, the University of South Australia, and
at the University of Melbourne, where she was awarded her PhD in Management. Her
research has been published in the International Journal of Project Management, the Journal
of Operations Management, the International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Construction Management and Economics, the International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, Studies in Higher Education, and Higher Education
Research & Development. Christina can be contacted at christina.scott-young@rmit.edu.au.
27
View publication stats

Priming The Project Talent Pipeline Examining Work

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Priming The Project Talent Pipeline Examining Work

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Priming the Project Talent Pipeline: Examining Work Readiness in

Article in Project Management Journal · February 2020

Jessica Borg Christina M. Scott-Young

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Please cite as:

The published document can be accessed via: https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820904220

Priming the Project Talent Pipeline: Examining Work

Undergraduate education is emerging as a direct pathway into the previously deemed

The Role of Higher Education in Work Readiness

Graduate Competencies and Work Readiness Attributes

Graduate Work Readiness in the Context of Project Management

Work-ready Values, Behaviors and Skills in Undergraduate Project Management Curricula

Work-ready Values, Behaviors, and Skills Required by Employers

Table 1. Work-Ready Attributes Required by Australian Employers

Work Ready Attributes

Values Behaviors Skills

Table 2. Sample Characteristics

H Bachelor AIPM (1) Business and Law - - - 70

J Bachelor AIB (1) Design and BE - - - 60

Figure 1. Emphasis on Work-ready Values, Behaviors, and Skills by Employer

Table 3. Top Three Work-Ready Attributes by Frequency Mentioned in Learning

Rank Values Behaviors Skills

3 Work ethic Self-aware Problem solving

Rank Values Behaviors Skills

Table 5. Ranking of Work-Readiness Attributes Compared to Other Studies

Non-embedded Work-Ready Values May Affect Career Development

Work-Readiness Attributes are Contextual and Changing

Study Limitations and Future Research

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2016). Migration, Australia, 2015-16.

Hall, D. T. (2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational

MacAuley, S., & Urdaneta, A. (2016). Mastering project-organising: A report on Programs

OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills education 2030.

Paradnike, K., Endriulaitiene, A., & Bandzeviciene, R. (2016). Career self-management

Study Portal. (2019). <https://www.bachelorsportal.com>.

Tomlinson, M. (2017). Graduate employability in context: Charting a complex, contested and

Appendix: Defining the Attributes in the Work Ready Guide

Value, Behavior, Work-Ready Definition of Attribute

Value Honesty Straightforward behavior with no deceit and cheating. Is

Value Knowledge Develops understanding, skills, and expertise. Is committed to

Value Work ethic Diligent and committed to the business.

Behavior Flexible Effectively handles unexpected situations or last-minute changes.

Skill Critical analysis Can evaluate a situation/proposal, identify possible outcomes,

Skill Digital technology Ability to use information and communication technology.

Skill Literacy Ability to learn, read, write, and communicate verbally.

You might also like