STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION

2020, VOL. 45, NO. 9, 1834–1847

https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1585420

Soft skills to enhance graduate employability: comparing students

and employers’ perceptions
Chiara Succi and Magali Canovi
ESCP Europe Business School, Turin, Italy

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The aim of this article is to show the increased relevance of soft skills in a Soft skills; graduate
continuously changing environment. A research was carried out to employability; human
examine and compare students’ and employers’ perceptions regarding resources development;
the importance of soft skills in different European countries. Results higher education
management
show that 86% of respondents indicate an increased emphasis on soft
skills over the last 5–10 years and that companies consider soft skills
more important than students/graduates. Furthermore, major differences
have also been identified in the ranking of the 20 soft skills listed in this
paper, indicating different levels of priorities. This paper suggests that
companies and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) need to work
together not only to increase students’ awareness of the importance of
soft skills but also to guide them in taking individual responsibility to
acquire and develop these essential skills in order to continuously adapt
to the changing labour market and improve their employability.

Introduction
One of the most discussed and controversial debates within the current literature on higher edu-
cation management relates to the quality of graduates and their lack of soft/transferable skills, essen-
tial in today’s labour market and necessary to increase individual employability (Crossman and Clarke
2010; Clarke 2017). The ‘blame game’ has been going on for over three decades between employer
groups and higher education with regard to the responsibility of graduate employability. Employers
have blamed and criticized higher education for not preparing students adequately for the current
labour market, and thus continuously highlighting students’ lack of transferable skills (Hurrell
2016). Although, throughout the years, HEIs seem to have responded to this criticism and progress-
ively addressed this issue, improvements in students’ acquisition of transferable competences still
seem to be missing. Accordingly, should the soft/transferable skills gap – identified by employers
– be attributed to higher education institutions, graduates or employers themselves through adopt-
ing inadequate recruitment and graduate development processes (Hurrell 2016; Griffiths et al. 2018)?
This paper contributes to this dominant debate within the higher education management litera-
ture by directly involving students and by arguing that they have a different understanding of
employability, as they rank the importance of soft/transferable skills differently from employers.

Graduate employability
While graduate employability has received increased attention over the last decades, this complex
concept still remains under-explored within the current literature on higher education (James

CONTACT Chiara Succi csucci@escpeurope.eu

© 2019 Society for Research into Higher Education
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1835

et al. 2013; Clarke 2017), with no clear understanding of what actually constitute graduate employ-
ability skills (Griffiths et al. 2018). Hillage and Pollard (1998, 1) defined graduate employability as ‘the
knowledge, skills and attitudes that graduates are expected to be able to demonstrate they have
acquired in higher education’ (Clarke 2017, 3). The literature on employability has extensively
explored the continuous changes within the external environment and the impacts of these
changes on the job market and on graduate employability (Forrier and Sels 2003; Fugate, Kinicki,
and Ashforth 2004; Sung et al. 2008). Scholars noted that changes such as increased globalization,
greater job insecurity, massification of higher education and the shift to a knowledge economy
have led to the need for graduate employability (Bauman 2003; Sin and Neave 2016; Clarke 2017).
While in the past, a higher education qualification was viewed as a sure route to success and employ-
ability (de Weert 2007), the current situation shows that graduates are increasingly confronted with
numerous challenges and have to face reality either through accepting lower level positions, or occu-
pations that are outside of their area of competence (Clarke 2017). Scholars highlight the fact that
nowadays graduates are no longer able to rely on their higher education qualification, but have to
be flexible and adapt to the changes in the labor market, through developing and achieving a ‘pos-
itional advantage over other graduates with similar academic and class-cultural profiles’ (Tomlinson
2012, 20). It has been argued that in order to achieve a positional advantage, graduates need to
develop and acquire a combination of skills, notably core/hard skills and transferable/soft skills
(Clarke 2017). It is important to note that over the last decades, research has largely focused on
the technical/hard skills and know-how required by the labor market (Balcar 2016; Eshet 2004)
whereas only limited attention has been devoted to the investigation of soft/transferable compe-
tences (Seligman 2002; Ciappei and Cinque 2014). This is quite surprising, considering the importance
of soft skills in relation to graduate employability. Archer and Davison (2008) pointed out that the
International Employee Barometer (IEB) survey confirmed the importance of soft skills amongst
employers. They argue that employers attributed higher importance to soft skills compared to stu-
dents’ higher education qualifications. Similarly, the World Economic Forum identified 10 out of 16
‘crucial proficiencies in the twenty-first century’ to be related to employees’ soft competencies
(Deloitte Access Economics 2017, 1). The following section will thus discuss the notion of soft
skills, highlighting the inconsistency in scholars’ attempts to define the concept.

Soft skills development

There are different ways of defining and classifying ‘soft skills,’ notably as life skills (WHO 1993),
twenty-first century skills (Moore and Morton 2017), transversal skills, generic competences as well
as key competencies for a successful life, a well-functioning society (|OECD 2003, 2012) and lifelong
learning (EU 2006). Life skills, social skills, interpersonal skills, leadership skills, transversal compe-
tences, social competences and meta-competences are commonly used to refer to the ‘emotional
side’ of human beings, in opposition to the IQ (Intelligent Quotient) component related to hard
skills (Delamare-Le Deist and Winterton 2005; Shalini 2013). According to Heckman and Kautz
(2012, 451), ‘soft skills [are] personality traits, goals, motivations, and preferences that are valued in
the labor market, in school, and in many other domains […].’ They are ‘a mix of dispositions, under-
standings, attributes and practices’ (Yorke 2006, 4). Knight and Page (2007) describe them as wicked
competences, as it is very difficult to define them because they can assume different forms in
different contexts and they keep developing along the entire lifetime (Ciappei and Cinque 2014).
A working definition we propose for this paper is taken from Haselberger and other authors within
the ModEs project (2012, 67): ‘Soft skills represent a dynamic combination of cognitive and meta-cog-
nitive skills, interpersonal, intellectual and practical skills. Soft skills help people to adapt and behave
positively so that they can deal effectively with the challenges of their professional and everyday life.’
In this instance, soft skills relate to a vast range of interpersonal and social qualities and competences,
transferable across economic sectors and industries (Hurrell 2016; Deloitte Access Economics 2017).
These soft skills include communication, teamwork, problem solving, critical and innovative thinking,
1836 C. SUCCI AND M. CANOVI

creativity, self-confidence, ethical understanding, capacity of lifelong learning, the ability to cope with
uncertainty, as well as the willingness to accept responsibility (Harvey 2000; Andrews and Higson
2008; Kalfa and Taksa 2015; Clarke 2017; Moore and Morton 2017). Some studies (Manpower
Group 2014) distinguished and classified soft skills according to the level of seniority within the
organization (i.e. junior, manager and executive) or considering the scope of action (i.e. personal,
social and methodological). The empirical study presented in this paper adopted the list of soft
skills defined and extensively described by the ModEs European Project (Table 1; Haselberger et al.
2012).
It is argued that the acquisition of these soft skills allows students to better adapt to the organiz-
ational culture, take initiative and contribute to organizational success (Harvey 2000). Similarly,
emotional intelligence studies support the hypothesis that interpersonal skills are more likely to
predict successful careers (Goleman 1995; Goleman and Boyatzis 2008; Claxton, Costa, and Kallick
2016) and are necessary for the rise in teamwork, the rapid pace of globalization, the capacity to dia-
logue in a cross-cultural environment and the growing need to retain talent in organizations.
Various documents issued by the European Commission (EC 2012a, 2012b, 2013) as well as a
numerous human resources experts (Grugulis and Vincent 2009, ISFOL 2012) pointed out that ‘soft
skills’ are closely connected with employability, particularly for young graduates entering the labor
market. According to these documents, companies need a more skilled workforce and opportunities
should be given to young people to develop soft skills, such as entrepreneurial skills, coping skills (i.e.
the capacity to deal with a problem in a creative way), learning to learn and other skills (such as the
ability to work in teams, to communicate clearly and effectively, to adapt to different cultural con-
texts, to solve problems, to manage conflicts, to show endurance in complicated or stressful situ-
ations, etc.) which will enable them to successfully transition between full-time education and
entering the labor market.

Table 1. List of the 20 soft skills utilized in the study (Haselberger et al. 2012; Succi, 2018).
Category Skill
Personal 1. Being Committed to Work – make a commitment to the organisation and understand its specific
characteristics
2. Being Professionally Ethical – take actions while bearing in mind the principles and ethics of the profession
in daily activities
3. Being Tolerant to Stress – show endurance in complicated or stressful situations
4. Creativity/Innovation Skills – contribute new ideas to develop improvements in the products or services of
the organisation as well as in the activities performed in the job
5. Learning Skills – provide a self-assessment of necessary knowledge (theoretical or practical) and take
measures to acquire and implement this knowledge
6. Life Balance Skills – manage successfully the frequent conflicts between life and work
7. Self-Awareness Skills – grasp our real weaknesses and strengths
Social 8. Communication Skills – transmit ideas, information and opinions clearly and convincingly, both verbally and
in writing, while listening
9. Conflict Management & Negotiation Skills –conciliate different opinions to reach an agreement that
satisfies everyone
10. Contact Network Skills – develop, maintain, and foster contacts
11. Culture Adaptability Skills – carry out managerial and entrepreneurial processes in multicultural
environments
12. Leadership Skills – motivate and guide others to get them to contribute effectively
13. Team-Work Skills – to build relationships based on participation and cooperation with other people
Methodological 14. Adaptability to Change Skills – redirect the course of action to meet goals in a new situation
15. Analysis Skills – draw conclusions and forecasts for the future by acquiring relevant information from
different sources
16. Continuous Improvement Skills – perform the activities, duties and responsibilities inherent to the job
under quality standards and strive for excellence
17. Customer/User Orientation Skills – identify, understand and satisfy efficiently the needs of customers
18. Decision Making Skills – make the decisions necessary to achieve objectives quickly and proactively +B18
19. Management Skills – set goals and priorities through the selection and distribution of tasks and resources
20. Results Orientation Skills – make organisational efforts profitable while having always in mind the goals
pursued
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1837

Although there seems to be a general consensus and understanding within both academia and
industry regarding the importance of transferable skills, it seems that employers, higher education
providers, and young people do not understand each other. They operate in ‘parallel universes’
and it has been argued that young people are often not acquiring a sufficient portfolio of general
skills during their university studies (Mourshed, Patel, and Suder 2014). The following section of
this paper will address these different stakeholder groups – HEIs, employers and students – involved
in graduates’ employability development.

Main stakeholders
It is well known that decreasing funds, lifelong learning needs, and online teaching possibilities are
threatening to upend established ways of teaching and learning (Cantoni, Botturi, and Succi 2007;
Bowen 2013). It has been claimed that the higher education model of ‘lecturing, cramming and exam-
ination’ has barely changed for centuries (The Economist 2014), but that, now, HEIs need to adapt to
the changing needs of society by improving their ‘resources, challenges and support relating to the
awareness of graduate identity and self-perception of employability, if graduates are to remain rel-
evant in rapidly changing labour market landscapes’ (Griffiths et al. 2018, 891). Within the literature,
in fact, there is a general consensus amongst scholars regarding the crucial role of higher education
institutions in equipping graduates with the required knowledge, skills and abilities needed to be
considered by the job market as ‘lifelong critical and reflective learners’ (Harvey 2000). Higher edu-
cation should help students build a wider base on which they can build their future professional
competences.
Sin and Neave (2016) highlighted HEIs’ primary role in preparing students for the current labor
market by developing ‘ready-for-work’ skills. Similarly, Andrews and Higson (2008) emphasised in
their study on graduate employability conducted in four European countries (e.g. Austria, Slovenia,
Romania, and the UK), that HEIs need to develop programs in which students are actively encouraged
to acquire and develop their soft skills. The authors go on by saying that HEIs across Europe need to
make sure that graduates are equipped with more than just hard skills and capabilities. In this
instance, HEIs have a crucial role in equipping students and graduates with the necessary skills.
Notwithstanding the importance of developing graduates’ soft skills, HEIs seem to have largely
concentrated on the development of students’ hard/technical skills. As a consequence, HEIs have
come under pressure from a variety of stakeholders, to put increased emphasis on developing stu-
dents’ soft skills (Tomlinson 2012; Sin and Neave 2016). Particularly governments/policymakers
and employer groups view HEIs as ‘drivers of economic growth’ (Sin and Neave 2016) and have cri-
ticized HEIs for not adequately preparing graduates for the labor market (Moreau and Leathwood
2006; Tomlinson 2012; Clarke 2017). Employers’ need to find people with the ‘right attributes’ has
laid down an important challenge to HEIs, which are accused of being detached from the business
world and no adequately preparing people to enter the job market (Bennis and O’Toole 2005;
Dunne and Martin 2006). It has been argued that graduates are not fit for purpose (Sin and Neave
2016; Griffiths et al. 2018), as HEIs are primarily focusing ‘too rigidly on academically orientated pro-
vision and pedagogy, and not enough on applied learning and functional skills’ (Tomlinson 2012,
412). As a response to this increased pressure from policymakers and employers, HEIs have started
to pay increased attention to graduate employability through developing and integrating a
number of skill-based learning outcomes into their degree programs (Kalfa and Taksa 2015; Clarke
2017). University teaching staff is increasingly required to develop and adopt pedagogical tools to
help graduates acquire transferable skills throughout their time at university (Archer and Davison
2008; Kalfa and Taksa 2015).
Particularly employer groups have complained about the lack of graduates’ transferable skills
(Hurrell 2016), and expect graduates, upon commencing employment, to be employment-ready
(Andrews and Higson 2008). While graduates might be regarded as a valuable work force in ‘enhan-
cing value-added products and services’ (Tomlinson 2012, 25), as well as ‘drivers of innovation and
1838 C. SUCCI AND M. CANOVI

technological progress’ (Humburg and van der Velden 2015, 482), employers highlight graduates’
inability to transfer their acquired skills to real-life situations (Shuayto 2013). 54% of employers in
the UK perceived graduates to be highly qualified but lacking soft skills, resulting in many vacancies
being unfilled (Llewellyn Smith 2015). Indeed, it has been argued that after the war for talent
(Michaels, Handfield-Jones, and Axelrod 2001), multinational companies are struggling to develop
leaders, who are able to operate in an increasingly complex environment.
While over the past three decades, employers have continuously criticized graduates’ lack of trans-
ferable skills, Clarke (2017, 11) argued that ‘little has changed from an employer perspective.’ Various
scholars highlighted the need for employers to engage in more effective and efficient communi-
cation, collaboration and partnerships with universities in order to address this matter (Archer and
Davison 2008; Sin and Neave 2016; Clarke 2017). Archer and Davison (2008) for example suggested
that employers should actively participate in the development of graduate transferable skills through
‘offering skill sessions on campus,’ ‘taking an increased number of graduates on placement/intern-
ship’ and ‘developing and delivering business case studies’ (p. 13). Adopting these measures
would allow for an improved cooperation between HEIs and employer groups (Sin and Neave 2016).
Having addressed the employer groups’ and HEIs’ roles in equipping students with the necessary
skills, knowledge and abilities required to successfully enter the labor market, an important question
has been raised within the literature as to how far responsibility for employability and the develop-
ment of transferable skills is individualized (Sin and Neave 2016). In other words, should students take
individual responsibility for their employability? While from a European perspective, the Bologna
declaration of 1999 recognized employability as a key objective, policymakers stressed the impor-
tance of individuals’ responsibility and effort in developing these employability skills (Sin and
Neave 2016). In this instance, HEIs adopt an assisting/supporting role by increasing graduates’ aware-
ness of labor market requirements and assisting them in developing the necessary skills (Archer and
Davison 2008). Although a number of stakeholders, particularly employers and policymakers, have
highlighted the importance of graduate employability and the acquisition of soft skills, from a gradu-
ate perspective, employability was attributed less importance and received much less consideration
(Sin and Neave 2016). Accordingly, this paper contributes to this debate and explores students’ as
well as employers’ perceptions of the importance of soft skills in enhancing graduate employability.

Methodology and research design

The literature review shows a growing interest in soft skills, a lack of academic programs devoted to
their development, and the need for companies/employers to engage in more effective and efficient
communication, collaboration and partnerships with universities in order to address this matter.
Moreover, there is a mismatch in the reciprocal expectations of companies, students and universities,
and no clear starting point for a discussion.
This research has thus been designed to comprehend how, on one side, employers perceive the
importance of soft skills in recruitment and development processes and, on the other side, how stu-
dents/recent graduates perceive the importance of soft skills in their first job and in their career
development. An exploratory study has been developed to achieve the research objectives, combin-
ing quantitative (i.e. surveys) and qualitative (i.e. focus groups and interviews) research methods.
First, a pilot study has been conducted in Italy followed by the main empirical study conducted
both in Italy and Germany. A business school was selected for the data collection. The school is
based in six different countries, counts more than 4500 students a year in degree programs, and col-
laborates on a regular basis with a large number of multinational companies.
The first phase of the research was carried out in February 2016 and was intended to verify the
interest of the corporate community on the topic and to create a common framework to build
further analysis. A pilot survey was sent to a group of Italian HR managers on the occasion of the
career day of the business school. Results of the pilot study confirmed that the development of
soft skills is a top priority on the agenda of Italian HR managers and, in particular, Teamwork,
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1839

Communication, Results orientation, and Learning skills were considered primary skills when assessing
and looking to employ young graduates. In their opinion, universities should encourage students to
face a wider variety of situations (Succi, 2018). They need to be able to step out of their comfort zone,
develop cognitive skills and ultimately apply what they have learned, to work with others, and to
solve problems.
Finally, respondents were also asked to express their opinion about the reliability and validity of
the soft skills listed in the study (Haselberger et al. 2012). Their comments and a set of individual inter-
views with HR managers brought to the refinement of a final list of 20 soft skills (Succi, 2018). More-
over, as the questionnaire was successfully tested and utilized by the researchers, it is argued that the
requirements for validity have been met.
Following the pilot study with Italian HR managers, the authors decided to enlarge the scope of
the research through extending the number of participants, both for employers and for students/
recent graduates, with no more than 2 years of experience. Other countries, in which the school is
present, in particular Germany, have also been included in this research.
The second phase of the research was conducted in the period between January and June 2017.
The target group was composed by two populations. On one side, the study included 1200 currently
enrolled masters’ students and recent graduates. On the other side, 800 HR managers were selected,
within the network of the school. The email questionnaire was sent out to the target groups for the
first time in March 2017, followed by an intense recall phase during the months of April and May.
The email questionnaire sent out to employers and students/graduates was divided into two sub-
sections: (a) perceived importance and ranking of soft skills; (b) demographic information, in order to
address the following research questions.

. RQ1: Which soft skills are ranked more important by respondents?

. RQ2: Are employers satisfied with the level of soft skill development amongst graduates, done by
HEIs?
. RQ3: Do employers and students/graduates perceive the importance of soft skills differently?
. RQ4: Are there any differences in perception among employers regarding the importance of soft
skills?

The first section of the questionnaire investigated the importance of soft skills compared to hard
skills and proposed the list of 20 soft skills, divided into three categories, to measure the perceived
importance of each of them. The respondents were asked to rate them on a Likert-type scale from 1
(not important at all) to 5 (very important).
The second section of the questionnaire focused on the collection of demographic data of
employers and the companies in which they operate as well as of students’ and graduates’ work
experience. In particular, researchers asked to indicate the area of business, the size and country
of the headquarter of each company, plus their level of internationalization. On the other side, stu-
dents and, especially, graduates were required to describe in detail the companies of their previous
work placement as well as their current job. The online questionnaire was distributed simultaneously
to the two populations investigating the same issues. A 21% response rate was obtained with 425
people participating in the study and 300 completing the questionnaire, among which 169 stu-
dents/graduates and 131 employers.

Description of the sample

Employers, participating in the survey were mainly Italian (50%) and German (35%) and equally dis-
tributed between women and men. The large majority (42%) are middle or senior managers and 20%
of respondents hold a CEO or executive position. 35% of respondents were born in the 1970s and
33% in the 1980s (the others are born before 1970). The majority of employers are working for big
companies 36% (more than 10,000 employees) with international activities (13% is headquartered
1840 C. SUCCI AND M. CANOVI

in the USA). Sectors in which companies operate are mainly finance, insurance and consulting (23%),
IT, media and digital (26%), industry and production (16%), and FMCG (12%).
The other sample is formed by 78% of students and by 22% of recent graduates. They come
mainly from Italy (37%) and Germany (46%) and from other European countries (17%). There is a
slight majority of male participants (59%). Furthermore, the majority of participating students under-
took at least one internship and 44% of students have done more than 3 internships. Almost all par-
ticipating students have international experience and they either worked in large companies (more
than 10,000 employees) or in small ones (below 50 employees). Students mainly worked in industry
and production (20%), consulting, insurance and finance (21%), FMCG (14%) or IT, media and digital
(12%) (Table 2).
A descriptive statistical analysis of the data was conducted to answer two research questions. First,
the two datasets (i.e. companies and students/graduates) have been analyzed separately to measure
the importance perceived by each population and to define the ranking of soft skills. As a second
step, an independent T-test analysis has been conducted to compare the means of the two indepen-
dent groups, in order to determine whether there was statistical evidence that the associated popu-
lation means were significantly different.

Results
The large majority of respondents (85.5%) – both employers and students – indicated an increased
emphasis on soft skills over the last 5–10 years and the need for managers and academics to devote
more attention to soft skills. Addressing the first research question (RQ1), respondents were asked to
assess each soft skill on a 5-point Likert Scale – 1 = not important, 5 = very important. Therefore, a
ranking of the 20 soft skills has been built based on their average (Table 3). Cronbach’s Alpha test
has been calculated to verify the internal consistency of the tool and the value of α = 0.823
confirmed the reliability of the instrument utilized.
It emerged that Communication skills, Being Committed to work and Teamwork skills are ranked as
the most important soft skills to enhance graduate employability, confirming also the trends indi-
cated by Deloitte (2017) in their annual report on ‘Global Human Capital Trends.’ Similarly,
Andrews and Higson (2008) – investigating graduate employability in four European countries –
found that team-working skills, being able to think innovatively, as well as oral communication skills

Table 2. Sample of the study.

Employers Students
N of respondents 131 169
Gender Male 47% 59%
Female 53% 41%
Nationality Italy 50% 37%
Germany 35% 46%
Others 15% 17%
Sector Finance, insurance and consulting 23% 21%
FMCG 13% 14%
Industry and production 16% 20%
IT, media and digital 26% 12%
Others 22% 33%
Role CEO/executives 20%
Middle managers 42%
Others 38%
Age Before 1970 35%
1971–1980 33%
After 1981 31%
Company size Below 50 employees 12%
Between 50 and 499 18%
Between 500 and 9.999 34%
More than 10,000 employees 36%
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1841

are a vital part of the graduate portfolio. Although these skills are perceived as highly important,
employers have, however, complained that graduates did not develop these particular soft skills
during their university studies (Robles 2012).
On the contrary, Life balance skills, Leadership skills and Management skills are ranked of lowest
importance. Possibly, these skills have not been considered essential, by employers, when recruiting
a young graduate, and, by students/graduates, at the beginning of their career. In fact, as reported in
the literature review, several studies differentiated between the soft skills required for an entry pos-
ition, a managerial or rather an executive one (Manpower 2014). Surprisingly, Culture adaptability
skills were not considered to be of high importance, despite the internationality of the target popu-
lation. Future research in this area could investigate this matter further.
Furthermore, in relation to the second research question (RQ2), employers were asked about their
satisfaction with HEIs’ preparation of graduates, and the development of graduates’ soft skills. The
large majority of respondents (60.2%) indicated that students are not well or very well prepared. In
qualitative comments, they indicated a lack of self-awareness and, in particular, the ability to identify
personal strengths and weaknesses. Respondents distinguished clearly between the level of prep-
aration provided by business schools or by universities, which offer less exposure to the ‘real
world’ conveyed, for example, by internships, case studies and corporate testimonials. Finally, they
reflected on graduates’ unrealistic expectations regarding the corporate world and their lack of
responsibility in acquiring and developing soft skills.
Addressing the third research question (RQ3), results show that students/graduates assessed soft
skills less important than employers when compared to technical skills. In fact, considering the var-
iance of data (Table 4), a substantial difference has been identified in how the two populations per-
ceive the importance of soft skills. Explanations for these differences can probably be found through
further investigating the level of work experience of the two samples of participants.
Furthermore, a T-test analysis has been conducted to go deeper in the comparison of the two
samples and to describe how perceptions differ on each single soft skill. Results show several signifi-
cant differences on how soft skills were ranked (Figure 1).
In particular, the soft skill ranked more important by HR managers (compared to graduates) is
Being professionally ethical. The other soft skills ranked significantly higher (Figure 1) by employers
are: Adaptability to change, Creativity and Innovation, Customer/User Orientation and Teamwork. On

Table 3. Ranking of the 20 Soft Skills amongst all participants.

Students/
All Participants Graduates Employers
Rank Order Variable Mean Std. Deviation Mean SD Mean SD
1 Communication Skills 4.67 0.539 4.73 0.509 4.58 0.568
2 Being Committed to Work 4.61 0.638 4.54 0.707 4.69 0.526
3 Team-Work Skills 4.56 0.703 4.45 0.794 4.71 0.533
4 Learning Skills 4.43 0.771 4.33 0.843 4.55 0.649
5 Being Tolerant to Stress 4.41 0.662 4.44 0.680 4.37 0.637
6 or 7 Analysis Skills 4.38 0.692 4.47 0.716 4.27 0.644
6 or 7 Continuous Improvement Skills 4.38 0.717 4.35 0.792 4.42 0.607
8 Results Orientation Skills 4.37 0.708 4.31 0.773 4.44 0.610
9 Adaptability to Changes Skills 4.31 0.702 4.19 0.766 4.47 0.574
10 or 11 Customer/User Orientation Skills 4.13 0.891 3.98 0.991 4.31 0.703
10 or 11 Self-Awareness Skills 4.13 0.775 4.12 0.802 4.13 0.741
12 or 13 Contact Network Skills 4.10 0.859 4.27 0.809 3.88 0.872
12 or 13 Creativity/Innovation Skills 4.10 0.825 3.98 0.896 4.25 0.697
14 Decision Making Skills 4.07 0.803 4.15 0.880 3.97 0.681
15 Being Professionally Ethical 4.06 0.917 3.75 0.965 4.47 0.661
16 Conflict Management & Negotiation Skills 4.03 0.806 4.15 0.799 3.87 0.791
17 Culture Adaptability Skills 3.96 0.917 3.90 0.998 4.03 0.797
18 Management Skills 3.95 0.841 4.05 0.844 3.83 0.824
19 Leadership Skills 3.80 0.951 3.76 1.038 3.85 0.827
20 Life Balance Skills 3.71 0.984 3.72 1.108 3.71 0.802
1842 C. SUCCI AND M. CANOVI

Table 4. A comparison of students and companies’ answers regarding soft skills importance.
Mean SD
Students Compared to technical/functional skills, how important do you consider soft skills for your future 3.35 0.513
career?
Companies Compared to technical/functional skills, how important do you consider soft skills when hiring 4.43 0.608
business graduates?

the other side, students/graduates rank significantly higher Contact network and Conflict manage-
ment skills. Again these results are likely to be fully understood, analyzing the impact of work experi-
ence and the generational difference component.
When addressing research question four (RQ4), we found some significant differences in percep-
tion among employers regarding the importance of soft skills, when data were analyzed based on
nationality, age, sector, and company size. First, with regards to nationality, we found five significant
differences between German and Italian employers regarding the importance of the following soft
skills: Communication skills, Analysis skills, Being professionally ethical, Contact network skills, and
Culture adaptability skills (Table 5). Being professionally ethical, for example, was considered more
important to Italian employers than German employers, while Analysis and Communication skills
were given more importance by German employers compared to Italian employers. Our results,
however, contradict Andrews and Higson’s (2008) study, which revealed that employers’ perceptions
of the skills and competencies necessary to enhance graduate employability were similar in all four
countries (Andrews and Higson 2008).
Second, when comparing different generations amongst the employer sample, we found that
employers who were born before 1975 ranked the skill of Being professionally ethical higher than
those born after 1976 (Table 5); while Analysis skills and Results orientation skills were ranked signifi-
cantly higher by managers born between 1976 and 1990. These results suggest that comparing
different generations (Culiberg and Mihelic 2016) can also provide insights into explaining differences
in perception between employers and students/graduates.
Third, the analysis by sector (Finance/insurance & Consulting vs. IT/digital) did not reveal any
major differences, except for Leadership skills, which were considered more important within the IT
and digital sector than the financial sector (Table 5).

Figure 1. A comparison between the rankings of students and companies. Significance indicators: ***p < .0001; **p < .001;
*p < .05).
Table 5. Significant differences in perception among employers regarding the importance of soft skills, when data are analyzed based on nationality, age, sector, and company size.
Finance,
insurance, IT, TK, More than
OLD – YOUNG – and digital and Below 50 10,000
Germany Italy >1975 1976–1990 consulting Media employees employees
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Mean SD Mean SD Difference Mean SD Mean SD Difference Mean SD Mean SD Difference Mean SD Mean SD Difference
Analysis Skills 4.51 0.5466 4.09 0.660 3,531(109) 4.14 0.577 4.39 0.662 −2041 (109) 4.38 0.561 4.38 0.604 −0.021 (61) 4.07 0.829 4.38 0.61 −1.54 (59)
p < .001 p < .05 p > .05 p > .05
Being Professionally 4.21 0.7204 4.55 0.5871 −2757 (110) 4.64 0.53 4.32 0.72 2609 (110) 4.57 0.679 4.38 0.739 1034 (62) 4.53 0.64 4.54 0.69 −0.05 (59)
Ethical p < .05 p < .05 p > .05 p > .05
Communication Skills 4.70 0.4652 4.45 0.6381 2259 (109) 4.54 0.579 4.67 0.507 −1281 (109) 4.57 0.626 4.67 0.479 −0.716 (61) 4.4 0.828 4.7 0.511 −1653 (59)
p < .05 p > .05 p > .05 p > .05
Contact Network Skills 4.11 0.8493 3.71 0.8966 2372 (109) 3.74 0.803 3.97 0.93 −1.36 (109) 3.87 0.819 4.09 0.723 −1154 (61) 3.67 1.234 4.02 0.802 −1293 (59)
p < .05 p > .05 p > .05 p > .05
Culture Adaptability 3.80 0.7186 4.20 0.8515 −2569 (109) 3.9 0.789 4.1 0.81 −1298 (109) 4.07 0.799 4.03 0.758 0.201 (61) 3.67 1.113 4.19 0.680 −2206 (60)
Skills p < .05 p > .05 p > .05 p < .05
Customer/User 4.45 0.619 4.25 0.771 1473 (110) 4.26 0.694 4.31 0.715 −0.346 (110) 4.23 0.626 4.5 0.663 −1648 (62) 3.67 0.8165 4.32 0.663 −3135 (60)
p > .05 p > .05 p > .05 p < .05

STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Orientation Skills
Leadership Skills 3.72 0.71 3.94 0.92 −1341 (110) 3.88 0.746 3.82 0.859 0.373 (110) 3.73 0.6397 4.18 0.673 −2.69 (62) 3.53 1.06 3.87 0.741 −1383 (60)
p > .05 p > .05 p < .05 p > .05
Results Orientation Skills 4.40 0.58 4.49 0.64 −0.748 (110) 4.28 0.64 4.52 0.593 −2021 (110) 4.27 0.64 4.53 0.563 −1748 (62) 4.07 0.704 4.45 0.619 −2004 (60)
0.46 p < .05 p > .05 p < .05
Self-Awareness Skills 4.06 0.85 4.15 0.71 −0.61 (110) 4.14 0.7 4.11 0.812 0.187 (110) 3.97 0.928 4 0.55 −0.177 (62) 3.67 0.976 4.26 0.681 −2.625 (59)
p > .05 p > .05 p > .05 p < .05

1843
1844 C. SUCCI AND M. CANOVI

Finally, four significant differences emerged when analyzing the data based on company size.
Small-sized companies (<50 employees) ranked Cultural adaptability skills as more important com-
pared to large firms (>10,000 employees) (Table 5). On the other hand, large firms considered
Results-oriented skills, Customer-oriented skills, as well as Self-awareness skills as more essential.
Thus our results did not only reveal differences in perception regarding the importance of soft
skills between employers and graduates/students but also among employers based on nationality,
age, sector and company size.

Discussion and further development

This paper intended to contribute to the discussion regarding the increased relevance of soft skills in
a continuously changing environment in terms of enhancing graduate employability. The importance
of soft skills identified amongst employers confirms that globalization and the shift to a knowledge
economy led to a higher emphasis on graduates’ ability to communicate effectively throughout
different channels, on being self-effective and committed to results, on their capacity to build
relationships in multiple teams, and on their ability to adapt to the external context.
Along the same lines, the results of this research confirmed the need to increase the awareness
of the main stakeholders: students/graduates, employers, and HEIs. In particular, we included stu-
dents/graduates in this research, to reflect on the importance of students’ soft skills development
and to better understand employers’ expectations. Companies were asked to assess students’
preparation and to indicate their priorities, when hiring young graduates. It emerged from the
results that HEIs neither communicate effectively the urgency of soft skills development to stu-
dents, nor do they prepare them adequately to enter the job market. These findings are in line
with Andrews and Higson’s (2008) study on graduates’ and employers’ perspectives of graduate
employability in four European countries. The authors highlight the fact that more needs to be
done by HEIs to enhance graduate employability and urge HEIs to implement work-based learning
programs as a way of providing students with initial work experience and improving their employ-
ment prospects.
Results further reveal major differences in perceptions of the importance of soft skills compared to
technical/hard skills between employers and graduates/students. Significant differences appeared
when the two populations were compared. Interestingly, employers consider more important the
skills of Being professionally ethical, Adaptability to change, Creativity and innovation, Customer/user
orientation and Teamwork, while students consider more important Contact network and Conflict
management skills.
The two stakeholder groups differ in the level of work experience and tend to belong to a different
generation. Future research could investigate further these two components, to gain a better under-
standing of the reasons causing different perceptions of each soft skill between employers and
graduates. Moreover, future studies could enlarge the sample through including other student
groups, coming from different HEIs, to address the limitations brought by having respondents
coming exclusively from one single business school. The point of strength of this study has been
the internationality of the sample, which could even further increase, through extending this
study to other European or non-European countries.

Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to show the increased relevance of soft skills in a continuously chan-
ging environment, as well as to examine the perceptions of employers and graduates/students
regarding the importance of developing soft skills in enhancing graduate employability. Findings
confirmed the increased emphasis on soft skills over the last 5–10 years by both employers and
graduates, while simultaneously revealing major differences in perception between both stake-
holder groups.
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1845

There are key implications for practitioners working in the field. On one side, employers have to
actively participate in developing students’ as well as graduates’ soft skills; on the other side, acade-
mia needs to build stronger partnerships with the industry and work effectively together to guaran-
tee ready-for-the-job graduates. Finally, students and young graduates need to be made aware of
their individual responsibility in developing soft skills and in adopting a pro-active role in order to
increase their employability. The authors believe that, instead of blaming HEIs for graduates’ lack
of transferable skills, the three main stakeholders identified in this paper need to effectively work
together to achieve the desired outcomes.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Chiara Succi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3868-5354

References
Andrews, J., and H. Higson. 2008. “Graduate Employability,‘Soft Skills’ Versus ‘Hard’ Business Knowledge: A European
Study.” Higher Education in Europe 33 (4): 411–422.
Archer, W. & Davison, J. 2008. Graduate Employability: What Do Employers Think and Want? The Council for Industry and
Higher Education. http://www.cihe-uk.com
Balcar, J. 2016. “Is it Better to Invest in Hard or Soft Skills?” The Economic and Labour Relations Review 27 (4): 453–470.
Bauman, Z. 2003. Liquid Life. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Bennis, W. G., and J. O’Toole. 2005. “How Business Schools Lost Their Way.” Harvard Business Review 82: 96–104.
Bowen, W. G. 2013. Higher Education in the Digital Age. UK: Princeton University Press.
Cantoni, L., L. Botturi, and C. Succi. 2007. E-learning. Capire, Progettare, Comunicare. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Ciappei, C., and M. Cinque. 2014. Soft Skills per il Governo Dell’agire. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Clarke, M. 2017. “Rethinking Graduate Employability: the Role of Capital, Individual Attributes and Context.” Studies in
Higher Education 43 (11): 1923–1937.
Claxton, G., A. L. Costa, and B. Kallick. 2016. “Hard Thinking About Soft Skills.” Educational Leadership 73 (6): 60–64.
Crossman, J. E., and M. Clarke. 2010. “International Experience and Graduate Employability: Stakeholder Perceptions on
the Connection.” Higher Education 59 (5): 599–613.
Culiberg, B., and K. K. Mihelic. 2016. “Three Ethical Frames of Reference: Insights Into Millennials’ Ethical Judgements and
Intentions in the Workplace.” Business Ethics: A European Review 25 (1): 94–111.
de Weert, E. 2007. “Graduate Employment in Europe: The Employers’ Perspective.” In Careers of University Graduates.
Views and Experiences in Comparative Perspectives, edited by U. Teichler, 225–246. Dordrecht: Springer.
Delamare-Le Deist, F., and J. Winterton. 2005. “What Is Competence?” Human Resource Development International 8 (1):
27–46.
Deloitte. 2017. Global Human Capital Trends. https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/human-capital/articles/
introduction-human-capital-trends.html.
Deloitte Access Economics. 2017. Soft Skills for Business Success. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/
Documents/Economics/deloitte-au-economics-deakin-soft-skills-business-success-170517.pdf.
Dunne, D., and R. Martin. 2006. “Design Thinking and How It Will Change Management Education: An Interview and
Discussion.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 5 (4): 512–523.
EC (European Commission). 2012a. An agenda for new skills and new jobs in Europe: Pathways towards full employment.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/new-skils-and-jobs-in-europe_en.pdf.
EC (European Commission). 2012b. Rethinking education strategy: Investing in skills for better socio-economic outcomes.
http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/rethinking/com669_en.pdf.
EC (European Commission). 2013. Modernisation of Higher Education. Report on Improving the quality of teaching and
learning in Europe’s higher education institutions. http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/reports/modernisation_en.
pdf.
The Economist. 2014. The digital degree: The staid higher-education business is about to experience a welcome earthquake,
28th June. http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21605899-staid-higher-education-business-about-experience-
welcome-earthquake-digital.
1846 C. SUCCI AND M. CANOVI

Eshet, Y. 2004. “Digital Literacy: A Conceptual Framework for Survival.” Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia
13 (1): 93–106.
EU (European Union). 2006. Key Competences for Life Long Learning, Recommendation the European Parliament and the
Council of 18th December 2006. Official Journal of the European Union (2006/962/EC), L394/10-18. http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri = celex:32006H0962 (visited on the 24-10-2014).
Forrier, A., and L. Sels. 2003. “The Concept Employability: a Complex Mosaic.” International Journal of Human Resources
Development and Management 3 (2): 102–124.
Fugate, M., A. J. Kinicki, and B. E. Ashforth. 2004. “Employability: A Psycho-Social Construct, its Dimensions, and
Applications.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 65: 14–38.
Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Goleman, D., and R. Boyatzis. 2008. “Social Intelligence and the Biology of Leadership.” Harvard Business Review
September: 74–81.
Griffiths, D. A., M. Inman, H. Rojas, and K. Williams. 2018. “Transitioning Student Identity and Sense of Place: Future
Possibilities for Assessment and Development of Student Employability Skills.” Studies in Higher Education 43 (5):
891–913.
Grugulis, I., and S. Vincent. 2009. “Whose Skill Is It Anyway? ‘Soft Skills and Polarization.” Work, Employment and Society 23
(4): 597–615.
Harvey, L. 2000. “New Realities: The Relationship Between Higher Education and Employment.” Tertiary Education &
Management 6 (1): 3–17.
Haselberger, D., P. Oberheumer, E. Perez, M. Cinque, and D. Capasso. 2012. Mediating Soft Skills at Higher Education
Institutions, Handbook of ModEs Project, Life Long Learning Programme.
Heckman, J. J., and T. Kautz. 2012. “Hard Evidence on Soft Skills.” Labour Economics 19 (4): 451–464.
Hillage, J., and E. Pollard. 1998. Employability: Developing a Framework for Policy Analysis. London: DfEE.
Humburg, M., and R. van der Velden. 2015. “Self-Assessments or Tests? Comparing Cross-National Differences in Patterns
and Outcomes of Graduates’ Skills Based on International Large-Scale Surveys.” Studies in Higher Education 40 (3):
482–504.
Hurrell, S. A. 2016. “Rethinking the Soft Skills Deficit Blame Game: Employers, Skills Withdrawal and the Reporting of Soft
Skills Gaps.” Human Relations 69 (3): 605–628.
ISFOL. 2012. Rapporto ISFOL 2012. Le competenze per l’occupazione e la crescita, Roma, ISFOL.
James, S., C. Warhurst, G. Tholen, and J. Commander. 2013. “What We Know and What We Need to Know About Graduate
Skills.” Work, Employment and Society 27 (6): 952–963.
Kalfa, S., and L. Taksa. 2015. “Cultural Capital in Business Higher Education: Reconsidering the Graduate Attributes
Movement and the Focus on Employability.” Studies in Higher Education 40 (4): 580–595.
Knight, P., and A. Page. 2007. The Assessment of “Wicked” Competences. Report to the Practice Based Professional Learning
Centre.
Llewellyn Smith, J. 2015. Why ‘Soft Skills’ are More Important than a Great CV. The Telegraph. Accessed on 24/01/2019.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-business/11326058/Forget-the-CV-Why-soft-skills-are-more-
important.html.
Manpower Group. 2014. Soft Skills for Talent, Internal Report. http://www.manpowergroup.it/indagine-soft-skills-
manpowegroup.
Michaels, E., H. Handfield-Jones, and B. Axelrod. 2001. The War for Talent. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Moore, T., and J. Morton. 2017. “The Myth of Job Readiness? Written Communication, Employability, and the ‘Skills Gap’ in
Higher Education.” Studies in Higher Education 42 (3): 1–19.
Moreau, M. P., and C. Leathwood. 2006. “Graduates’ Employment and the Discourse of Employability: a Critical Analysis.”
Journal of Education and Work 19 (4): 305–324.
Mourshed, M., J. Patel, and K. Suder. 2014. Education to Employment: Getting Europe’s Youth into Work. McKinsey Report.
OECD. 2003. Definition and Selection of Competencies: Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations (DeSeCo). Summary of
the Final Report Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-functioning Society. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. 2012. Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Lives: A Strategic Approach to Skills Policies. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Robles, M. M. 2012. “Executive Perceptions of the Top 10 Soft Skills Needed in Today’s Workplace.” Business
Communication Quarterly 75 (4): 453–465.
Seligman, M. E. P. 2002. Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting
Fulfilment. New York: Free Press.
Shalini, V. 2013. Enhancing Employability @ Soft Skills. Chandigarth/Delhi/Chennai: Pearson.
Shuayto, N. 2013. “Management Skills Desired by Business School Deans and Employers: An Empirical Investigation.”
Business Education & Accreditation 5 (2): 93–105.
Sin, C., and G. Neave. 2016. “Employability Deconstructed: Perceptions of Bologna Stakeholders.” Studies in Higher
Education 41 (8): 1–16.
Succi, C. 2018. “Are You Ready to Find a Job? Ranking of a List of Soft Skills to Enhance Graduates’ Employability.”
International Journal of Human Resources Management and Development.
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1847

Sung, J., M. Chi Man, F. Loke, and C. Ramos. 2008. “The Nature of Employability Skills: Empirical Evidence from Singapore.”
International Journal of Training and Development 17 (3): 176–193.
Tomlinson, M. 2012. “Graduate Employability: A Review of Conceptual and Empirical Themes.” Higher Education Policy 25
(4): 407–431.
WHO. 1993. “Life Skills Education in Schools.” Skills for Life 1. Genève.
Yorke, M. 2006. Employability in Higher Education: What It Is – What It Is Not. Learning and Employability Series 1. York, UK:
The Higher Education Academy.
Copyright of Studies in Higher Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.