Abstract

Marketing educators realize business schools need to maintain a level of practitioner relevance in order to attract students to their major.  In other words, the skills and competencies learned by marketing majors need to match the skills and competencies desired by industry.  This exploratory research seeks to compare skill-set perceptions between students, marketing educators, and marketing practitioners.

Introduction

The transition from an academic structure to the demands of the working world is often confusing if not traumatic.  Hiring firms see their personnel decisions as an expensive investment in recruiting, selecting, and training new employees.  For students, at the end of a process requiring years of dedication and often sacrifice, the job-search scenario represents the culmination of a significant long-term goal.  For educators, this process reflects a need to understand both the employers’ and the students’ perception of the process and the skills desired by hiring firms (Tomkovick, Erffmeyer and Hietpas 1996).

Universities that produce students with viable marketplace skills hold an advantage over their competition.  Business academicians with shrinking department budgets and larger class sizes due to increased enrollment must strive to meet the needs and wants of their two primary target markets – the business community and the students (Borin and Watkins 1998).

As marketing educators, we acknowledge ourselves to be accountable to two primary customer groups.  First, we are responsible for providing well-educated and skilled employees for business and organizations in the employer marketplace.  However, we are also responsible to a second group of customers – those students who pay tuition to our institutions to receive the education expected to prepare them for productive and successful careers.  (McCorkle et al. 2003).

This research represents an effort to see if marketing students’ perception of what is desirable in the business world is the same, similar, or completely different from the perception of industry executives/recruiters and marketing educators.  It should be noted that this survey is exploratory in nature and does not intend to imply a causal relationship.  In addition, the author, by necessity, needed to make qualitative judgments on the similarity of responses to the survey instrument.  This research is presented as a vehicle to suggest potential areas of further research and investigation.

This research is based on a preliminary study made in 1997 by a group of authors (Bovinet et al. 1997) with the addition of the educators’ point of view.

Past Research

During the past two decades, a number of research efforts have explored the question of the recruiting and selection process of marketing major graduates.  Authors have focused on identifying the factors used by students when seeking marketing and sales positions (Castleberry 1990; Peterson and Devlin 1994), a list of 50 different attributes relating to the recruiting process (Weilbaker and Merritt 1992), an assessment of students’ attitudes and perceptions toward personal selling as a career (Swenson, Swimyard, Langrehr and Smith 1993), their effectiveness in building relationships (Felson 2001), what skills and abilities are communicated by students’ résumés (Barr and McNeilly 2002), how prepared marketing students are for the job search (McCorkle, Alexander, Reardon and Kling 2003), and teaching marketing students the skills that will make them competitive in the marketplace (Taylor 2003).

Another area of research concentration embraced industry selection decisions.  Specifically, these efforts concentrated on attributes critical to business students (Hafer and Hoth 1981), attributes critical to marketing students (Ursic & Hegstrom 1985; Boatwright and Stamps 1988), attribute ratings compiled by high-level executives (Goldgehn 1989; Kelley and Gaideke 1990; McDaniel and White 1993; Borin and Waktins 1998), agreement between practitioners and educators concerning the content of marketing research courses (Stern and Tseng 2002), using employer input to assess marketing education effectiveness (Ellen and Pilling 2002), and preparing marketing students for constantly changing business landscapes (Ackerman, Gross and Perner 2003).

The findings from previous research have allowed educators to focus on the attributes and skills desired by recruiters and executive decision makers in the job marketplace.  These are the skills and abilities they would like to see marketing majors bring with them to the employment scene.  However, education is often a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Students tend to learn and retain what they think is important (selective comprehension and selective retention).  Therefore, an important question would be to find out if the students’ perceptions of the skills and abilities they will need for the working world match what recruiters and executives desire and what educators are providing.

Background

Chonko and Roberts (1996) wrote a research paper detailing a specific business course and its attending structure.  This course was developed in answer to concerns expressed by the business community in an earlier study (Chonko and Caballero, 1991) (these comments are not in any specific order):

1. Business graduates do not perform adequately in the areas of oral and written communication.

2. Business school curricula are falling farther behind in including new technologies, production methods, global competition strategies, and the like.

3. Business school curricula are too “tools oriented” at the expense of qualitative thinking.

4. Business school graduates are not people-sensitive and therefore find it difficult to get along with others who have different needs, goals, and work styles.

5. Business school faculty members do too little research and that which is done fails the test of relevance and applicability to management.

6. Business school graduates do not know how to recognize common themes in business situations.

7. Business school graduates have not learned how to see the relationships among things that seem very different.

8. Business school graduates cannot tolerate ambiguity and bring order out of seeming confusion.

9. Business school graduates are not capable of the type of thinking that comes from the many ways to look at the world.

In short, potential employers would like to see these skills and competencies be foremost in a student’s skill set:

1. Critical thinking

2. Cross-functional competence

3. Communication skills

4. Global and cultural awareness

5. Full competence in a discipline

6. Technological competence.

The Chonko and Caballero (1991) study focused on a more generalized perception of business undergraduates’ skills.  In reality, for a majority of marketing students, their first entry-level position is usually in sales or customer service (College Placement Council 2001).  A study by Tomkovick, Erffmeyer and Hietpas (1996) posits that entry-level sales candidates need to be aware of specific attributes recruiters are looking for in graduates.  They presented fourteen variables and asked both a recruiter (industry) group and a student group to rate the characteristics from most important to least important (the exact methodological procedure is available in the article).  The final attribute list and corresponding Beta values are listed below (rankings of each response in parentheses):
 

In this survey, the students accurately predicted the skills that could be important to the recruiters, even nailing four out of the first five (otherwise obviously hoping that a modicum of sincerity would make up for any perceived deficiencies).  While studying these results, the author wondered if the results would be similar if the students were not prompted; e.g., given a list of static responses and then asked to rate them.

Methodology

Business students at six small- to medium-size liberal arts colleges were surveyed for this research.  They were instructed to take out a piece of paper and write down the answers to the following question:

In your opinion, what are the three most important skills (no order necessary) a marketing major should develop in college to facilitate their initial performance in the working world?

The question was posed in upper-level marketing classes during the fall terms of 2001, 2002, and the spring terms of 2003 and 2004.  Most of the students were marketing majors (95%) and the rest were business students of varying majors.  The four surveys yielded 482 usable questionnaires with a total of 1446 usable responses. The first survey yielded 122 usable questionnaires and 367 total responses (usable defined as readable or appropriate).  Over 90% of the participants were juniors, seniors, or graduate students.  No designation as to gender or age was made.  Naturally, some editing of answers was necessary.  Again, the students were not requested to indicate the relative importance of their answers.

In all cases, as much as feasible, the original nature of the student response was retained.  If the response did not fit a specific category, a new category was established.  The students were not aware beforehand that they were going to be asked this question.

Finally, no attempt was made to separate determinant attributes (what skills students think are important) from important attributes (what skills students think will set them apart from other job applicants).  The thrust of this research was to determine whether more detailed investigation into the differences is warranted.

For the marketing educator survey, each page of the Marketing Management Association (MMA) member guidebook for the corresponding year was copied (20 pages of names and work addresses and e-mail addresses).  Every third name was utilized and crossed off until 240 (60 per year) addresses were identified.  The educators were sent an e-mail with the same question (see above) and instructions on how to send the answer back in an e-mail.  The e-mailing produced 39 wrong addresses and 124 usable answers (return rate: 61.7% of correct addresses).  There is some room here for further research on the efficacy of e-mail research vs. standard direct mail.

Using the American Marketing Association’s International Member and Marketing Services Guide, every 10^th name that was a practitioner and not an educator provided an e-mail address until 240 (60 per year) addresses were reached.  Again, the same question was proposed.  Wrong addresses counted for 34 returns, and 111 usable questionnaires were received (return rate of correct addresses: 53.9%).

Table 1: Total Responses

Column 1: Identified skill

Column 2: Total number of responses – student survey – 2001-04 school years

Column 3: Total number of responses – marketing educator survey – 2001-04 school years

Column 4: Total number of responses – marketing practitioner survey – 2001-04 school years

Comparison with Previous Research

Looking again at the Chonko and Roberts (1996) study and trying to match the list with the student survey answers above, it is obvious that the desires of the business world and the intent of business students (in parentheses) are strongly divergent.

1. Critical thinking (15)

2. Cross-functional competence (12)

3. Communication skills (18, 29)

4. Global and cultural awareness

5. Full competence in a discipline

6. Technological competence (7)

Naturally, semantics plays a role in some of the differences.  Most students are not likely to use the words “critical thinking” when describing individual abilities.  Taking that into consideration, only approximately 11.4% of the student responses could be grouped within the top six categories listed by Chonko and Roberts (1996) as important attributes for potential employers.  The business people are focusing on distinct capabilities.  The students are generally focusing on their own individual work background (work experience, specific job knowledge) and their individual working style (hard working, perseverance, job enthusiasm, positive attitude, determination, etc.). 

Again, the entry-level sales typology (Tomkovick et al. 1996) lists the following characteristics as important to a recruiter for a sales position:

Oral Communication Skills  (2, 18)

Energy/Enthusiasm (3, 4, 10, 21, 23, 38)

Self-Confidence (16)

Grade Point Average (5, 11, 24)     

Professionalism (10, 23, 37, 41)

Work Experience  (1, 3, 4, 6, 12, 14, 15, 21)

Organizational Involvement  (9, 14, 17, 26, 37)

Relocation Flexibility          (28)

Appearance (13)

Sincerity  (10, 19, 20, 23, 36)

Entrepreneurship  (9, 21, 25, 37)

Writing Skills         (29)

Firm Familiarity  (26)

Computer Skills  (7)

Defined Career Goals  (4)

These characteristics are much more aligned with the student responses.  This result may go a long way to explain why a majority of marketing students are placed in sales or customer service as an entry-level position (College Placement Council 2004).  This result indicates marketing students are consciously or unconsciously training themselves for these positions and limiting their employment options.

Table 2: Fractional responses greater than .033

Column 1: Responses

Column 2: Student survey – fraction of total responses

Column 3: Marketing educator survey – fraction of total responses

Column 2: Marketing practitioner survey – fraction of total responses
 

Table 3: Comparison of top 4 responses

Column 1: Responses

Column 2: Student survey – fraction of total responses

Column 3: Marketing educator survey – fraction of total responses

Column 2: Marketing practitioner survey – fraction of total responses

The results are fairly dramatic.  Taking only the top four responses (Table 3), there is exact agreement between marketing educators and practitioners concerning the skills they would like to see marketing students develop.  Again, the practitioners and educators are focusing on distinct capabilities.  The students are generally focusing on their own individual work background (work experience, specific job knowledge) and their individual working style (hard working, perseverance, job enthusiasm, positive attitude, determination, etc.).

Educators and practitioners align on issues of written communication, oral communication (including presentation skills), and analytical, critical, or higher order thinking.  As one educator succinctly listed his three answers:

1. Learn to think.

2. Learn to write.

3. Learn to speak.

Practitioners consistently commented on recent graduates’ inability to take a problem and follow it through.  The students have learned the mechanics of research and analysis, but do not know how to apply the results to the marketplace.  This transfer from research to decision making was the most common complaint of marketing businesspeople.

In addition, the practitioners point out some interesting areas where work is needed.  Many said new employees were not able to see the marketing process from the viewpoint of the customer (empathy).  They also lamented the students’ lack of a “world view” and the place of the U.S. economy in it.  A number of people felt recent graduates did not have enough financial background and that their number-crunching ability was poor at best.

Conclusion

There is much here to suggest further research.  The efficacy of presenting to the students a set list of attributes (Tomkovick et al. 1996) or utilizing an open-ended question is debatable and needs to be examined in a more isomorphic test sequence.  The open-ended questions produce a great deal of “outrider” results, but these answers are just as valid as the prepared ones.  In addition, future studies should be more stringent in terms of correlation between student answers and variables like gender, major, age, GPA, etc. to see if there are more subtle differences to the results.   

In terms of future research, a direct pairing of response formats would be more efficient (using both open-ended or close-ended responses together).  As suggested by reviewers, this data could be utilized in conjunction with campus recruiters to develop an instrument that might be used by recruiters, students, and faculty to formally compare their perspectives.

Marketing educators need to show current and prospective students a definitive match between what industry leaders want in graduates and what their curriculum is addressing.  Universities and the public are asking if the schools and departments are delivering full value for the dollars (tax and otherwise) spent.  In addition, parents and students are questioning whether their investment will directly impact employment decisions upon graduation (Abernethy and Gray 1995).  It is not enough to accept the canard that sales and customer service are the “natural” entry-level position for marketing majors.  For the marketing curriculum to be its most vibrant, it must show its students the skills and attributes which will give them the highest career flexibility possible.

Students are consumers.  It is important to be able to show them and their parents a practical end-product: a degree in marketing which is relevant to the pursuit of a rewarding career in the field.

While the issue of how to attract majors is important it is also necessary to deal with the question of retaining students.  While there does not appear to be a problem with majors leaving marketing once they have committed, perhaps the best long-term means of attracting majors is through the word-of-mouth promotion which comes from the satisfied consumer/student.  (Keillor, Bush & Bush, 1993; 128) 

The marketing concept (consumer first) dictates that educators and institutions of higher learning meet their customers’ needs (be a service provider) prior to fulfilling the institution’s needs (Nonis, Hudson, Ford and Logan 1995; Kamvounias 1999).  This research suggests that one way to accomplish this goal is to make marketing majors aware of the skills and competencies that are desirable in the working world before they are too far along in their degree pursuit and have little opportunity to change their focus.  A student armed with this knowledge can then reasonably (or with advisor or mentor assistance) assess his/her program in this light. 

Students’ expectations are the key to their satisfaction with their higher education experience.  Any discrepancy between actual performance (educational attainments) and perceived performance (skills and abilities needed in the workplace) will produce the dreaded cognitive dissonance.  It behooves marketing educators to inform their current majors and potential majors, as soon as possible in their college career, that no matter how gifted with charm and wit and a hardy handshake, there are other skills that practitioners see as more important.

References

Abernethy, A.M. & J.I. Gray (1995).  Currently Available Entry Level Marketing Jobs: Should Marketing Academics Respond to Employer Demand?  in Marketing: Foundations for a Changing World, Southern Marketing Association, Evansville, IN, 255-258.

Ackerman, D.S., B.L. Gross & L. Perner (2003).  Instructor, Student, and Employer Perceptions on Preparing Marketing Students for Changing Business Landscapes.  Journal of Marketing Education, (25) 1, 46-56.

Barr, T.F. & K.M. McNeilly (2002).  The Value of Students’ Classroom Experiences from the Eyes of the Recruiter: Information, Implications, and Recommendations for Marketing Educators.  Journal of Marketing Education, (24) 2, 168-173.

Boatwright, E.W. & M.B. Stamps (1988).  Employers’ Importance Ratings of Student Characteristics: Conjoint Analysis Approach.  Journal of Marketing Education, (19 Summer), 74-78.

Borin, N. & H. Watkins (1998).  Employers evaluate critical skills of today’s marketing undergrads.  Marketing Educator, (17 Summer), 1.

Bovinet, J.W., C. Berkey, K. James, H. Rustogi, D.J. Wasmer, & J.R. Williams (1997).  Ready for a Job? Industry-Perceived Skills, Student-Perceived Skills: The Same?  in Enriching Marketing Practice and Education, Southern Marketing Association, Rock Hill, South Carolina

Castleberry, S.B. (1990).  The Importance of Various Motivational Factors to College Students Interested in Sales Positions.  Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, (10 Spring), 67-72.

Chonko, L.B. (1993).  Business School Education: Some Thoughts and Recommendations. Marketing Education Review, (3 Spring), 1-9.

______________ & J.A. Roberts (1996).  An Innovative Introduction to Business Course: Marketing the Skills that Marketing Majors (and Others) As Business Majors Will Need For Success.  Marketing Education Review, (3 Fall), 53-71.

______________ & M.J. Caballero (1991).  Marketing Madness, or How Marketing Departments Think They’re in Two Places at Once When They’re Not Anywhere at All (According to Some).  Journal of Marketing Education, (13,Spring), 14-25.

College Placement Council Salary Survey (2001), (33 September), Bethlehem, PA.

Conant, J.S., J.Brown & M.P. Mokwa (1985).  Students are Important Consumers: Assessing Satisfaction in a Higher Education Context.  Journal of Marketing Education, (Summer), 13-20.

Ellen, P.S. & B.K. Pilling (2002).  Using Employer Input to Assess Graduate Marketing Education Effectiveness: A Working Example of Curriculum Development.  Marketing Education Review, (12) 1, 31-40.

Felson, L. (2001).  Undergrad Marketers Must Get Jump on Networking Skills.  Marketing News, 35 (8), 14-15.

Goldgehn, L.A. (1989).  Student Placement: The Challenge of Helping Our Undergraduate Marketing Students Prepare for the Job Marketplace and Their Careers in Marketing.  Journal of Marketing Education, (20 Fall), 78-82.

Hafer, J.C. & C.C. Hoth (1981).  Grooming Your Marketing Students to Match the Employer’s Ideal Job Candidate.  Journal of Marketing Education, (12 Spring), 15-19.

Kamvounias, P. (1999).  Students as Customers and Higher Education as Industry: A Review of the Literature and the Legal Implications.  Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, (3) 1.

Keillor, B.D., R.P. Bush & A.J. Bush (1993).  Students as Consumers: Marketing Strategies for Attracting and Retaining Majors in the 1990’s.  in Marketing: Satisfying a Diverse Customerplace, Southern Marketing Association, Kansas City, MO: 127-128.

____________________ (1995).  Marketing-Based Strategies for Recruiting Business Students in the Next Century.  Marketing Education Review, (3 Fall), 69-79.

Kelley, C.A. & R.M. Gaedeke (1990).  Student and Employer Evaluation of Hiring Criteria for Entry Level Marketing Positions.  Journal of Marketing Education, (21 Fall), 2-8.

Linrud, J.K. & M.C. Hall (1999).  Integrating the Business Practitioner into Marketing Coursework.  Marketing Education Review, (9 Summer), 15.

Mason, J.B. (1995).  Marketing Education in the 1990s: A Dean’s Retrospective and Prospective View.  Marketing Education Review, (1 Spring), 1-80.

McCorkle, D.E., J. F. Alexander, J. Reardon & N.D. Kling  (2003).  Developing Self-Marketing Skills: Are Marketing Students Prepared for the Job Search?  Journal of Marketing Education, (25) 3, 196-207.

McDaniel, S.W. & J.C. White (1993).  The Quality of the Academic Preparation of Undergraduate Marketing Majors: An Assessment by Company Recruiters.  Marketing Education Review, (3 Fall), 9-16.

Nonis, S.A., G.I. Hudson, C.W. Ford & L.B. Logan (1995).  Measuring the Expectations of a Declared Major: Comparing Marketing Majors with Non Business Majors.  in Marketing: Foundations for a Changing World, Southern Marketing Association, Evansville, IN, 227-231.

Peterson, R.T. & J.S. Devlin (1994).  Perspectives on Entry-Level Positions by Graduating Marketing Seniors.  Marketing Education Review, (4 Summer), 2-5.

Stern, B.L. & L.P.D. Tseng (2002).  Do Academics and Practitioners Agree on What and How to Teach the Undergraduate Marketing Research Course?  Journal of Marketing Education, (24) 3, 225-232.

Swenson, M.J., W.R. Swimyard, F.W. Langrehr & S.M. Smith (1993).  The Appeal of Personal Selling as a Career: A Decade Later.  Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, (16), 51-64.

Taylor, K. A.  (2003).  Marketing Yourself in the Competitive Job Market: An Innovative Course Preparing Undergraduates for Marketing Careers.  Journal of Marketing Education, (12), 2, 97-107.

Tomkovick, C., R.C. Erffmeyer & G. Hietpas (1996).  Evaluating Entry-Level Sales Applicants: An Application of Policy Capturing by Collegiate Recruiters.  Marketing Education Review, (3 Fall), 29-40.

Ursic, M. & C. Hegstrom (1985).  The Views of Marketing Recruiters, Alumni, and Students About Curriculum and Course Structure.  Journal of Marketing Education, (16), 21-27.

Weilbaker, D.C. & N.J. Merritt (1992).  Attracting Graduates to Sales Positions: The Role of Recruiter Knowledge.  Journal of Professional Selling & Sales Management, (12 Fall), 49-58.