1 / 15

Are graduates more productive?

Are graduates more productive?. Sarah Rawlinson University of Derby S.Rawlinson@derby.ac.uk. Context of the study. The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) study on Education and Skills: The Economic

talasi
Télécharger la présentation

Are graduates more productive?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Are graduates more productive? Sarah Rawlinson University of Derby S.Rawlinson@derby.ac.uk

  2. Context of the study The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) study on Education and Skills: The Economic Benefit (2003) suggests that there are higher returns for individuals who have a university degree and that highly educated people are more productive. The report claims that businesses can benefit in the forms of higher profits by making use of this higher productivity.

  3. Research Questions How do we measure this productivity? How do we attribute this productivity to graduates only? Do employers see the benefits of employing graduates? Case Study The spa, beauty and hairdressing sector. Little or no experience of higher education. Graduates entering the industry. Context of the study

  4. Context of the study The changing nature of work Flatter organisational structures, as a result of downsizing and delayering, has led to the empowerment of individuals and greater autonomy and ownership of the work process. This change has placed greater emphasis on the knowledge and skills of individuals and has resulted in the need for a more educated workforce. (Harvey 2000)

  5. Context of the study Measuring Performance • The balanced score card approach Kaplan and Norton (1992) • The framework of intangible valuation areas (FIVA) Green and Ryan (2005)

  6. Aim Identify whether graduates in spa, beauty therapy and hairdressing were more productive than non graduates. Objectives Investigate the employment opportunities for graduates from spa, hairdressing and beauty therapy programmes. Identify the benefits graduates brought to the organisations that employed them. Pilot Study

  7. Research Approach An exploratory research approach was used to gain an understanding of the job roles graduates were performing and the types of organisations that had employed them. This approach provided an opportunity to investigate the context within which the wider study would take place and explore the activities that would need to form part of the measurement tool.

  8. Research Method • Five organisations took part in the pilot study. • Colleges and universities offering higher education programmes were approached by the Hair and Beauty Industry Authority to identify organisations that may take part in the study. • Semi structured telephone interviews were used in all but one organisation.

  9. Findings The Pilot Study found: • Students were all employed in larger organisations; • All carried out treatments or services as part of their role; • None of the organisations set out to employ a graduate but would consider doing so in the future.

  10. Findings Employers suggested that they could not identify tangible benefits to employing a graduate but cited the following intangible benefits: • commitment to the industry; • a good understanding of the industry; • good management skills, spent time planning ahead and making improvements to the business; • confident, reliable and used their own initiative; • demonstrated leadership skills.

  11. Findings The pilot study suggests that: • Graduates are demonstrating greater autonomy and ownership of the work process; • Graduates are “growing jobs” within organisational structures; • Graduates’ first job is not in traditional graduate positions but in positions that initially provide low-level challenges. Identified by Harvey (2000)

  12. Findings Harvey (2000) suggests that the changing nature of work is benefiting non-traditional graduates. This change has placed greater emphasis on the knowledge and skills of individuals  and has resulted in the need for a more educated workforce.

  13. Conclusions This pilot study has identified that graduates in this industry are providing intangible assets that do not show on the organisation’s “bottom line.” The benefits that graduates bring to the industry are not easily measured by the organisation.

  14. Conclusions Many businesses do not know the true value of their intangible assets (Green and Ryan, 2005). There is a need to align an organisation’s business strategy and their intangible assets through a graduate impact framework (GIF) developed for this industry.

  15. References • Green, A. and Ryan, J.C.H. (2005) A framework of intangible valuation areas (FIVA). Aligning business strategy and intangible assets. Journal of Intellectual Capital. Vol. 6 No. 1 pp 43-52 • Harvey, L. (2000) New realities the relationship between higher education and employment. Tertiary Education and Management. Vol. 6 No. 1 pp 3-17 • Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992) The balanced scorecard – measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review. January – February pp71-79

More Related