Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.79.4.209-212

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Management Student, Professor, and Recruiter
Perceptions of Objectives for Gateway Positions:
An Assessment
Robin T. Peterson
To cite this article: Robin T. Peterson (2004) Management Student, Professor, and Recruiter
Perceptions of Objectives for Gateway Positions: An Assessment, Journal of Education for
Business, 79:4, 209-212, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.79.4.209-212
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.79.4.209-212

Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]

Date: 12 January 2016, At: 23:23

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:23 12 January 2016

Management Student, Professor,
and Recruiter Perceptions of
Objectives for Gateway Positions:
An Assessment
ROBIN T. PETERSON
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, New Mexico

E

ach academic year, numerous new
degree recipients in management

emerge to seek employment (Maher &
Silverman, 2002). Despite increases in
unemployment among managers in
recent years (Barta, 2003), competition
for these and other business administration graduates, especially for those who
are highly qualified, is intense (Strout,
2000). Nevertheless, shortages of candidates with desired skills exist in many
sectors of the economy and are expected to increase in the future—especially
as baby boomers continue to retire
(Archer, 2002). Numerous experts in
recruiting advise managers to continue
rigorous recruiting efforts, even in the
face of declining industry and company
revenues (Kesner, 2002). This need is
especially acute for companies that are
moving into new industries, such as
government contracts and homeland
security (Krell, 2002).
Graduates searching for entry-level
jobs are looking for positions that will

help them achieve significant life goals.
Only a limited volume of insights is
available regarding which criteria graduates use to select companies with
whom to seek employment. Equally
unclear is the extent to which professors
and corporate recruiters are knowledgeable on student employer selection criteria. I undertook the present study to
generate insights into these areas.

ABSTRACT. In this article, the
author surveyed senior level management majors, management professors,
and campus recruiters to investigate
the criteria used by the students in
selecting desirable positions for
employment and the accuracy of management professors’ and corporate
recruiters’ perceptions of those criteria. The author identified the criteria
and found that professors and
recruiters were not highly accurate in
identifying these variables.

Today many managers, public policy

formulators, educators, parents, and
social commentators hold an interest in
the factors sought by college graduates
in potential employers. In turn, these
criteria tend to reflect the ideals, values,
norms, and objectives of society at large
(Carroll & Ponterotto, 1998; Vroom,
1966). In the 1950s, graduates tended to
seek individualistic goals such as good
salaries, opportunities for promotion,
fringe benefits, and job security. This
pattern was reversed during the 1970s,
when preferences reflected desires for
positions that would advance social
movements embracing causes such as
social justice, world peace, and
enhancement of the physical environment. In the 1970s and 1980s, both
graduates and society at large displayed
an attraction to individual achievement
and career-related rewards. In turn, the

1990s witnessed an interest in a combi-

nation of job attainment, job security,
and self-improvement efforts designed
to improve one’s status in a profession
(Anderson, Stanley, & Parker, 1992).
Against this background, we lack a
composite perspective of the specific
values that graduating management students perceive as most important in the
21st century.
In addition, there is a knowledge gap
regarding the extent to which management professors and corporate recruiters
are aware of the entry-level job criteria
of graduates. Professors who are cognizant of these values can assist their
students and advisees on how to prepare
for specific careers and obtain appropriate positions. We even can argue that
professors have a responsibility to instill
“proper” and socially acceptable values
in students (Carson & Carson, 1998),
which, in turn, would advance their contribution to the goals of society. The

success of corporate recruiters is influenced substantially by the degree to
which they can inform students on how
their firms can help further graduates’
objectives (Gati, 1998). On the other
hand, if the recruiters prioritize criteria
that are not central to graduates, their
efforts may not be very fruitful.
In light of these observations,
insights regarding the criteria used by
recent graduates who seek entry-level
positions would be potentially useful to
March/April 2004

209

recruiters, executives, educators, and
society at large.

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:23 12 January 2016

Previous Studies
Some researchers have surveyed
graduating students regarding the criteria that they use in seeking positions
(Anonymous, 2003; Leonard, 1999;
Lovett, 1999; Nagle & Bohovich,
2000). Some of these studies have been
large sample statistical surveys, whereas
others have used qualitative research
techniques employing in-depth interviews and focus groups (Young, Antal,
& Bassett, 1999).
The National Association of Colleges
and Employers obtained some enlightening findings relating to sought-after
entry-level job criteria in a recent survey
of members of Generation X regarding
their views on careers, the job search,
and other work-related issues, (Collins,
1996). The top four choices, in descending order of preference, were “enjoying
what I do,” “opportunity to use
skills/abilities,” “opportunity for personal development,” and “feeling what I
do matters.” All of these relate to personal satisfaction with one’s job’s

responsibilities and challenges. Next
were “benefits,” “recognition of good
performance,” “friendly co-workers,”
“job location,” and “lots of money.”
These factors, all outside the purview of
job duties, relate to the accoutrements
of the job. At the bottom of the list were
“working in teams” and “tuition reimbursement.” Some studies have revealed
differences in these preferences across
gender (Ellis & Herrman, 1983; Gaylen,
Chandler, Jansen, & Mero, 2000; Young
& Chen, 1999) and occupational groups
(Strout, 2000).
The results cited above are reasonably consistent with those of Montana
and Lenaghan’s (1999) study of job
choice criteria employed by business
administration students. In that study,
the major motivators were “respect for
me as a person,” “opportunity to do
interesting work,” “feeling my job is

important,” “opportunity for selfdevelopment and improvement,” and
“large amount of freedom on the job.”
These results are very consistent with
the rankings given by managers regarding the factors that they perceived as
210

Journal of Education for Business

the major motivators. These factors
were “respect for me as a person,”
“good pay,” “opportunity to do interesting work,” “feeling my job is
important,” “opportunity for selfdevelopment and improvement,” and
“large amount of freedom on the job.”
Despite these previously cited studies,
there is a lack of specific information on
the specific criteria used by recent management graduates in seeking entry-level
employment. Further, there is a void in
the knowledge of the extent to which
professors and recruiters are informed
regarding those criteria.

Method
I forwarded packets of 21 questionnaires and accompanying cover letters
to 100 randomly selected management
professors listed in the membership roster of the Academy of Management. The
cover letters provided a description of
the objectives of my inquiry and
requested that the professors furnish the
questionnaires to 10 randomly selected
management majors who would graduate with bachelor’s degrees that year.
Further, I asked each professor to provide somewhat similar questionnaires to
10 randomly chosen campus recruiters
who were seeking management graduates and to complete a questionnaire
him- or herself. As an inducement for

participation in the study, the professors
and the recruiters were promised a copy
of the results of the study, if desired.
After acquiring the completed questionnaires, cooperating respondents were to
return them to the professors, who
would mail them back to the researcher

in stamped, self-addressed envelopes.
Both the cover letter and the questionnaire promised confidential treatment of
the research results and anonymity of
individual responses.
The student portion of the sample
produced 764 usable returned questionnaires (a response rate of 76.4%). The
corresponding number for recruiters
was 582 (a response rate of 58.2%), and
that for professors was 87 (a response
rate of 87.0%).
The measuring instrument employed
in this study contained 14 9-point
scales. I developed and previously used
this particular instrument in a study of
college of business entry-level job values (Peterson, 1989). On the measuring
instrument, students rated the importance of each of the 14 job values or
attributes on a 9-point scale ranging
from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The professors and recruiters
completed an identical questionnaire,
except that the instructions asked them
to indicate how important they felt each
of the values were to graduating management students.

TABLE 1. Perceived Significance of Job Criteria: Mean Values for
Management Students, Management Professors, and Recruiters

Values
Opportunity for self-development
Challenge and responsibility
Freedom on the job
Opportunity for advancement
Training
Job security
Type of work
Financial compensation
Location of work
Working conditions
Working with people
Company reputation
“Other”
Job title

Students
M
Rank
8.51
8.40*
8.13*
7.89*
7.38*
6.66*
6.32*
6.01
6.01*
5.69*
5.28*
5.21
5.12*
4.87

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Professors
M
Rank
6.95*
5.13
6.07
5.88*
7.51
7.44*
8.19
8.63*
8.01*
6.58*
8.09
7.69
4.31
4.95*

8
12
10
11
6
7
2
1
4
9
3
5
14
13

Recruiters
M
Rank
7.15*
7.83
6.57
8.77*
8.39*
7.87
7.31
7.58*
7.11*
6.43
5.59
6.42
6.25*
5.72

9
4
10
1
2
3
8
5
6
11
14
7
12
13

*A mean that is significantly larger than the next smallest mean, according to a Tukey k test at the
.05 level.

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:23 12 January 2016

Results
I determined the mean response for
each of the three groups on each scale.
In Table 1, I present the means and their
rank order (in descending order of
importance to the students) within their
respective groupings.
For the student grouping, the top
criteria were opportunity for selfdevelopment, challenge and responsibility, freedom on the job, opportunity
for advancement, training, and job
security (in descending order of
importance). Criteria mentioned next
included type of work, financial compensation, job location, and working
conditions. Following these were
working with people, company reputation, “other,” and job title.
The values that student respondents
sought most vigorously in entry-level
positions were essentially higher level
and intangible: They related to selffulfillment, accomplishment, and selfactualization. Essentially, they reflected long-term goal achievement, pointed to the future, and were relatively
abstract in nature, as opposed to “here
and now,” short-term concrete goals
reflected by criteria such as financial
compensation and working conditions.
The values uncovered in this study parallel the goals of the Generation X
cohort group investigated in the previous study cited in this article. Statusoriented criteria, such as company reputation and job title, did not receive
high rankings. Notably, “financial
compensation” received a mid-to-low
ranking, contrary to the popular conception that this is the primary driver
of student job choice.
Columns 3 and 4 in Table 1 reveal
that management professors, considered
as a group, manifested considerable
lack of accuracy in their perceptions of
students’ criteria. From the perspective
of the professors, the top student criteria
were financial compensation, type of
work, working with people, location of
work, and company reputation. These
factors were followed by training, job
security, opportunity for self-development, and working conditions. Next
mentioned were freedom on the job,
opportunity for advancement, challenge
and responsibility, job title, and “other.”

To a large extent, the professors
apparently deduced that students use criteria that are largely concrete, short
term, and oriented to the present rather
than the future. For example, financial
compensation received the top ranking
among the criteria, and type of work
attained the next highest rank. It would
appear that professors are not highly
accurate in judging students’ desires
regarding employment. A calculation of
Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance,
which assesses the extent to which
members of two or more sets rank orderings of variables in a similar manner
(Winkler & Hays, 1975), substantiates
this conclusion. The Kendall Coefficient
W in this case was calculated as .19, with
an average correlation variation of .12,
indicating that only about 12% of the
variables had similar rankings.
Columns 5 and 6 of Table 1 present
the mean ratings and the associated
ranks for the criteria as perceived by the
corporate recruiters. These respondents
granted the top rankings to opportunity
for advancement, training, job security,
challenge and responsibility, and financial compensation. These criteria were
followed by location of work, company
reputation, type of work, and opportunity for self-development. Freedom on the
job, working conditions, “other,” job
title, and working with people scored
lowest.
The recruiters perceived that entrylevel job seekers are oriented toward
future goals, because they placed high
ratings on variables such as opportunity
for advancement, training, and challenge and responsibility. At the same
time, they placed less importance on
short-term variables, such as job security, financial compensation, and location
of work. Overall, there was greater
agreement between students and
recruiters than there was between students and professors. This premise is
reinforced by a coefficient of concordance of .34 and an associated average
correlation variation of .28. Apparently,
the recruiters are more knowledgeable
than professors in their perceptions of
students’ criteria in seeking entry-level
jobs, but they are still imperfect judges
of these variables, because only about
28 of the criteria had similar rankings
among the two groups.

I performed a Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance by ranks to determine
whether the distribution of values
among the three groups was identical.
The computed value of chi-square with
two degrees of freedom was 8.1937,
which is significant at the .01 level. It
appears that the three groups differed
significantly in the rank values assigned
to the variables, which substantiates the
conclusions of the coefficient of concordance tests.
I calculated Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients between the three
groups. The correlation between students
and professors was rs = .10, that between
students and recruiters was rs = .25, and
that between professors and recruiters
was rs = 31. Results of t tests for the independence of two variables, based on these
coefficients, indicate that the rankings of
each pair were not correlated significantly at the .05 level. The greatest agreement
was between professors and recruiters,
but both of these departed substantially
from the rankings of the students.
Discussion
The results of this inquiry reveal that a
sample of management students in the
early 21st century place high priorities
on entry-level criteria that are intangible
and reflect higher order goals—goals
that correlate with accomplishment, selfactualization, and self-fulfillment. Many
criteria indicated in this study centered
on long-term future goals and tended to
be relatively abstract. Further, the students’ criteria were very similar to values
found previously for the overall Generation X grouping. On the other hand, status and financial compensation criteria
were not rated highly. Variables such as
job title, company reputation, working
with people, and working conditions did
not receive high priority designations.
Professors, to a large degree, were
unable to identify accurately the criteria
preferred by students. They concluded
that students prefer relatively concrete,
short-term, present-oriented criteria. Professors gave financial compensation the
top ranking; in contrast, students placed
this criterion eighth in importance. In
turn, professors assigned much lower
rankings than did students to variables
such as freedom on the job, opportunity
March/April 2004

211

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:23 12 January 2016

for advancement, and challenge and
responsibility. This set of stated preferences suggests that the professors felt
that management students are more interested in short-term, concrete values and
less oriented to long-term, intangible
goals. These differences exist despite the
fact that students and professors are in
frequent contact on campus and professors are in a position to monitor and
influence student value formation
through classes, advising, and informal
contacts (Hoffmon & Kelley, 1991).
It is not clear just how professors
acquire their perceptions about student
job preferences. Perhaps they obtain
these from discussions with students or
from conversations overheard among
the students themselves. Alternatively,
they may receive input from television,
newspapers, academic publications, and
other media. Whatever the sources, it
appears that professors are not gaining
accurate impressions about this important area of knowledge.
The information in Table 1 shows that
the recruiters agreed with the students to
a larger degree about the criteria than
did the professors, despite the fact that
recruiters and students do not normally
interact on a frequent basis. However, in
their role of seeking applicants,
recruiters do contact large numbers of
students from various institutions, and
this experience may allow them to collect considerable intelligence regarding
criteria most valued by students. The
recruiters placed high emphasis on
opportunity for advancement, training,
and challenge and responsibility. In
contrast, they gave low rankings to
working with people, job title, and
working conditions. These patterns are
somewhat in accordance with the evaluations of the students. However,
recruiters were imperfect predictors of
students’ preferences, and the correlation between the two sets of rankings
was not substantial.
This inquiry provides insights into
some of the major entry-level job criteria that college recruiters might empha-

212

Journal of Education for Business

size while endeavoring to entice management students to their companies.
Intangible long-term criteria that are
related to growth and future success
appear to be of major importance. From
a societal perspective, this pattern may
be desirable, as it suggests that students
are assuming a long-term perspective,
rather than myopically gravitating
toward short-term benefits that might
not prove useful over time.
The management professors who participated in the study apparently were
somewhat out of touch with the career
orientations of their students. This situation may be due partly to a lack of frequent, informal contact between students and faculty members, inadequate
perceptual processes, or a common professional propensity to engage in
rhetoric rather than to listen to students.
Management professors should become
more diligent in listening for student
values so that they might become more
proficient in career counseling and
effectively assisting industry in recruiting efforts.
There are several limitations associated with this study. The measuring
instrument was restricted to 14 variables. Given that the “other” category
was indicated by some students, other
variables could be of substantial merit.
In addition, this study did not address
the issue of why students hold these job
criteria and why professors apparently
are not more successful in perceiving
them. These topics would be useful targets for future research.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. H., Stanley, S. R., & Parker, T. H.
(1992). Student perceptions of marketing
careers and career decision influences: A retailing example. Journal of Marketing Education,
16(3), 46–56.
Anonymous. (2003). Great expectations: What the
future holds for young managers. Management
Services, 47(1), 6–7.
Archer, E. (2002). Why skimping on recruitment
efforts will cost you. AFP Exchange, 22(6),
138–140.
Barta, P. (2003, May 5). The economy: April’s
employment data show third straight month of
job cuts. The Wall Street Journal, A2.

Carroll, C. B., & Ponterotto, J. G. (1998). Education and family components of identity in the
transition from school to work. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 22(1),
29–53.
Carson, K. D., & Carson, P. P. (1998). Career
commitment, competencies, and citizenship.
Journal of Career Development, 6(1), 195–208.
Collins, M. (1996). Who are they and what do
they want? Journal of Career Planning &
Employment, 57(1), 41–44.
Ellis, R. A., & Herrman, M. S. (1983). Understanding career goals of college women:
Intradimensional variation in sex-typed occupational choice. Sociology and Social Research,
34(2), 41–58.
Gati, I. (1998). Using career-related aspects to
elicit preferences and characterize occupations
for a better person-environment fit. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 52(3), 343–356.
Gaylen, A., Chandler, N., Jansen, E., & Mero, N.
P. (2000). Women business owners in traditional and non-traditional industries. Journal of
Business Venturing, 15(3), 279–303.
Hoffmon, K. D., & Kelley, S. W. (1991). The education service encounter: The socialization of
students. Journal of Marketing Education,
15(2), 67–77.
Kesner, I. (2002). Partner with academia to build
your firm. Consulting to Management, 13(1),
15–20.
Krell, E. (2002). Recruiting outlook: Creative HR
for 2003. Workforce, 81(13), 40–45.
Leonard, B. (1999). Study examines keys to
recruiting, retention. HR Magazine, 44(9),
32–42.
Lovett, W. (1999). Charting career goals. Scholastic Math Magazine, 19(9), 6–8.
Maher, K., & Silverman, R. E. (2002, April 2).
Career journal: Business school applications
soar. The Wall Street Journal, B10.
Montana, P., & Lenaghan, J. A. (1999). What
motivates and matters most to Generations X
and Y. Journal of Career Planning & Employment, 59(4), 27–30.
Nagle, R., & Bohovich, J. (2000). What goes into
graduates’ career decisions. Journal of Career
Planning and Employment, 60(3), 24–30.
Peterson, R. (1989). Perceptions of student professional goals in entry-level positions. Journal
of Business and Economic Perspectives, 15(3),
89–94.
Strout, E. (2000). Start recruiting grads now. Sales
and Marketing Management, 152(3), 11–13.
Vroom, V. H. (1966). Organizational choice: A
study of pre- and post-decision processes.
Organizational Behavior and Human Preference, 1(2), 212–225.
Winkler, R. L., & Hays, W. L. (1975). Statistics:
Probability ,inference, and decision. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Young, R. A., & Chen, C. P. (1999). Annual
review: Practice and research in career counseling and development. The Career Development
Quarterly, 48(2), 98–141.
Young, R. A., Antal, S., & Bassett, M. E. (1999).
The joint actions of adolescents in peer conversations about career. Journal of Adolescence,
22(4), 527–538.