SA Journal of Industrial Psychology

ISSN: (Online) 2071-0763, (Print) 0258-5200

Page 1 of 10 Original Research

Antecedents of perceived graduate

employability: A study of student volunteers in
a community-based organisation

Authors: Orientation: There is growing interest in understanding the factors that contribute to
Suki Goodman1 graduates’ employability, but limited local knowledge. International research has pointed at
Ginny Tredway1
volunteering as one avenue for enhancing employability, and this study presents results that
Affiliation: looked at volunteering in the context of employability in a South African sample.
1
Faculty of Commerce,
University of Cape Town, Research purpose: This study aimed at investigating motivations to volunteer, perceived
South Africa graduate competencies, extent of participating in volunteering, along with gender and faculty
of registration, as antecedents of perceived graduate employability among student volunteers
Corresponding author:
Suki Goodman,
and to compare the relative contributions of these antecedences in predicting perceived
[Link]@[Link] employability.

Dates: Research approach, design and method: A cross-sectional research design and a quantitative
Received: 21 Sept. 2015 data collection method were used. The relative weights analysis was conducted to answer the
Accepted: 11 Dec. 2015 research question.
Published: 17 May 2016
Main findings: Overall, the results demonstrated, firstly, that different sets of predictors
How to cite this article: statistically significantly predict Perceived External Employability and Perceived Internal
Goodman, S. & Tredway, G.
(2016). Antecedents of Employability, respectively. In the case of Perceived External Employability, a biographical
perceived graduate predictor (faculty of registration) is the strongest predictor, whereas in the case of Internal
employability: A study of Employability, a questionnaire measurement (of Social Motivation) comes out on top.
student volunteers in a
community-based Practical implications/managerial implications: The social motivation factor as a predictor of
organisation. SA Journal perceived internal employability suggests that the more students valued the social interactions
of Industrial Psychology/
brought about by their volunteering activities, the better they saw themselves equipped for
SA Tydskrif vir
Bedryfsielkunde, 42(1), employment. This gives some weight to the argument that engaging in volunteer activities
a1315. [Link] can help equip students with competencies that make them more prepared for the world of
org/10.4102/sajip.v42i1.1315 work.
Copyright: Contribution/value-add: The study provided support for the construct validity of the scale for
© 2016. The Authors. the measurement of perceived employability and evidence that different sets of predictors
Licensee: AOSIS. This work
is licensed under the contribute to perceived internal and external employability.
Creative Commons
Attribution License.
Introduction
The phenomenon of unemployed graduates, who are without the abilities to self-employ and self-
determine, after spending three to four years of post-secondary education is an indication to all of us of
the challenge in our education at a tertiary level. (Mlambo-Ngcuka, 2006, p. 3)

Research purpose and objectives

This study aims to investigate motivations to volunteer, perceived graduate competencies, extent
of participating in volunteering, along with gender and faculty of registration as antecedents of
perceived graduate employability among student volunteers and to compare the relative
contributions of these antecedences in predicting perceived employability.

In the process, the researchers hope to generate data to support the discourse around graduate
Read online: employability through providing empirical evidence about what graduate employability is and
Scan this QR an avenue in which it is developed, thereby providing students with information to assist them in
code with your
smart phone or the development of their graduate employability and moreover, to assist higher education
mobile device institutions that offer opportunities for volunteerism with information to support and potentially
to read online.
improve this offering.

[Link] Open Access

 Page 2 of 10 Original Research

There is a small body of research suggesting volunteerism a set of achievements – skills, understandings and personal
is one of the possible avenues for students to develop attributes – that make graduates more likely to gain employment
graduate competencies (Handy et al. 2010; Holdsworth, 2010; and be successful in their chosen occupations, which benefits
Holdsworth & Quinn, 2010; Hustinx, Cnaan & Handy, 2010). themselves, the workforce, the community and the economy. (p. 8)
However, there is insufficient international or local evidence
to show that volunteering positively impacts employability A possible reason for the popularity of this definition is that
(Holdsworth & Quinn, 2010). employability is more than gaining a job, but is also the
possession of the skills, personal motivation and business
reasoning that lead graduates to make an immediate
Literature review contribution to productivity and organisational objectives
Graduate employability (Mason et al. 2006).
Recent research on the changing nature of work shows that
graduates entering the world of work today are encountering The second school of thought which holds a slightly divergent
a workplace with organisational structures that differ greatly viewpoint to the first is that graduateness and employability
from previous generations (Andrews & Higson, 2008; Brevis- are not a single concept but are separate in nature and
Landsberg, 2012; Chetty, 2012) Modern economies in the 21st therefore definition (Coetzee, 2012; Glover, Law & Youngman,
century are rapidly evolving, and this leads to a corresponding 2002). Glover et al. (2002) viewed them as separate concepts
change, and increase, in the demand for highly qualified, that have an impactful relationship with each other. They
highly skilled employees. The new employee needs to be maintain that graduateness is the effect that completing a
equipped to deal with the nature, scope and skill requirements higher education qualification has on an individuals’ skills,
vital for this fast-paced, dynamic and demanding labour knowledge and attitudes. Employability is different from this
market (Brown & Lauder, 1992; Chetty, 2012; Gracia, 2009). and is viewed as the enhanced capacity to secure employment
Educational qualifications are no longer sufficient to (Glover et al. 2002). Therefore, in their view, graduate
guarantee success within the workplace (Chetty, 2012; employability is the acquisition of general transferable skills,
Cranmer, 2006; Hesketh, 2000; Mason, Williams & Cranmer, which, once gathered, requires assimilation into national and
2006). The focus of graduates needs to shift to what former
international employment (Glover et al. 2002). This is similar
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown, calls
to the stance taken by Coetzee (2012), who maintains that the
employability for life (Moreau & Leathwood, 2006).
meta-skills and personal attributes underlying a students’
Embedding employability which lasts a lifetime hinges on
graduateness facilitate the transition to employability but are
the ability to develop skills and attributes needed within
not the same concept. Rather, graduateness is seen as:
industry and much of this is formed during university years
(Yorke, 2004, 2006). However, the perspective of many the inherent characteristics (transferable meta-skills and personal
employers is that graduates are not leaving higher education attributes) of graduates … that differentiate them as responsible,
with the necessary skills to impress within the workplace accountable, relevant, ethical (RARE) and enterprising citizens,
(Cranmer, 2006; Green, Hammer & Star, 2009; Griesel & and employees of choice in the workplace (Coetzee, 2012, p. 121).
Parker, 2009; Hesketh, 2000; Tate & Thompson, 1994).
Globally, there is a concern that there is a divide between the Employability as career-related attributes that promote
teaching in higher education institutions and organisational adaptive cognition, behaviour and affect and enhance a
demands needed to obtain a competitive advantage (Andrews graduate’s suitability for sustained employment (Coetzee,
& Higson, 2008; Gracia, 2009; Green et al. 2009; National 2012). Therefore, it stands to reason that graduates need to
Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, 1997). obtain competencies that increase their likelihood of obtaining
employment. These concepts are distinct yet related.
Although there is still much debate as to the definition of
graduate employability, a comprehensive review of the Extent of volunteering experience and graduate attributes
literature indicated that there may be more similarities in Research indicates that there are a number of different activities
defining the concept than previously thought and two
that could assist in increasing graduates’ employability
predominant schools of thought emerged. The first is based
(Valentine, Cooper, Bettencourt & Du Bois, 2011). One of these
on the ground-breaking work of Hillage and Pollard (1998),
is volunteering. Volunteering allows students to interact with
who defined employability as ‘having the capability to gain
people from diverse groups, to place themselves in unfamiliar
initial employment, maintain employment and obtain new
situations and to be instrumental in the organisation of
employment if required’ (p. 1). The definition included four
main elements: (1) employability assets, which takes into projects (Planty, Bozick & Regnier, 2006). These situations and
account knowledge, skills and attitudes; (2) deployment, functions have been shown to assist in the creation of core
which refers to career management skills; (3) presentation, personal and academic skills (Handy et al. 2010; Holdsworth,
which is explained as the ability to present oneself in order 2010; Holdsworth & Quinn, 2010). In fact, research has shown
to find employment; and finally, (4) personal circumstances that engagement in community activities may well be a
and external factors, which take into account individual more robust learning environment for educational and
situational impacts as well as the level of opportunities that personal development and that volunteering founded on
are currently found in the labour market (Hillage & Pollard, mutual reciprocity is beneficial for student attributes (Mason
1998). Similarly, Yorke (2004) defines graduate employability as: O’Connor, Lynch & Owen, 2011).

[Link] Open Access

 Page 3 of 10 Original Research

Volunteering was traditionally an activity done to add value to Psychosocial motivators of volunteering
society or from a religious sense to ‘do something good’ Students volunteer for a number of different reasons
(MacDuff, 2005; Smith et al. 2010). As students acknowledge (Gronlund et al. 2011; Handy et al. 2010; Holdsworth, 2010;
the pressure of a competitive graduate labour market, there is a Smith et al. 2010), and as the generations have changed and
move to bolster one’s CV through engagement in volunteer the demand for employability skills has become a relevant
work (Handy et al. 2010; Holdsworth, 2010). The seminal work topic, some researchers believed that students would be
conducted by Astin, Sax and Avalos (1999) was aimed at motivated to volunteer in order to progress their careers
understanding the lasting impact of volunteering on students. (Handy et al. 2010; Smith et al. 2010). The premise is that they
From a sample of 279 985 students from 546 university across would be able to add this to their CV and therefore enjoy the
the United States, they found that students who have benefit of increased employer acceptance. Handy et al. (2010)
volunteered during their tertiary education developed investigated whether student volunteering was primarily
important life skills, which included leadership, self-confidence, driven by resume building and hypothesised that if it was
critical thinking and increased academic development (Astin driven by CV building that students would be less motivated
et al. 1999). They also found that volunteering better prepared to invest significant amounts of time into volunteer work and
students for work. In other words, they became more would therefore have limited benefit from the experience.
economically employable (Freeman, 1997). Furthermore, there Not only was their hypothesis not supported by the data but
is research which suggests that employers value volunteer it was found that altruistic motivations significantly drove
experience when assessing a student for a position within their students to volunteer (Handy et al. 2010). The students, who
organisation (Hinchliffe & Jolly, 2011). Some authors raise a volunteered based on altruistic drivers, viewed CV building
concern, though, that volunteering may be seen as a line item as a personal benefit achieved through the experience but it
on a CV and not necessarily contributing to the advancement was not their primary motivator (Handy et al. 2010). This is in
of the students’ core skills and personal characteristics line with research that has found that the majority of students
identified by students and employers alike (Gronlund et al. are not necessarily volunteering based on career drivers, but
2011; Holdsworth & Quinn, 2010). have more of an altruistic impetus to volunteer (Clary et al.
1998; Hwang, Grabb & Curtis, 2005). Correspondingly, they
There appears to be a move from the traditional regular have found that students who volunteer in order to add
forms of volunteering to that which is more episodic in value to society perceive an increase in beneficial outcomes
nature allowing for flexibility and control in a world which from the experience (Handy et al. 2010; Smith et al. 2010).
demands this (Cnaan & Handy, 2005; Hustinx & Lammertyn,
2003). The move to measure volunteerism along a time Holdsworth (2010) found that 3083 students from six
continuum is becoming a reality for a society, which has universities throughout England were motivated to volunteer
volunteer involvement as just one of the many elements of based on the drive to increase their employability. Although
life (Cnaan & Handy, 2005; MacDuff, 2005). The question that there was a bias towards career motivation, there was also a
researchers are beginning to ask is whether the frequency of high-level agreement across a number of motivators with
time spent is related to the perceived employability. students suggesting that the act of volunteering was viewed
as a positive tool to aid them in the transition to adulthood
Smith et al. (2010) asked 4081 students from across five (Holdsworth, 2010). They also saw volunteering contributing
to the development of their self-confidence, ability to interact
countries (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia
with others and capacity to circumnavigate difficult situations
and New Zealand) about their motivations to volunteer, the
(Holdsworth, 2010). Students who were driven by the desire
apparent benefits as well as the structural elements associated
to give back experienced these benefits more than the career-
with their involvement. Students who had a higher
focused students. Correspondingly, Smith et al. (2010) found
involvement in volunteering perceived themselves to have
that students were motivated to volunteer by a combination
obtained more personal benefit and development. Regular
of career, social and altruistic drivers.
involvement was critical to the growth of professional
attributes and academic engagement and was defined as Social or ego-protective motivation also has been investigated
volunteering on a continuous basis, measured weekly and as possible antecedents as people are increasingly driven by
monthly in hours. self-oriented reasons (Hwang, et al. 2005). Handy et al. (2010)
combined social and ego into a single concept and found
These findings were substantiated by research conducted that if people volunteered based on a social imperative they
across 12 countries by Handy et al. (2010), who found that were as likely to engage in volunteering as the career and
the frequency of time spent volunteering had a direct impact altruistic motivations but that they would experience less
on the experience gained from the activity and the perception beneficial outcomes. In addition, Smith et al. (2010) combined
of benefits obtained. Of the 9482 students who responded, this concept but measured it in items that focused on social
they maintained that the number of hours of volunteer and ego separately. The desire to make friends accounted for
work per year as well as the occurrence of volunteering had 53% of the reason for volunteering, with the need to protect
a direct impact on the achievement of desired benefits ones’ ego being reported at 28.5% of the motivational reason.
(Handy et al. 2010). However, they found that students volunteering based on

[Link] Open Access

 Page 4 of 10 Original Research

these reasons reported marginally less beneficial outcomes Rothwell, Herbert and Rothwell (2008) expanded the
through their volunteer activity. This is substantiated by theoretical concept to relate specifically to students and their
Holdsworth (2010), who found that students who volunteered perception of their ability to find employment after
for social reasons did not report benefits as readily as those completion of their studies. In a study assessing 344 students
with other motivations. from three universities in England, it was found to be a
consistent measure (α = 0.75) of the construct of graduate
Research design employability and similarly assessed the perception of skill
sets within the marketplace (Rothwell et al. 2008). While
Research approach there is limited evidence to demonstrate whether this
A cross-sectional research design and a quantitative data measure has been used in other contexts, an objective of this
collection method were used. This took the form of an online, research is to examine its reliability and validity within the
self-report questionnaire to allow for the data to be statistically context of this study and South Africa. The original measure
analysed and for associations to be made between variables. had 16 items, but because of an increase in the reliability
coefficients, three items were removed. Internal reliability
Research method reporting for this measure is high (α = 0.75). Items were rated
on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to
Research participants
5 (strongly agree).
The research objective called for a sample of people who are
or were involved in volunteer activities. In order to access
Graduate competencies: The 16-item scale developed by
this group of participants, a relationship was formed with
Lichtenstein, Thorme, Cutforth and Tombari (2011) was
the Students’ Health and Welfare Centres Organisation
used in this study as it aligned with the literature review
(SHAWCO). This is a volunteer organisation associated with
findings in terms of the required competencies. In addition
a university in the Western Cape Province and is focused on
to this, it was developed within a volunteering context.
improving the lives of previously disadvantage communities
Community-Based Research (CBR) is a form of service
within the Cape Town metropolitan area. It has more than
5000 student volunteers recorded on its database over the learning and is a response to the shortfall in universities
last 5 years and is currently the largest student organisation to address the demand for development of graduate
in the university. competencies. Universities embracing this concept
postulate that volunteerism is an effective way of
A non-probability sampling approach was used, as the developing graduate competencies and therefore embed
sample was selected based on accessibility as well as the volunteering into the core curriculum (Lichtenstein et al.
needs of the research. Because of the integrity of the data 2011). It differs from traditional volunteerism in that it is
within the SHAWCO database as well as the electronic discipline focused and requires reflection on the learning
tracing of emails as spam, only 3639 surveys were gained from participation. The measure involved was
successfully distributed via email. Of the 3969 participants, developed to test the outcomes of CBR through a survey
327 responded, with 273 of the surveys being completed. which was completed by 166 students from those
In order to overcome these limitations and increase the universities that had implemented CBR in the United
response rate, the survey was personally distributed by hand States. The outcomes identified included the following:
before the start of daily volunteer activities, with completed (1) academic skills (α = 0.91); (2) educational experience
copies being placed in sealed boxes to ensure anonymity. (α = 0.87); (3) civic engagement (α = 0.86), (4) personal
This increased the sample by 17 participants, which was less growth (α = 0.94) and (5) professional skills (α = 0.91)
than expected. The survey link was emailed to both current (Lichtenstein et al. 2011). Civic engagement was not used
and past SHAWCO volunteers; therefore, the participants as a subscale as there is little evidence which relates this
were more diverse than just those currently studying. as a necessary skill for employability; therefore, this
Initially, 242 participants had been involved, but after measure has four subscales. Items were rated on a 5-point
omission of those who failed to complete both criterion Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extensively). Cronbach
measures, only 151 remained. alpha reliabilities reported by Lichtenstein et al. (2011)
were high for the following components: academic skills
Measuring instruments (α = 0.80), educational experience (α = 0.87), professional
Perceived graduate employability: Rothwell and Arnold skills (α = 0.91) and personal growth (α = 0.94). The overall
(2007), who are based in England, developed a measure for Cronbach alpha reported by Lichtenstein was α = 0.95.
self-perceived employability based on the findings of Hillage
and Pollard (1998) and Knight and Yorke (2004). They Motivation for volunteering: The 30-item scale called the
hypothesised that employability was related to an individuals’ Volunteer Functions Inventory developed by Clary et al. (1998)
discernment of their skills and abilities and how they was used. The scale has six subscales measuring values,
perceived an organisation would react to them as individuals understanding, social, career, protective and enhancement.
with varying characteristics and attributes. They concluded Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not
that self-perceived employability could be a unitary construct at all important) to 5 (extremely important). Cronbach alpha
or one with two components (Rothwell & Arnold, 2007). reliabilities reported by Clary et al. (1998) were high for each

[Link] Open Access

 Page 5 of 10 Original Research

component: values (α = 0.80), understanding (α = 0.81), social The survey was made up of 85 items for students. The initial
(α = 0.83), career (α = 0.89), protective (α = 0.81) and enhancement item in the questionnaire asked whether the participant was
(α = 0.84). Four of the original six subscales where used. volunteering, had volunteered in the past or had no volunteer
experience. If the participant had not engaged with volunteer
Involvement in volunteering: As the work of Handy et al. work, they were unable to continue with the questionnaire.
(2010) has been replicated in other studies, the two items On the email and cover letter, an explanation of the objectives
they used to get information on the level of involvement was provided as well as information relating to the
in volunteering was used. It focused on the intensity of anonymous nature of the research. In addition, it required
volunteering, which was measured by the frequency of that people acknowledge informed consent to participate in
volunteer work (1), occasionally (2), weekly (3), monthly (4) the survey. The questionnaire took between 15 and 20
other (5) and the years of past involvement. minutes to complete.

Demographic variables: Separate single items were used to

Data analysis
obtain information regarding gender, age and faculty of
study. Gender was coded (1) for female students and (2) for Data preparation included cleaning, coding and capturing
male students. Faculty of study was coded (1) for commerce, the data from the paper-based questionnaires. SPSS (version
(2) for engineering, (3) for humanities, (4) for legal, (5) for 20) was used for analysing the data. The sets of items
medical and (6) for science. Other was originally coded as (7); designed to measure perceived employability (13 items),
however, because of the combination of faculties in which motivation for volunteering (20 items) and graduate
participants had studied, other was removed and (7) became competencies (16 items) were examined separately by the
a combination of more than one faculty of study. Highest Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and the Bartlett’s test of
level of degree was coded (1) for undergraduate, (2) for sphericity before these sets of items were subjected to
honours, (3) for masters, (4) for doctorate and (5) for other. principal axes-factor analysis followed by an oblimin
rotation. Kaiser’s criterion was used to decide the number of
Research procedure and ethical considerations factors that should be retained. The resulting scales found for
After ethics permission for the study was obtained from the the motivation items, the competencies items and the
necessary authorities, a pilot study was conducted with six employability items as well as student’s gender, faculty of
participants who were currently involved in volunteer study, hours spent volunteering and frequency were then
work or had been so in the past. It also included participants inter-correlated and standard multiple regressions were
from various volunteer roles. The number of people within performed to predict employability on the basis of these
the pilot study was intentionally limited so as not to impact variables. Finally, a relative weight analysis was performed
the response rate while still gaining sufficient feedback in in terms of the RWA Web-based system (Tonidandel &
order to meet the pilot study objectives. Based on the pilot LeBreton, 2014) to determine their relative contributions in
study, changes were made in the grammatical structure of explaining perceived employability variance. The 5% level of
certain items. This was to account for the people who significance was used throughout.
were currently participating in volunteer work and those
who had previously volunteered but were not currently Each of the factor analyses was performed on at least 242
involved. The same items were used; however, the tenses participants. However, after the omission of those students
were changed in order to cater for this. Furthermore, for whom data on some of the predictor variables and
amendments were made to the instructions of the graduate particularly the dependent variable were missing, the data
employability scales as well as the outcomes scales to for only the remaining only 151 participants were used in the
increase their clarity. Concerns around the length of the subsequent analyses.
questionnaire were outweighed by the necessity to gather
all relevant information outweighed these concerns; As can be seen from Table 1, the participants were
therefore, all items were included. predominantly (66%) female students. They came from a
variety of faculties with women proportionally over-
The electronic questionnaire was created on Survey Monkey,
represented in the Humanities – 44% of the women were
with the link being distributed via email. Survey Monkey,
registered in the Humanities faculty as opposed to 24% of
a privately owned company, allows for flexibility in
construction of surveys as well as coding and extraction of TABLE 1: Cross-tabulation of faculty and gender.
data. One of the benefits of this survey package is that the Faculty Gender Total
data can be directly transferred into Statistical Package for Male Female
Social Sciences (SPSS). Survey Monkey was used based on Commerce 15 23 38
these benefits as well as the ability to reach the proportion of Engineering 13 5 18
people who had completed their higher education and Humanities 12 44 56
therefore were no longer actively participating at SHAWCO. Legal 0 6 6
In addition to this, authorisation by the researcher’s employer Medical 4 12 16
to use their premium contract was given and therefore ensured Science 7 10 17

that access was obtained to the full functionality. Total 51 100 151

[Link] Open Access

 Page 6 of 10 Original Research

the men. Their age ranged from 18–55 (M = 22.59), with the TABLE 3: Factor matrix for graduate competencies.
Variable Factor
age distribution between 19 and 25 accounting for 81% of the
1 2 3
participants. The majority of the students (75.5%) volunteered
Outcomes - Academic Skills 1 0.377 - -
on a weekly basis, whereas the remainder volunteered either
Outcomes - Academic Skills 2 0.724 - -
only occasionally or monthly. Outcomes - Academic Skills 3 0.719 - -
Outcomes - Academic Skills 4 0.498 - -
Results Outcomes - Professional Skills 2 0.540 - -
Outcomes - Professional Skills 3 0.573 - -
Factor analysis results Outcomes - Education Exp 1 - - 0.625

Motivation to volunteer scale Outcomes - Education Exp 2 - - 0.837

Outcomes - Education Exp 3 - - 0.575
Principal axis extraction with oblimin rotation of the Clary Outcomes - Education Exp 4 - - 0.686
et al. (1998) items showed four significant factors that were Outcomes - Professional Skills 1 - 0.538 -
determined with Kaiser normalisation. Both the KMO Outcomes - Professional Skills 4 - 0.835 -
and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity produced criteria that Outcomes - Professional Skills 5 - 0.687 -
supported the application of factor analysis (KMO = 0.88; Outcomes - Personal Growth 1 - 0.659 -
Barlett’s test of sphericity – c2 (190) = 2113.118, p = 0.00). Outcomes - Personal Growth 2 - 0.689 -
Outcomes - Personal Growth 3 - 0.585 -
However, as protective motivation, item 3, had a factor
Note: Factor 1, Perceived Academic Skills Development; Factor 2, Perceived Interpersonal
loading of only 0.32, it was removed. The remaining 19 Skills; Factor 3, Perceived Career Fitness.
items loaded onto four factors with eigenvalues greater
than 1.0, accounting for 62.68% of the cumulative variance.
Table 2 reports the factor matrix of the four factors.
Graduate competencies scale
Coefficient alpha varied between 0.79 (for career) and 0.83 Extraction using principal axis-factoring with direct oblimin
(for both values and social). The highest correlation (0.39) rotation and Kaiser normalisation indicated three significant
between the factors was between career and values and the factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, accounting for
lowest (0.31) was between social and protective. 43.51, 12.32 and 8.02% of the total variance. The KMO and
Bartlett’s test produced criteria that supported the application
The five career items loaded onto Factor 1 with factor of principal axis-factoring (KMO = 0.863; Bartlett’s test of
loadings ranging from 0.53 to 0.80 and defined Career sphericity: c2 (120) = 2302.836, p = 0.00). The factor loadings
Motivation. The five Values items loaded onto Factor 2 onto the three factors are represented in Table 3.
(Factor loadings from 0.58 to 0.80) and this factor was
renamed Altruism. The five Social items loaded onto The first factor was defined by the four Academic Skills items
Factor 3, labelled Social Motivation, ranging from 0.65 to together with the second and third Professional Skills items
0.76. Finally, the four protective items had factor loadings and was labelled Perceived Academic Skills Development.
The second factor was formed by the first, fourth and fifth
that varied between −0.61 and −0.77 and was defined as
Professional Skills items and the three Personal Growth
Protective Motivation.
items. This factor was identified as a Perceived Interpersonal
TABLE 2: Factors for motivation items. Skills factor. The third factor was made up exclusively of
Variable  Factor Education items (nos. 1–4) and was labelled Perceived Career
1 2 3 4 Fitness. Coefficient alpha for the three factors were 0.86, 0.85
Motivation - Career 1 0.698 - - - and 0.85 respectively. The highest correlation (0.64) was
Motivation - Career 2 0.802 - - - between factor 1 Perceived Academic Skills Development
Motivation - Career 3 0.532 - - -
and factor 2 Perceived Interpersonal Skills and the lowest
Motivation - Career 4 0.560 - - -
(0.48) was between Perceived Interpersonal Skills and
Motivation - Career 5 0.603 - - -
Perceived Career Fitness.
Motivation - Social 1 - - 0.693 -
Motivation - Social 2 - - 0.649 -
Motivation - Social 3 - - 0.755 - Graduate employability scale
Motivation - Social 4 - - 0.715 -
Motivation - Social 5 - - 0.694 -
After items 1, 2 and 7 had been eliminated because of an
Motivation - Values 1 - 0.790 - - initial factor analysis, principal-axis extraction with oblimin
Motivation - Values 2 - 0.581 - - rotation lead to two factors with eigenvalues of 3.9 and 1.6
Motivation - Values 3 - 0.790 - - accounting for 40 and 16% of the variance. Both the KMO
Motivation - Values 4 - 0.805 - - and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity produced criteria that
Motivation - Values 5 - 0.592 - - supported the factor analysis (KMO = 0.78; Barlett’s test of
Motivation - Protective 1 - - - -0.772 sphericity – c2 (45) = 787.81, p = 0.00) (Table 4).
Motivation - Protective 2 - - - -0.608
Motivation - Protective 4 - - - -0.690
Factor 1 was made up of six items which all related to the
Motivation - Protective 5 - - - -0.755
perceived usefulness (for employers) of the respondents’
Note: Factor 1, Career Motivation; Factor 2, Altruism; Factor 3, Social Motivation; Factor 4,
Protective Motivation. formal qualifications, whereas the items defining Factor 2

[Link] Open Access

 Page 7 of 10 Original Research

TABLE 4: Factor matrix for graduate employability items. regression, there were two statistically significant (5% level)
Variable Factor
predictors. These are (with their beta coefficients given
1 2
in brackets) Membership of the Humanities faculty (−0.85),
GradE3 - 0.750
and the Perceived Interpersonal Skills factor (0.13) of
GradE4 - 0.776
GradE12 - 0.456
the Competencies scale. However, the relative weights
GradE13 - 0.487 analysis yielded a single significant predictor, namely,
GradE5 0.441 - Membership of the Humanities faculty, which showed a
GradE6 0.402 - relative weight of 0.27, representing 56.91% of explained
GradE8 0.801 - External Employability variance.
GradE9 0.762 -
GradE10
GradE11
0.875
0.519
-
-
Results for the prediction of
Note: Factor 1, External employability; Factor 2, Internal employability. Perceived Internal Employability
As shown in Table 5, the 13 predictors explained 31.8%
were dealing with respondents’ personal views of their of Internal Employability criterion variance, which
suitability for employment. These factors were identified as corresponded to a Cohen’s (1992) f  2 effect size index of
External and Internal Employability, respectively. Coefficient 0.318(1 − 0.318) = 0.46. The standard multiple regression
alpha was 0.83 and 0.72 for the two factors, respectively, and returned three statistically significant predictors, namely,
they correlated at 0.42. the Social Factor of the Motivation Scale (beta = 0.24),
gender (0.22) and the Perceived Career Fitness factor of the
The left-hand side of Table 5 shows the results for the Competencies scales. (0.15). However, when it comes to the
standard multiple regression and the relative weights relative weights analysis, the relative weight of only
analysis for the External Employability as dependent variable the Social Motivation Factor was statistically significant.
and the right-hand side lists the corresponding results for The relative weight of this predictor was 0.10 and it
Internal Employability as dependent variable. Gender was explained 31.15% of Internal Employability variance.
coded as Female = 1, Male = 0. As there were relatively small
numbers of students in the faculties of Engineering, Law,
Medicine and Science, the students in these faculties were
Discussion
grouped together and faculty registration was coded as Outline of the results
the following two dummy variables: Commerce 1, and All The lack of a perfect agreement between the multiple
the rest = 0; Humanities = 1 and All the rest = 0. regression and the relative weights analysis results is to
be expected because these two procedures approach
Results for the prediction of the partitioning of the explained criterion variance of
correlated predictors, as in the present case, differently.
Perceived External Employability Although greater importance probably should be attached
As shown in Table 5, the 13 predictors explained 49.0% of to the relative weights analysis results than to the standard
the criterion variance in the case of External Employability, multiple regression results, results that are the same for
which translated into a Cohen’s (1992) f  2 effect size index both procedures should probably be afforded even a
of 0.49/(1 − 0.49) = 0.96. In terms of the standard multiple greater priority.

TABLE 5: Multiple Regression and Relative Weights Analysis Results for External and Internal Employability.
Variable External Employability Internal Employability
Beta p RW R (%) Beta p RW R (%)
Intercept - 2.21 0.00 - - 1.55 0.00
Commerce 0.12 0.37 0.04 8.44 0.11 0.34 0.01 3.23
Humanities -0.85* 0.00 0.27* 56.91 -0.16 0.13 0.02 7.35
Gender 0.21 0.07 0.03 5.80 0.22* 0.02 0.03 9.40
Age 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.27 0.00 1.53
Hours 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.44 0.01 0.20 0.01 4.74
Frequency 0.16 0.056 0.02 4.16 0.11 0.10 0.02 7.85
Motiv.1 0.13 0.07 0.03 6.26 0.06 0.32 0.01 4.75
Motiv.2 0.12 0.08 0.03 6.25 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.98
Motiv.3 0.08 0.30 0.01 2.45 0.24* 0.00 0.10* -31.15
Motiv.4 -0.05 0.39 0.00 0.68 -0.06 0.24 0.01 1.64
Comp.1 -0.10 0.19 0.01 1.40 -0.06 0.34 0.01 4.49
Comp.2 0.13* 0.04 0.02 5.25 0.08 0.12 0.03 10.41
Comp.3 0.05 0.56 0.00 0.94 0.15* 0.05 0.04 11.55
External employability: R2 = 0.490 (Adjusted R2 = 0.425); Internal employability, R2 = 0.318 (Adjusted R2 = 0.247).
RW, relative weight (sums to R2); Relative percentage (sums to 100).
*, p < 0.05.

[Link] Open Access

 Page 8 of 10 Original Research

In terms of the multiple regression, the same 13 predictors predictors of the two kinds of Employability, particularly
predicted almost twice as much variance of Perceived those that show significance in terms of the conventional
External Employability than they explained of Perceived regression analysis but not in terms of the relative
Internal Employability (49.0% as opposed to 31.8%). In both weights analysis: a questionnaire measure (the Perceived
cases, the corresponding effect size indices are regarded Interpersonal Skills factor of the Competencies scale) and a
as large in terms of Cohen’s (1992) scheme of effect sizes: biographical measure (frequency of volunteering) in the
(0.02 = small; 0.15 = medium; 0.35 = large). (As a matter of case of Perceived External Employability as opposed to a
fact, as Cohen takes 0.35 as indicative of a large effect size, biographical variable (gender) and a different questionnaire
particularly the effect size of 0.96 for the prediction of External measurement (the Career Fitness factor of the Competencies
Employability possibly should qualify as extremely large.) scale) for Perceived Internal Employability.

Both the conventional regression analysis and the relative Secondly, the results support the construct validity of the scale
weights analysis suggest that registration in the Humanities for the measurement of Perceived Employability. Not only are
faculty was by far the best predictor of External Employability. different sets of predictors optional in predicting the two
In terms of the relative weights analysis, this predictor dimensions of this construct but also the nature of these
explains more than half (56.91%) of the variance of External predictors are commensurate with the conceptualisation of
Employability with all the other predictors combined these dimensions. The large percentage of variance of Perceived
explaining only 43.09%. Given the way in which this non- External Employability explained by Faculty of registration
metric predictor was coded, the negative sign of the beta ties in with the conceptualisation of this sub-construct: It makes
coefficient for this predictor means that students in the sense that students who had registered in faculties that
Commerce, Engineering, Legal, Medical and Sciences included components of practical training in areas of scarce
faculties felt that employers would view them as better human resources would perceive themselves as potentially
qualified for employment than did students in the Humanities more employable than do students registered in the more
faculty. Perhaps, it is no surprise that students registered in social science disciplines. That women regarded themselves as
the latter applied sciences viewed themselves as better being viewed as personally more attractive to prospective
qualified for obtaining employment than did those in the employers than did men is also in line with the definition of
relatively more theoretical disciplines taught in the the construct of Perceived Internal Employability. That both
Humanities faculty. these predictors are unobtrusive measures rather than self-
report measures additionally strengthens the construct validity
Although frequency of volunteering did not return a significant of the subscales of the Perceived Employability scale.
result in terms of the regular two-tailed tests for the regression
coefficients in multiple regression, its p value of 0.056 needs The finding that the Altruism (Motivation) factor did not
comment. A one-tailed test of the zero-order correlation significantly predict either Perceived External or Perceived
involved would have been significant, suggesting that Internal Employability does not support prior research
the more frequently students volunteered, the greater their that this is a key driver for many students engaging in
expectation that potential employers would view their volunteer activities.
employability positively.

The prominence of the Social Motivation Factor as a Practical implications and conclusion
predictor of Perceived Internal Employability suggests that Graduate employability is a topic that is gaining momentum
the more students valued the social interactions brought worldwide, and South Africa is no exception (Coetzee, 2012;
about by their volunteering activities, the better they Cranmer, 2006; Griesel & Parker, 2009; Hesketh, 2000; Mason
saw themselves equipped for employment. The positive et al. 2006; Yorke & Knight, 2004). There is an increasing
sign of Gender and the way in which this variable was demand for students to enter the world of work with skills
coded (Women: 1; Men: 0) suggests that, in terms of their which make them not only employable but also able to
personality, women, rather than men, saw themselves as function competitively within the workplace (Chetty, 2012;
more attractive to prospective employers. This result may Coetzee, 2012; Fallows & Stevens, 2000; Gracia, 2009). Having
relate to South Africa’s current employment equity a qualification is no longer sufficient to ensure employability
legislation and the reality that in many industries women as the current economic situation requires that employees, at
remain under-represented relative to men. all levels, contribute to the prosperity and development of
organisations (Chetty, 2012; Mason et al. 2006). Employers are,
Overall, the results demonstrate, firstly, that different consequently, demanding students who are able to contribute
sets of predictors statistically significantly predict immediately upon commencement of employment (Hinchliffe
Perceived External Employability and Perceived Internal & Jolly, 2011). This is achieved through firstly having a deep
Employability, respectively. In the case of Perceived understanding of academic content and educational expertise.
External Employability, a biographical predictor (faculty Secondly, and most importantly, possessing the necessary
of registration) is the clear winner, whereas in the case of professional skills and ability for personal growth to becoming
Internal Employability a questionnaire measurement immediately acclimatised into organisations (Andrews &
(of Social Motivation) comes out on top. Different predictors Higson, 2008; Coetzee, 2012; Fallows & Stevens, 2000; Griesel
also come into play when one considers the less potent & Parker, 2009; Yorke & Knight, 2004).

[Link] Open Access

 Page 9 of 10 Original Research

Employers’ expectation is that these skills and abilities will Astin, A.W., Sax, L.J., & Avalos, J. (1999). Long-term effects of volunteerism during the
undergraduate years. The Review of Higher Education, 22(2), 187–202.
be developed during a student’s higher education process at Bernstein, C., & Osman, R. (2012). Graduateness as a contested idea: Navigating
university and that they would be equipped with the expectations between higher education, employers and graduates. In M.
Coetzee, J. Botha, N. Eccles, H. Nienaber, & N. Holtzhausen (Eds.), Developing
necessary interpersonal and academic abilities on completion student graduateness and employability: Issues, provocations, theory and
practical guidelines. Randburg: Knowres Publishing.
of their studies (Griesel & Parker, 2009; Hinchliffe & Jolly,
Brevis-Landsberg, T. (2012). Managers’ expectations of business management
2011). It appears, however, that higher education may not be graduates in the 21st century. In M. Coetzee, J. Botha, N. Eccles, H. Nienaber, & N.
Holtzhausen (Eds.), Developing student graduateness and employability: Issues,
able to immediately meet the labour markets’ demands as provocations, theory and practical guidelines. Randburg: Knowres Publishing.
they grapple with the ability to develop the graduate skills Brown, P., & Lauder, H. (1992). Education for economic survival: From Fordism to Post-
required for the growth of the economy (Bernstein & Osman, Fordism? London: Routledge.
Chetty, Y. (2012). Graduateness and employability within the higher education
2012; Cranmer, 2006; Hesketh, 2000; Mason et al. 2006; Rae, environment: A focused review of the literature. In M. Coetzee, J. Botha, N.
2007). While some universities elsewhere are attempting to Eccles, H. Nienaber, & N. Holtzhausen (Eds.), Developing student graduateness
and employability: Issues, provocations, theory and practical guidelines.
bridge this divide with programmes such as Community- Randburg: Knowres Publishing.
Based Research (Lichtenstein et al. 2011), Service Learning Clary, G.E., Snyder, M., Ridge, R.D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A.A., Haugen, J. et al.
(1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional
(Astin & Sax, 1998a, 1998b) and embedding graduateness approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(2), 169–184.
[Link]
into course curriculum (Bernstein & Osman, 2012; Chetty,
Cnaan, R.A., & Handy, F. (2005). Towards understanding episodic volunteering.
2012), the focus on this is relatively new within South African Vrijwillige Inzet Onderzocht, 2(1), 29–35.
universities and has only recently begun to gain attention Coetzee, M. (2012). A framework for developing student graduateness and
employability in the economic and management sciences at the University of
(Coetzee, 2012; Favish & McMillan, 2009; Favish et al. 2012). South Africa. In M. Coetzee, J. Botha, N. Eccles, H. Nienaber, & N. Holtzhausen
(Eds.), Developing student graduateness and employability: Issues, provocations,
Students, therefore, have limited options to address their theory and practical guidelines. Randburg: Knowres Publishing.
employability necessity. They are consequently forced to take Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. [Link]
greater responsibility for their own employability through org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
Cranmer, S. (2006). Enhancing graduate employability: Best intentions and mixed
seeking opportunities that develop the skills and abilities outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 13(2), 169–184. [Link]
necessary to be effective in a work environment (De La org/10.1080/​03075070600572041

Harpe, Radloff & Wyber’s, 2000; Holmes, 2001). These De La Harpe, B., Radloff, A., & Wyber, J. (2000). Quality and generic (professional)
skills. Quality in Higher Education, 6(3), 231–243. [Link]
opportunities usually take the form of extra-curricular 13538320020005972
activities as is the case of charities or community organisations Fallows, S., & Stevens, C. (2000). Building employability skills into the higher education
curriculum: A university-wide initiative. Educational Training, 42(2), 75–82.
that rely on the input of volunteers. The results of this study [Link]
hopefully contribute some empirically based data on some of Favish, J., & McMillan, J. (2009). The university and social responsiveness in the
curriculum: A new form of scholarship? London Review of Education, 7(2),
the perceived antecedents of employment with a particular 169–179. [Link]
focus on the role of voluntarism. Favish, J., Ross, D., Inggs, S., Kathard, H., Clarkson, C., Case, J. et al. (2012). Reflections
on developing distinctive University of Cape Town graduate attributes.
In  M.  Coetzee, J. Botha, N. Eccles, H. Nienaber, & N. Holtzhausen (Eds.).
Developing student graduateness and employability: Issues, provocations,
The research area of employability remains a critical one as theory and practical guidelines. Randburg: Knowres Publishing.
the economy shrinks and competition of graduate jobs Freeman, R.B. (1997). Working for nothing: The supply of volunteer labour. Journal of
Labor Economics, 15(1), 140–166. [Link]
heightens. Much more research is needed to establish the
Glover, D., Law, S., & Youngman, A. (2002). Graduateness and employability: Student
kinds of co- and extra-curricular interventions that are likely perceptions of the personal outcome of university education. Post-Compulsory
to make significant contributions to the development of Education, 7(3), 293–306. [Link]
Gracia, L. (2009). Employability and higher education: Contextualising female
graduates’ preparedness for work. In the resource-constrained students’ workplace experiences to enhance understanding of employability
environment of higher education, we are required to focus development. Journal of Education and Work, 22(4), 301–318. [Link]
/10.1080/13639080903290454
our attentions on those interventions with the potential to Green, W., Hammer, S., & Star, C. (2009). Facing up to the challenge: Why is it so hard
produce maximum yield for the majority of students. to develop graduate attributes? Higher Education Research and Development,
28(1), 17–29. [Link]
Griesel, H., & Parker, B. (2009). Graduate attributes: A baseline study on South
Acknowledgements African graduates from the perspective of employers. Pretoria: Higher Education
South Africa.
The author thanks Prof Gert Huysamen for his invaluable Gronlund, H., Holmes, K., Kang, C., Cnaan, R.A., Handy, F., Brudney, J.L., et al. (2011).
Cultural values and volunteering: A cross-cultural comparison of students’
input as Mellon-funded Retired Research Mentor. motivation to volunteer in 13 countries. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9(2), 87–106.
[Link]
Handy, F., Hustinx, L., Kang, C., Cnaan, R.A., Brudney, J.L., Haski-Leventhal, D., et al.
Competing interests (2010). A cross-cultural examination of student volunteering: Is it all about
résumé building? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(3), 498–523.
[Link]
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal Hesketh, A.J. (2000). Recruiting an elite? Employers’ perceptions of graduate
relationships which may have inappropriately influenced education and training. Journal of Education and Work, 13(3), 245–271.
[Link]
them in writing this article.
Hillage, J., & Pollard, E. (1998). Employability: Developing a framework for policy
analysis (Research Brief No 85). London: Department for Education and
Employment.
References Hinchliffe, G.W., & Jolly, A. (2011). Graduate identity and employability. British
Educational Research Journal, 37(4), 563–584. [Link]
Andrews, J., & Higson, H. (2008). Graduate employability, ‘soft skills’ versus ‘hard’ 26.2010.482200
business knowledge: A European study. Higher Education in Europe, 33(4),
411–422. [Link] Holdsworth, C. (2010). Why volunteer? Understanding motivations for student
volunteering. British Journal of Educational Studies, 58(4), 421–437. [Link]
Astin, A.W., & Sax, L.J. (1998a). How undergraduates are affected by service org/10.1080/00071005.2010.527666
participation. Journal of College Student Development, 39(3), 251–263.
Holdsworth, C., & Quinn, J. (2010). Student volunteering in English higher
Astin, A.W., & Sax, L.J. (1998b). The benefits of service: Evidence from undergraduates. education.  Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 113–127. [Link]
The Educational Record, 78, 25–32. /10.1080/03075070903019856

[Link] Open Access

 Page 10 of 10 Original Research

Holmes, L. (2001). Reconsidering graduate employability: The ‘graduate identity’ Planty, M., Bozick, R., & Regnier, M. (2006). Helping because you have to or
approach. Quality in Higher Education, 7(2), 111–119. [Link] helping  because you want to? Sustaining participation in service work from
/10.1080/13538320120060006 adolescence through young adulthood. Youth and Society, 38(2), 177–202.
[Link]
Hustinx, L., Cnaan, R., & Handy, F. (2010). Navigating theories of volunteering:
A  hybrid map for complex phenomenon. Journal for the Theory of Social Rae, D. (2007). Connecting enterprise and graduate employability: Challenges to
Behaviour, 40(4), 410–434. [Link] the≈higher education culture and curriculum? Education and Training, 49(8),
605–619.
Hustinx, L., & Lammertyn, F. (2003). Collective and reflexive styles of volunteering: A
sociological modernization perspective. Voluntas: International Journal of Rothwell, A., & Arnold, J. (2007). Self-perceived employability: Development
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 14(2), 167–187. [Link] and  validation of a scale. Personnel Review, 26(1), 23–41. [Link]
org/10.1023/A:1023948027200 /10.1108/00483480710716704
Hwang, M., Grabb, E., & Curtis, J. (2005). Why get involved? Reasons for voluntary- Rothwell, A., Herbert, I., & Rothwell, F. (2008). Self-perceived employability:
association activity among Americans and Canadians. Nonprofit and Voluntary Construction and initial validation of a scale for university students.
Sector Quarterly, 34(3), 387–403. [Link] Journal  of  Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 1–12. [Link]
jvb.2007.12.001
Knight, P., & Yorke, M. (2004). Learning, curriculum and employability in higher
education. London: Routledge Falmer. Smith, K.A., Holmes, K., Haski-Leventhal, D., Cnaan, R.A., Handy, F., & Brudney, J.L.
(2010). Motivations and benefits of student volunteering: Comparing regular,
Lichtenstein, G., Thorme, T., Cutforth, N., & Tombari, M. (2011). Development of a occasional, and non-volunteers in five countries. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit
national survey to assess student learning outcomes of community-based and Social Economy Research, 1(1), 65–81.
research. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15(2), 7–34.
Tate, A., & Thompson, J.E. (1994). The application of enterprise skills in the workplace.
Macduff, N. (2005). Societal changes and the rise of the episodic volunteer. Emerging The Student Experience, 127–140.
areas of volunteering, 1(2), 49–61.
Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J.M. (2014). RWA web: A free, comprehensive,
Mason, G., Williams, G., & Cranmer, S. (2006). Employability skills initiatives in higher web-based,  and user-friendly tool for relative weight analyses. Journal of
education: What effects do they have on graduate labour market outcomes? Business and Psychology, 30(2), 207–216. [Link]
Education Economics, 17(1), 1–30. [Link] 014-9351-z
Mason O’Connor, K., Lynch, K., & Owen, D. (2011). Student-community engagement Valentine, J.C., Cooper, H., Bettencourt, B.A., & Du Bois, D.L. (2011). Out-of-school
and the development of graduate attributes. Education and Training, 53(2), activities and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-beliefs.
100–115. Educational Psychologist, 37(4), 245–256. [Link]
S15326985EP3704_4
Mlambo-Ngcuka, P. (2006). Address by the Deputy President. Paper presented at the
Third Annual Julius Nyerere Memorial Lecture, the University of the Western Yorke, M. (2004). Employability in the undergraduate curriculum: Some student
Cape, Cape Town. perspectives. European Journal of Education, 39(4), 409–427. [Link]
org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2004.00194.x
Moreau, M., & Leathwood, C. (2006). Graduates’ employment and the discourse of
employability: A critical analysis. Journal of Education and Work, 19(4), 305–324. Yorke, M. (2006). Employability in higher education: What it is – What it is not. United
[Link] Kingdom: Innovation Way, The Higher Education Academy.
National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. (1997). Higher education in the Yorke, M., & Knight, P.T. (2004). Embedding employability into the curriculum. United
learning society. Report of the National Committee. London: The Committee. Kingdom: Innovation Way, The Higher Education Academy.

[Link] Open Access