Graduate Employability Aspect of Human Resource Management and Marketing - Literature review Example

?GRADUATE EMPLOYABILITY School Introduction A vast array of recent studies have comprehensively explored the Graduate Employability aspect of Human Resource Management and Marketing. In most cases, the studies have always addressed, among other things, the unemployment rates in various states, availability of job opportunities and the impact of the present day recession on graduate employment (Zimmerman, T. 2009, 33). In the same way, a number of scholars, both ancient and recent, have conducted research and critically analyzed the forces behind the persistent existence of wide gaps between employer expectations and employee requirements. To address this concern satisfactorily, it has always been studied under the SERVQUAL, GAPs, and the HEDPERF versus SERVPERF Models of Service Quality (Buttle, F. 1994, 45). The Literature review attempts to illuminate the available pool of knowledge pertinent to the contemporary Graduate Employability discipline, analyze the works, and identify existing gaps with special emphasis on a University setup. The identification of such gaps could motivate the study to enhance the availability of knowledge on Graduate Employment (Jean, W. 2010, 311). Conceptual Framework The fundamental variables of the study include the students, employers and the University, including the student link and the university lecturers. In particular, the study is predominantly projected to focus on the disparity between what graduates primarily consider fundamental for employment and what employers believe the students actually need (Page, B. 2010, 117). This implies that there is also a lack in correspondence between the skills offered by the University and the actual skills required by the learners. The literature review, therefore, illuminates the 7P’s of quality services, the SERVQUAL, GAPs, and the HEDPERF versus SERVPERF Models of Service Quality based on a wide range of both recent and early professional studies associated with Graduate employability and employee-employer interest disparity (Real, S. 2009, 56). Graduate Employability The concept of Graduate Employability virtually alludes to the graduates’ practicality and probability of getting suitable jobs based on the conflict between the skills and knowledge acquired in class and the expectations of the employers. The 7P’s of quality services, the SERVQUAL, GAPs, and the HEDPERF versus SERVPERF Models of Service Quality expansively address the concern (Ray, W. 2009, 47). A series of articles have been reviewed as discussed below. In most establishments today, marketing authorities make use of a business tool known as the marketing mix to limit a product’s offer. This tool incorporates the 7Ps of quality service namely promotion, place, product, price, people, process and physical evidence (Zeal, C. 2009, 118). According to Jalan (2005), a product is any tangible or intangible commodity that meets the needs of a consumer. All products trail a common life progress incorporating the growth, maturity and sale decline stages. To this end, marketing professionals ought to carry out adequate research on the period a particular product would take to reach the decline stage. Similarly, in a University setup, the administrators who are the service-providers in the context must scrutinize all services they provide to ensure that the students, who are the customers in the context, have their demands satisfied. In this realization, all services that appear to be of lower quality than is expected must be dismissed and appropriately replaced by suitable programs. On the other hand, Hoffman and John (2009) suggest that every marketer should take client perceived worth of a product into consideration before setting any price. In this perspective, the university must set service prices including tutorial fees depending on the students’ perception of the services or courses in particular. In addition, the text also encourages effective promotion and distribution (place) of the products. The process of service delivery, the physical evidence showing that a service has been delivered as well a focus on all the individuals involved in the process has also been addressed comprehensively in Jalan (2005). All these aspects of marketing mix (7Ps) must be integrated in the University’s service delivery program. A number of previous studies have attempted to analyze how end users of products build up perceptions on the quality of products or services provided by various companies (Emma et al. 2009, 113). SERVQUAL is one of the approaches put forward by Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry (1986) to address such concerns. According to the theory presented by Zeithaml et al, the perception of consumers on the quality of products and services provided by entities virtually depends on five distinct customer insights. These insights include the apparent quality of physical products, supposed quality of product reliability, supposed quality of firm receptiveness, the perceived standards of compassion, and the supposed quality of assurance. Wirtz and Lovelock (2007) conceptualizes that the five insights clearly reflect the disparity between consumer’s perceptions and anticipations. On the other hand, to ascertain the relevance of their theory to the practical marketing problems, Zeithaml et al published the Journal of Retailing commentary. In particular, this commentary identified a scale of 22 articles that are believed to measure the stated aspects of consumer insight. The SERVQUAL Scale consists of 22 pairs of systematic questions, one pair of which requires the consumers to state their anticipations, while the other requires their perceptions. This approach would be equally significant in a University system. For instance, it would allow the University lecturers and employers to read the perceptions and anticipations of the students appropriately and avoid unnecessary conflicts. The GAPS Model appropriately addresses the possible instances of lack of correspondence between various institutions within the employment and marketing realm (Kay, T. & Kek, S. 2012, 78). Such disparities are always very detrimental especially in cases where they inhibit the process of hiring and placement. Lovelock and Vandermerwe (1999) particularly analyzes the relevance of the skills and knowledge acquired by most job seekers in the contemporary society to the corresponding anticipations of their prospective employers and their projected duties and responsibilities. In most cases today, with the exception of a few, the skills and practical experiences learners consider the most vital when seeking jobs are not what their potential employers actually look for. In the same way, most learning institutions’ do not provide what employers consider significant for the recruitment of new employees. The University must therefore look for ways of harmonizing its tutorial programs to suit the actual requirements of the employers. Besides, they must also train the students to start acquainting themselves with the employers’ expectations of them. A number of approaches to identify and authenticate elements of service quality within the contemporary higher education realm also exist. HEDPERF and SERVPERF are the most fundamental modern models applied to accomplish this mission (Stodnick, M. & Rogers, P. 2007, 241). Abdullah (2005) expansively explores and compares the HEdPERF approach to the SERVPERF model and the integration of the two models known as the HEDPERF-SERVPERF scale. According to the author, the first model emphasizes on group work and preliminary examinations while the second one focuses more on location-free specialized services and products. The journal practically tends to give the HEdPERF an edge over the SERVPERF approach since it involves the prior scrutiny of new services before they are eventually adopted thus enhancing reliability. Regardless, the university ought to adopt the integrated model since it attracts merits associated to both models. Bibliography Abdullah, F. 2005. Measuring Service Quality in Higher Education, New York: Jalan Meranek Magazine. Abdullah, F. 2005. The Development of HEdPERF: A New Measuring Instrument of Service Quality for the Higher Education Sector, Singapore: National University of Singapore Magazine. Buttle, F. 1994. SERVQUAL: Review, Critique, Research Agenda, London: European Journal of Marketing. Emma, W et al. 2009. Services Marketing: International Edition, New York: Widescreen Movies Magazine. Jean, W. 2010. SERVQUAL and HEdPERF: Critical Analysis, London: John Wiley & Sons. Kay, T & Kek, S. 2012. Service Quality in Higher Education Using an Enhanced SERVQUAL Approach, Singapore: National University of Singapore Magazine. Lovelock, C & Wirtz, J. 2007. Services Marketing: People, Technology, and Strategy, Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall. Lovelock, C. 1999. Services Marketing: A European Perspective, Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall. Page, B. 2010. Applying SERVQUAL in the Contemporary Education Realm, London: John Wiley & Sons. Ray, W. 2009. Measuring Scales for Customer Insight in the Social Market Today, New York: Amsterdam University Press. Real, S. 2009. A Conceptual Model for Understanding HEdPERF: A Handy Guide, Washington: A& C Black. Stodnick, M & Rogers, P. 2007. Using SERVQUAL to Measure the Quality of Classroom Experience, London: Union Circle Denton. Zeal, C. 2009. Understanding and Adopting HEdPERF in the Society, Washington: A& C Black. Zeithaml et al. 2009. A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its Implications for Future Research, New York: Amsterdam University Press. Zimmerman, T. 2009. Services Marketing: Approaches to Improving Educational Standards, New York: Amsterdam University Press. Read More