DISCERNING PRIORITIES FOR SOFT SKILL DEVELOPMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
AND NATURAL RESOURCE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
By
Robert Dalton

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Environmental Design – Master of Arts
2013
i

ABSTRACT
DISCERNING PRIORITIES FOR SOFT SKILL DEVELOPMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
AND NATURAL RESOURCE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
By
Robert Dalton
Employers are looking for new graduates to enter the work force with strong technical
skills as well as the ability to communicate, make decisions and problem solve, self-manage,
work on a team, act professionally, gain strong experiences, and lead. The Association of Public
and Land Grant Universities commissioned a study to understand the priorities of employers, and
compare them to students, faculty, and alumni. The study included a ranking survey of seven
core skills, each with seven characteristics. The survey respondents represented 50 states, Puerto
Rico, and Guam and 45+ majors/employment types. This study uses the commissioned survey
(Crawford, et al., 2011a) as a base to begin analyzing the differences between Environmental and
Natural Resource Specialists (ENRS) as compared to those in other employment fields to
understand how to prioritize and focus skill development in students. Ordinal regression
highlights a variety of differences including the priorities of the core skills’ rank order and within
each cluster, including communication, self-management, and experiences. Major differences
occur such as the ENRS greatly value cross-disciplinary experiences and the ability to adapt and
apply technology while significantly undervaluing leadership experience, leading change efforts,
and being trust worthy as compared to the other fields. The ENRS field is most different from
the medical and service professions, indicating that students are least likely to attain the
prioritized soft skill development of their employers and what they may come to expect in their
core classrooms.

ii

This thesis is dedicated to the family and friends
that have supported me through my undergraduate
and graduate education at Michigan State University.
Their determination and discipline continue to inspire me.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I could not have completed this thesis without the contribution of many in my life.
I am very thankful to my major professor, Dr. Pat Crawford, who opened my mind to
design and academic rigor. Her mentor role during my experience as a graduate student gave me
academic and design experience that have shaped my outlook towards design education. The
data collection and in depth understanding of the results would not have been possible without
her infinite support and myriad meetings. An additional thank you is due to my committee
members, Drs. Eunsil Lee and Patricia Machemer, who helped me to understand and implement
research methods and statistical analysis. Dr. Mark Wilson provided the planning perspective to
the team and an invaluable understanding of the data.
Thank you to Ms. Wendy Fink and Dr. Josef Broder who encouraged and requested a
thorough study of soft skills in higher education. The educators at the APLU Summits in both
2011 and 2012 provided insightful information to understand the depths of the results.
As the dedication previously revealed, I must continue to thank my family and friends.
Their support and willingness to take me back into their lives after I missed their numerous
events for my work is not a level of respect I will ever forget. The positive attitudes and soft
skills allowed me to stay hard at work to prove the value of this study.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ……………………...……………………….…………....……….….......... vii
LIST OF FIGURES .…………………………………..…………………….………………….. ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ………………………….……………………………………. 1
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………..…………...……………….. 6
Bureau of Labor Statistics ……………………………………………………………….. 6
Employability ……………………………………………………………………………. 7
University Preparation and Responsibility …………………………………..… 10
Successes in the Workforce ……………………………………………………. 11
International Perspectives ……………………………………………………… 12
Learning Environments ………………………………………………………………… 13
Future Study Potential ………………………………………………………………….. 17
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS ……………………………………...……………….. 19
Original Study ………………………………………………………………………….. 19
Research Design ……………………………………………………………………....... 20
Data Analysis …………………………………………………………………………... 21
CHAPTER 4: DATA RESULTS ……………………………...…………………...…………... 23
Overall Differences …………………………………………………………………….. 23
Core Skills …………………………………………………………………………….... 24
Communication ………………………………………………………………………… 26
Decision-Making/Problem Solving ……………………………………………………. 28
Self-Management ………………………………………………………………………. 30
Experiences …………………………………………………………………………….. 32
Teamwork ……………………………………………………………………………… 35
Professionalism ……………………………………………………………………….... 37
Leadership …………………………………………………………………………….... 40
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ………………………………….……………………………….. 43
Core Skills ……………………………………………………………………………… 43
Communication – The Highest Ranked Core Skill …………………………………….. 45
Decision-Making/Problem-Solving – The Second Ranked Core Cluster ………...……. 46
Self-Management – The Third Ranked Core Skill …………………………………….. 47
Experiences – The Fourth Ranked Core Skill ………………………………………….. 48
Teamwork – The Fifth Ranked Core Skill …………………………………………...… 50
Professionalism –The Sixth Ranked Core Skill ……………………………………...… 51
Leadership – The Seventh Ranked Core Skill …………………………………………. 52
Implications …………………………………………………………..……………….... 53
Limitations …………………………………………………………………………...… 54
v

Future Study ……………………………………………………………………….…… 55
APPENDICES …………..……………………………………………………………………... 56
Appendix A: Fields and Their Defining Disciplines …………………………………... 57
Appendix B: Soft Skill Clusters and Characteristics as Ranked by the ENRS ………... 63
Appendix C: Significant Differences of ENRS Stakeholders …………………………. 66
REFERENCES ……...…………………………………………………………………………. 69

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Occupational Outlook to 2020 (USBLS, 2013) ………………………………...……… 7
Table 2: Significant Difference Count as Compared to ENRS ………………………………… 23
Table 3: Core Skills’ Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and Standard Error as Compared to
ENRS …………………………….…………………………………………………………….. 24
Table 4: Core Skills’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error ………………………………… 25
Table 5: Communication Characteristics’ and Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and
Standard Error as Compared to ENRS ……..……………………………………………….….. 27
Table 6: Communication Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error ….……..… 27
Table 7: DMPS Characteristics’ and Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and Standard Error
as Compared to ENRS ……..……………………………………………………………….….. 29
Table 8: DMPS Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error ….…………..…...… 29
Table 9: Self-Management Characteristics’ and Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and
Standard Error as Compared to ENRS ……..……………………………………………….….. 31
Table 10: Self-Management Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error ..…....… 32
Table 11: Experience Characteristics’ and Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and Standard
Error as Compared to ENRS ……..……………………………………...………………….….. 33
Table 12: Experience Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error ..…...............… 34
Table 13: Teamwork Characteristics’ and Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and Standard
Error as Compared to ENRS ……..……………………………………...………………….….. 35
Table 14: Teamwork Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error ..…...............… 36
Table 15: Professionalism Characteristics’ and Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and
Standard Error as Compared to ENRS ……..…………………………...………………….….. 38
Table 16: Professionalism Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error …………. 39
Table 17: Leadership Characteristics’ and Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and Standard
Error as Compared to ENRS ……..……………………………………...………………….….. 40
Table 18: Leadership Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error ………………. 41
vii

Table 19: ENRS Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders - Core Skills ………...…… 66
Table 20: ENRS Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders – Communication Skills … 66
Table 21: ENRS Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders – Decision-making/ProblemSolving Skills …………………………………………………………………...……………… 67
Table 22: ENRS Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders – Self-Management Skills .. 67
Table 23: ENRS Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders - Experiences …….……… 67
Table 24: ENRS Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders – Teamwork Skills ….....… 68
Table 25: ENRS Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders – Professionalism Skills ..... 68
Table 26: ENRS Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders – Leadership Skills …....… 68

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The Eight Studied Fields as Represented by the Percentage of the Total Study’s
Respondents ………...………………………………………………………..………………… 21

ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The importance of soft skills (such as communication, decision-making, and teamwork)
is being extolled internationally - from government reports to university research studies. The
need to complement professional and technical skills with soft skills is universally accepted.
There is also acknowledgement that development of soft skills is a lifetime process. What is
missing is where to focus scarce time and resources in academia. Which soft skills are the most
important to address before they graduate? Are the priorities the same across the university, the
college, and the school? This study explores the priorities of soft skills for entry level
employment in environmental stewardship, design and construction and compares priorities
across Agricultural Services, Education and Knowledge Development, Government, Human and
Animal Medicinal and Health Services, Product Creation and Manufacturing, Service Industry,
and all other fields.
United States employers encourage students to place higher importance on their sense of
urgency, being a quick study, being a team player and managing one’s own time when in the
work place (SCANS, 2000; Agricultural Future of America and Millennium Research, 2009).
Employers in the United Kingdom are looking for more skills in ‘oral communication,’
‘customer handling,’ ‘problem-solving,’ and ‘team-working’ (UK Commission on Employment
and Skills, 2009). Communication skills include a strong foreign language component for
employment in Asian and European markets (Arocena, Nunez & Villanueva, 2007; Zaharim et
al., 2009). In terms of international experience and study abroad, US studies are finding both
ends of the spectrum: highly value to least valued for new employees (Gardner, 2007; Scholar
Ship, 2007).

1

A baseline study in South Africa speaks to gaps in the skills needed for new employees to
“hit the ground running” and the mutual responsibility of employers and educators to address the
gap (Griesel & Parker, 2009). Sensitivity to culture and diversity are also cited as important
skills new employees should bring to the workplace (Barry, 2007). The Australia Department of
Education and Training published a guide addressing core skills such as communication,
teamwork and problem-solving in the social and work context of Western Australia
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2009).
Universities may be lagging in preparing our future workforce with the skills and values
they will need for success (Bolmen & Gallos, 2011). Studies in the US, Europe and Asia are
finding employers feel university/college graduates need to expand their basic communication
skills (Jagger, 2001; Stevens 2004; Zaharim et al., 2009). Phil Gardner, in his US nationwide
study of recruiting trends observed that “employers do not believe young people are not smart. In
summary, employers believe young people lack the skills they need in the workplace:
meaningful work experience; maturity to deal with the situations they will face as an employee;
and command of the skills that allow them to converse with diverse colleagues, handle multiple
assignments, and manage themselves” (2013, p. 30). University administrators and faculty are
exploring how they can revitalize education and make their graduates more competitive in the
job market. It’s more than just a matter of professional or technical knowledge, the soft skills of
communication, decision-making, self-management and teamwork are critical skills employers
are looking for in applicants (Crawford et al., 2011b).
While the literature explores a host of soft skills important for entry into the job market,
many fail to discern differences in priorities. All of the soft skills are important. The literature
also ranges from very broad, blanketing multiple industries, jobs and profession, to very specific,

2

such as for computer technicians or engineers. Responsibility, asserts Lowden, et al., 2011, for
learning and implementing these skills in their lives falls three ways: the public body or
university, the employer, and the individual. Tagg (2003) asserts that student attitudes play a
large part in the ability for students to develop skills beyond the basic graded product. Each
specific sector of the market, however, requires specific competencies and skills for employment
[US Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS), 2000).
The United States Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU)
commissioned report on soft skills creates a starting point for identifying soft skill priorities in
Agriculture and Natural Resources related industries and connecting this information with US
Universities. The APLU, located in Washington, D.C, focuses on higher education policies and
gives a national voice to university concerns. The organization includes 221 member public
universities, land-grant universities and state university systems with over 3.5 million
undergraduate students (Fink, 2011; APLU, 2007-2011).
The 2011 APLU National Academic Programs Summit theme was “Creating Change:
Reforming Curricula for a 21st Century Education.” (see http://www.aplu.org/
page.aspx?pid=1992 for more information on the Summit). The planning committee discussed
the need to address broader ‘soft’ or ‘employability’ skills in addition to discipline specific skills
as an important issue for 21st century education. With the support of committee Chair, Josef
Broder (University of Georgia) the committee decided data would be the key to engaging the
national audience of University administrators and faculty. A survey was proposed to reach the
Summit goal to “…focus on curricular reform with respect to what we teach. While our colleges
are well-regarded for their teaching of the disciplines and technical skills, employers often take
our institutions (and higher education as a whole) to task for not preparing students with

3

transferable skills beyond the disciplines.” (APLU, 2011). The Comparative Analysis of Soft
Skills (CASS) survey provided information to help prioritize soft skills and discern differences in
priorities between four key stakeholder groups - student, faculty, alum, and faculty.
The CASS study team included the summit planning committee Chair from the
University of Georgia (Dr. Josef Broder), the director of the Academic Programs Section of
APLU from Washington, D.C, (Ms. Wendy Fink), two faculty members from Michigan State
University (Drs. Pat Crawford and Suzanne Lang), and two students from Michigan State
University (Mr. Robert Dalton and Ms. Laura Fielitz). The team presented the study findings at
the Summit in Indianapolis, IN. (Crawford 2011b).
The CASS study team identified seven soft skill clusters, with seven descriptive
characteristics each, from a literature review and cluster analysis process. Survey respondents’
priority ranked the soft skill clusters and descriptive characteristics within each cluster. The use
of a forced-ranking response system required respondents to prioritize their responses, rather
than giving equal value to multiple skills or characteristics. The study included 8,111 viable
responses; from 282 employers, 4,262 alum, 898 faculty and 2,669 students from 31 Universities
across the United States. The CASS Report analysis used the mean forced ranking results to
compare value perceptions across the stakeholder groups participating in the survey. Employers
ranked Communication, Decision-making/Problem-Solving, and Self-Management as the three
top soft skills. Teamwork, Professionalism and Experiences followed with Leadership as the 7th
skill (Crawford et al., 2011b).

Within each cluster, participants also ranked the descriptive

characteristics. For example, employers ranked listening as the most important characteristic
within the Communication cluster, followed by communicating concisely and oral (verbal)
communication skills. While each of the skills is important, the CASS study begins to discern

4

priorities to focus training and education efforts. The full results of stakeholder mean
comparisons are published by APLU and available on-line at:
http://www.aplu.org/document.doc?id=3414.
This study anticipates significant differences when comparing the Environmental and
Natural Resource Specialists to the other fields. The null hypothesis would indicate the ENRS
field do not differ from the other 7 fields within Colleges of Agricultural and Natural Resources.
This study can help undergraduates as well as faculty to adjust curriculum and course objectives
to include the prioritized soft skills within their field. It will also help students to understand
where soft skill development in the classroom may differ when working outside of the
discipline’s field.

5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature covers over 110 published articles, government reports, and surveys based
in the employment potential of undergraduates and recent graduates. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics sets the stage to prove the growing field among Environmental and Natural Resource
Specialists. The articles transition to analyze the potential of recent graduates to earn
employment within their discipline and examine the responsibility of the University, the
employers, and the individual. International perspectives vary, but continue to stress the
importance of soft skill development during the pivotal university development. Doyle (2011)
suggests that such development can occur through authentic learning, and the literature covers
the intricacies of implementing authentic learning in the academic world.
Bureau of Labor Statistics
The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013) predicts an increase in employment
across the general fields of environmental stewardship, design and construction (as shown in
Table 1). Growing populations in need of housing and other developments in the south, an
increasing emphasis on environmental protection, and a demand to fix degrading infrastructure
have spurred growth across the construction and design fields. In each of these fields, one
should expect to work long work weeks, and regularly meeting with clients outside of the
traditional work hours. Landscape Architects possess great fluidity among the aforementioned
fields as a variety of specializations can direct employments towards botany, drafting and
computer aided design, environmental protection, or planning. However, up to 29% of the
employed US Landscape Architects are in positions other than traditional design, engineering
and planning firms or agencies (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). A prioritized study of
skills can redirect those graduating with design based Bachelor degrees to their chosen field.

6

Table 1: Occupational Outlook to 2020 (USBLS, 2013)
Field

Job Outlook (2010-2020)

Architecture

24% (Above Average); 27,900 jobs

Civil Engineers

+19% (Average), 51,100 jobs

Construction Management

+17% (Average); 86,600 jobs

Interior Design

+19% (Average); 10,900 jobs

Landscape Architecture

+16% (Average); 3,500 jobs

Urban and Regional Planning +16% (Average), 6,500 jobs

Employability
Employability is a key factor for young adults entering the workforce. They are looking
for jobs that are: interesting and engaging, include benefits and job security, and allow for
promotion and the ability to learn new skills (Chao and Gardner, 2007, 2008). While many
recent graduates have finished their Bachelor’s without securing a job, the market is actually
expanding. In the mid-2000s, globalization and changing markets resulted in the reorganization
of firms that lead to fewer employees, especially in the United States (Arocena, 2007). Many
businesses do not want to hire recent graduates because of ever increasing healthcare cost,
competition among businesses in a global market, and an inability to cover costs and ventures
through bank loans or federal/state government assistance, but fast growth and large
organizations are looking to hire candidates with Bachelor’s degrees, MBAs, and PhDs
(Gardner, 2011).
During the 2010-2011 school year, the College Employability Research Institute
predicted a 3% increase in hiring across all majors and a 10% increase in hiring specifically for

7

those with a Bachelor’s degree as compared to the previous year (Gardner, 2011). More jobs
could be available based on businesses reporting a 59% boost in sales, but only 44% of these
businesses are still looking to hire. This suggests a continued fear of recession and the resulting
lower hiring rates. Across all disciplines, 34% of employers anticipate 10 or less new hires over
the next three years, but 27% anticipate to hire between 101-1000 (Crawford, et al., 2011b).
Given the current hiring climate, the most secure majors for employment after earning a
Bachelor’s degree are Accounting, General Business, Technical degrees, Marketing, and Finance
(Gardner, 2011).
Recruiters at college fairs are not looking for the standard classroom skills such as taking
notes or perfecting the art of multiple choice tests (Doyle, 2011). The recruiters are in fact
looking for a broad set of skills in their candidates that include not only strong technical
expertise but also “soft skills” in their candidates. Soft skills are those skills needed in all lines
of employment, rather than specific hard, or technical, skills specific to performing the tasks
required in the profession (Robinson, et al, 2007). These soft skills range across many different
attributes and abilities including adaptability (Plamondon, et al, 2000), proper communication
(Mallet-Hammer, 2005), and working with others (Conference Board of Canada, 2000). Each of
these broad soft skill sets contain multiple elements. For example, flexibility, including the
applying feedback and remaining alert and open to all opinions, goes hand in hand with
adaptability (Trilling and Fadel, 2009). Adaptability includes handling urgent, ambiguous, and
work related stress, utilizing creativity to solve tasks, updating technological skills and office
procedures, modifying self for interpersonal conflicts, and understanding a variety of views and
backgrounds,. (Plamondon, et al, 2000). Communication includes reading and understanding as
well as speaking and writing (Conference Board of Canada, 2000).

8

According to the United States’ government, five general competencies include:
resources (being able to allocate time, money, and resources), information (acquiring, evaluating,
organizing, and interpreting), interpersonal (being a member of the team, teaching others),
systems (monitoring and correcting technical performance), and technology (applying
appropriate technology to the task). The report also lists three general skill sets including: Basic
Skills (reading, writing, math, listening, speaking), Thinking Skills (creativity, decision making
and problem solving), and Personal Qualities (responsibility, esteem, integrity). According to
the SCANS report, the most desired competencies are being a member of the team and allocating
time, while the most important skills are responsibility and integrity. Each specific sector of the
market, however, requires specific competencies and skills for employment (US Secretary’s
Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, 2000).
The 2000 SCANS report begins to group the skills, and identifies skills for varying
disciplines. College graduates, however, need a multitude of skills, and these skill sets change
over time (Hanneman and Gardner, 2011). Many of the employability studies carry different
definitions for skill sets. The Conference Board of Canada (2000) lists many skills for
communication, such as listening, speaking, and writing, but groups this key skill (Crawford, et
al., 2011b) with other fundamental skills like critical thinking. The Conference Board of Canada
(2000) further groups a variety of self-management skills under “Personal management” (p. 2)
while other studies dissect this skill set as “autonomy” (Nyhus and Pons, 2005 p. 377) or
“Individualist Efforts” (Johnson and Johnson, 1999, p 7-8) that gear toward student centered
learning and negate the classroom’s learner centered environment (Johnson and Johnson, 1999,
p 17).
University Preparation and Responsibility

9

While employers are looking for these soft skills, they worry that their new hires lack
specific soft skills, such as communication In addition to communication, which 37.1% of
employers viewed as important, employers view problem solving and team work as important
soft skills (33.9% and 30.9% respectively). Employer’s ranking for state university graduates’
written and oral communication skills has fallen from approximately 3.7/5 to 3.37/5,
demonstrating a need for recent graduates and new hires to expand beyond the technical skills of
their discipline (Jagger, et al., 2001).
Other publications assert that employability skills vary by region, job type, or size of the
organization and soft skills are non-transferable through these aforementioned demographics. In
addition to an undergraduate degree, Atkin claims that these skills are not required by employers
(1999). Responsibility, asserts Lowden, et al., 2011, for learning and implementing these skills in
their lives falls three ways: the public body or university, the employer, and the individual. While
Lowden, et al., did identify important soft skills, the study was limited to interviews and did not
use a larger sample size possible in a survey. Communication is a skill needed in every job type
(Crawford, et al., 2011b). Responsibility for teaching skills varies between employer and
university, and could result in the skills not being taught in any environment. The respondents
from Crawford, et al. (2011a) put half of the responsibility each on the university and the
workforce.
Successes in the Workforce
New hires can be successful in the workplace. The First Two Years of Employment:
Strategies and Pitfalls and Ivanevich, et al. (2009) highlight various strategies new hires can use
to earn promotions as well as shortcomings that result in termination Attitude plays a large part
in creating a positive relationship with coworkers and supervisors. Ivanevich’s survey indicates

10

the best practices for a new hire include showing initiative and seeking responsibilities, being a
team player by working past regular work hours, and demonstrating passion for new knowledge
through strategic questioning and reading. New hires easily tarnish their reputations, however,
with poor work ethics such as “‘taking too many breaks’” and “‘failure to pay attention to detail,
unprofessional behavior, such as flirting or off color jokes, and acting as a ‘free rider.” In fact,
the most common reasons for termination of employees are unethical behavior and a lack of
motivation/work ethic. In contrast, the most common reasons for advancement within an
organization include taking initiative (16%), self-management (13%), personal attributes (9%),
and commitment (9%) (Gardner, 2007).
Nancy Barry (2007) argues that a college curriculum cannot completely prepare a student
for the real-world situations they will face in the office. In her book, Barry explores various
skills needed in the workplace. Proper communication techniques, she believes, are vital in the
workplace, such as tone of voice, asking appropriate questions, and using technology like cell
phones and smart phones discreetly. Barry especially mentions sensitivity to culture and
diversity as an important craft for success in the workplace. College professors cannot teach
good attitudes or how to be a team player (though it may be enforced in the classroom), but these
personal qualities help office workers succeed in their business. Coworkers can demonstrate
these qualities with a smile and appropriate laughter, as well as listening and providing
informative input. “Honesty, integrity, respect, and trust” create the “package every employer is
looking for” (Barry, 2007). Barry’s publication, however, focuses on implementation of skills in
the work place to maintain professional relationships with coworkers. Many of these techniques
pertain to any employed person, and not only college graduates.
International Perspectives

11

In addition to technical and practical skills, employers in the United Kingdom are looking
for more hires with skills in oral communication, customer handling, problem solving, and team
working (Commission for Employment Skills, 2009). The same study demonstrates that
employers are most dissatisfied with their college graduate hires in the areas of foreign language
skills, customer awareness, and relevant work experience. In a study performed in the UK with
close proximity to the linguistically diverse European continent, foreign language skills may
have ranked higher in this study than in American surveys. In Hong Kong, one quarter of the
skills mentioned include foreign language proficiency, while Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, and
Malaysia each mention communication skills as an important component for employment
(Zaharim, et al., 2009). In contradiction, in the United States over half of the employers
surveyed rank study abroad with ‘little importance’ in new hires (Gardner, et al., 2008).
According to a Wilton’s survey in the United Kingdom (2011), higher education has the
ability to create equal opportunity in the workplace assuming the individual will take
responsibility for their learning. Universities, however, are not teaching all of the necessary soft
skills for employability. “Written communication,” “ability to work in teams,” and “research
skills” each have a rating above 2.5 (2.66, 2.57, 2.56 respectively) out of 3 on a scale where 3
signifies high competence. “Management skills,” “leadership skills,” “creativity,”
“entrepreneurial skills,” and “advanced IT or software skills” are the lowest rated skills from
2.2/3 to 1.3/3. While this study does analyze the ratings by demographic, it applies only to those
in business management, and not for university wide disciplines, in the United Kingdom (Wilton,
2011). A simple 3 to 1 rating scale allows the respondents to easily understand it but does not
allow for a variety of responses. The low range in rating scale creates the potential for more
significant differences and correlations as well as a minimized standard deviation.

12

Wickramasinghe and Perera, 2010, explore the differences in opinion between three
stakeholders: graduates, faculty, and employers in Sri Lanka.. This study used literature to define
many of the aforementioned soft skills and a survey to discern differences. While the research
team found significant differences, the study was limited to a computer science discipline in Sri
Lanka. Each of the stakeholders, regardless of gender, rate “problem solving, self-confidence,
and teamwork as the most important employability skills.” Although Robinson, et al, (2007)
rated different skills, “problem solving and analytic” similarly remains the top rated skill
regardless of stakeholder.
Learning Environments
Universities have moved students out of the forefront of faculty priorities, failing to give
students communication and critical thinking skills adequate for employer standards (Bok,
2006). This deviates from literature that indicates a growing importance to create professional
relationships and respond to incoming data (Hanneman and Gardner, 2011). In the past,
universities used a variety of methods to instill a responsibility to learn in their students,
including the Religious Stage (1880-1910), the Scientific Stage (1900-1920), and the Humanistic
and Extracurricular Stage (1915-1930). The religious stage included the teaching of Christian
(Protestant) scriptures and encouraging civic leadership; The Scientific Stage included the
teaching of the best facts of the time; the Humanistic and Extracurricular Stage encouraged
social and academics beyond the confines of the classroom and a cooperative learning
environment (Reuben, 1996). John Dewey (1938), researching during and after the Humanistic
and Extracurricular Stage, asserts that students can learn by experiencing the task and actively
engaging with it, while the educator serves to guide the experiences to success and help the
students mentally organize the value of the experiences. Colleges have always competed for

13

students, garnering international attention through their academics, athletics, and facilities, and
connecting research and teaching to prepare students for life outside the university walls (Arum
and Roksa, 2011). However, the trend since the 1940s indicates a shift from student learning to a
business model of financial success (Bok, 2006, Hacker and Dreifus, 2010), placing students in
large lecture halls and increases in tuition (Reuben, 1996).
In order to succeed in the university, professors must publish before focusing on student
learning, a rapidly increasing trend in four-year universities (Boyer, 1990). While Universities
can attribute this in partly to their historical trend to model like corporations, the Bayh-Dole Act
(1980), attempting to counteract funding cuts, encourages universities to focus on research and
patents. Though not achieved through student learning alone, tenure, an academic “Everest,” or
esteemed goal, protects the professor and allows degrees of “academic freedom” (Hacker and
Dreifus, 2010). Academic Freedom, according to www.brittanica.com, permits “the freedom of
teachers and students to teach, study, and pursue knowledge and research without unreasonable
interference or restriction from law, institutional regulations, or public pressure.” Tenure allows
the teaching of non-traditional (and even controversial) subjects through experimental methods
to expand student learning, thus increasing communication abilities and critical thinking skills.
Testing to gauge student proficiency within a subject, which partly contributes to the tenure
process, often does not analyze one’s ability to critically engage but to repeat facts (Kalantzis, et
al., 2005).
While students have the obligation to learn, the faculty has the obligation to teach. A
four-year education at a publicly funded university can cost over $100,000, while the university
industry is worth up to $450 billion (Hacker and Dreifus, 2010). These high costs, in addition to
credit card debt and employment outside of academics, allow students to think critically over

14

their finances but also create high pressure and mounting distractions from academics (Arum and
Roksa, 2011). Using the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) and a survey of students and
faculty, Arum and Roksa (2011) demonstrate that students have marginal increases in critical
thinking and, even with mounting financial pressures, spend more time socializing than studying.
While Academically Adrift (2011) drew immediate criticism for the interpretation of the
aforementioned results, the transparency of methods allowed replication and repeated results
(Pascarella, et al., 2011). The interpretation of the data created debate, but the very statistic of
students not learning remains alarming. Kalantzis, et al. (2011, p. 94-97) suggest a three level
rubric to measure aptitude, as opposed to standardized testing like the CLA, from "assisted
competence,” to “autonomous competence,” and finally “collaborative competence” for varying
skills and attributes including critical thinking and experiences. Michigan State’s University
Committee on Liberal Learning (2009) suggest a four-level rubric to develop students learning
across skills such as “Communication” and “Effective Citizenship” from a freshman level in the
University through graduation.
“Authentic learning is a pedagogical approach that allows students to explore, discuss,
and meaningfully construct concepts and relationships to contexts that involve real-world
problems and projects that are relevant to the learner” (Donovan et al., 1999). During authentic
learning processes, the learners not only master the technical requirements but develop necessary
and more complex ‘soft skills’ for success in today’s competitive work environments (Levy and
Murnane, 2005; Doyle 2011). The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (2011)
stipulates that authentic learning must: have a real-world application, contain interdisciplinary
elements, allow for multiple approaches, position the teacher as a facilitator rather than a
lecturer, encourage teamwork, and produce a product. The University of Arizona lead a project

15

in authentic learning which required students to construct the physical environment they were
studying (astronomy) and literally immerse the class within it. Studies indicate that students
need seven to eight hours of sleep to process the day’s learning, but an informal class poll reports
most students getting less sleep (Doyle, 2011).
While authentic learning is implemented through the curriculum and syllabi, the places in
which it occurs can encourage its productivity. Weinstein and Novadvorsky (2011), in a
Maslow-like pyramid, define five elements for a successful classroom:
1. Safety – The classroom must allow students to feel safe from physical aggression as well
as the weather elements like rain, snow and cold.
2. Social Interaction – Classrooms should encourage interaction among students as well as
interaction between the student and the instructor. Students can engage in the classroom
when allowed input into the creation of the syllabus and classroom rules such as
attendance and due dates (Doyle, 2011).
3. Symbolic Identification – Students should understand by the décor what they will learn in
the provided space and personally identify with the design.
4. Instrument – Classrooms should have and make use of emerging and successful
technologies and pedagogies.
5. Pleasure – Students should enjoy the material.
The classroom itself and the technology and equipment provided can aid in retention of new
material. Learning capabilities increase with the production of new neurons and synapses, new
cell growth (especially in parts of the brain for memory), and brain-derived neurotropic factors, a
protein that allows for synaptic connections (Stern, 2009; Mattson, et al., 2004; Modie, 2003).
All three situations occur during exercise (Doyle, 2011). Simple aerobic exercise, such as

16

walking, as well as exercise requiring skill acquirability like tennis, promotes learning (Weuve et
al., 2008). A variety of schools at the university and secondary education levels have
implemented exercise into their learning process by allowing for treadmills and other exercise
equipment in the building or replacing chairs at desks with exercise balls. These small changes
have positive correlations with student performance (Doyle, 2011).
Future Study Potential
Many of the existing studies also focus on a specific discipline, such as agriculture (Barkley,
et al., 1999), business management (Wilton, 2011) and computer science (Wickramasinghe and
Perera, 2010). Additionally, the only author to explore the skills of Agriculture and Natural
Resource graduates, Robinson et al. 2007, used the aforementioned rating system instead of
ranking. However, the changing global market has caused recent graduates’ fluidity among
careers. An understanding of the world dynamics is vital for the success of Americans in the
work force (Kay, 2010). Recent graduates may look for employment in many fields related to
their undergraduate degree, but not specifically in employment for their limited degree. A wider
scope of findings will allow students to focus their soft skill learning based on the distinct
preferences of their chosen field and the universally accepted soft skill priorities.
University professors hold ever-mounting pressures, including frequent publications, grants,
and expanding class sizes. As new graduates do not possess the competence to meet the
requirements in an office (Gardner, et. al 2011), faculty and students must make changes to
bridge graduates into employment. Authentic learning pedagogies, and the classroom
environments, provide the potential to teach both discipline-specific, technical skills and
implicitly improve the student abilities to communicate, think critically, and work in teams

17

(Crawford, et al., 2012). To fully develop authentic learning, students must reflect on their skills
after each learning process, including both technical and soft skills.
As hiring increases after years of layoffs, faculty and students can prioritize their methods
to increase employment potential. As each skill has value, the common rating system fails to
give the stakeholders priorities for implementation and adjustments in syllabi and curricula.
While most studies focus on one discipline, a study across multiple disciplines and comparison
among them can ignite and inform the change to increase the hiring potential of new graduates.

18

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS
Original Study
The data used in this study comes from a survey, funded by the APLU, from Crawford, et
al., 2011a. The original research team, of which this author was a part, gathered over 80 articles
and government reports from around the world to understand the importance of soft skills for
recent graduates. After reading each piece of literature, the information was summarized into
outlines. These outlines served for a cluster analysis to group skills, experiences, and
characteristics into seven core skill sets. The APLU and University-Industry Consortium were
then consulted to ensure the groupings contained universal language across multiple disciplines,
all necessary soft skills were included, and the correct characteristics fit into the correct skill.
While the original survey was intended for distribution to two universities using
www.surveymonkey.com, nearly 40 universities participated through the APLU. Each
University consisted of three distinct links to be emailed to their list serves in the Colleges of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, including one for each students, faculty, and alumni. Each
participating survey was sent a general link for the employers within the list serve of the College.
The respondents to the original survey represented all 50 states, Washington D.C., Guam,
and Puerto Rico. The greatest number of employers responded that the headquarters of the
organization were in states found within in the Western Great Lakes and the Midwest regions.
The survey contained 8,124 responses, with approximately 2700 students, 900 faculty, 4,300
alumni and 300 employers. The exact response rate was indeterminable as the survey was sent
to university emails and then spread through word of mouth.

19

Research Design
This work is a new line of inquiry building off the APLU Report Comparability of Soft
Skills: What is Important for New Graduates? (Crawford et al, 2011b), also known as the CASS
Report. After a cluster-analysis to group the 45+ possible employment fields in the CASS study,
and consultation with the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities, the eight
employment fields allow for in depth analysis. As part of the CASS research team, the author
utilizes the CASS data set (2011a) for the new in-depth analysis, focusing on soft skill values of
those in the Environmental and Natural Resource Specialists subset as compared to other fields..
The ENRS field represents employment and studies in areas such as architecture, civil
engineering, construction, fisheries, wildlife, and forestry, golf course design and management,
interior design, landscape architecture, landscape design, natural resource management, and park
design and management. The eight fields are:
1. Agricultural Services
2. Education and Knowledge Development
3. Environmental and Natural Resource Specialists
4. Government
5. Human and Animal Health and Medicinal Services
6. Product Creation/Manufacturing
7. Service Industry
8. Other (Those who responded Other in the CASS data set or did not respond to
employment field)

20

Breakout percentages can be found in Figure 1 (The Eight Studied Fields as Represented by the
Percentage of the Total Study’s Respondents) while the fields and their defining disciplines from
the CASS Report that fit into these eight fields can be found in Appendix A.

4% Product
Creation/
Manufacturing
6% Government

Fields
20% Agriculutral
Services

10% Other

19% Education
and Knowledge
Development%

13% Service
Industry

14%
Environmental
and Natural
Resource
Specialist

14% Human and
Animal
Medicinal and
Health Services

Figure 1: The Eight Studied Fields as Represented by the Percentage of the Total Study's
Respondents. For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other figures, the reader
is referred to the electronic version of this thesis.
Data Analysis
The Comparability of Soft Skills: Data Set (Crawford et al, 2011a) is used for analysis
with the Statistical Package for Social Science 19 (SPSS - IBM Statistics Software Editor).
Before the publication of the CASS report, 11 additional responses arrived and are included with
this study but not the original report. For his study, the data is explored for significant
differences of ranking of the soft skills by ENRS to the other Fields using ordinal regression.
This technique is selected due to the forced ranking of data used in the CASS study which places
an “order” on the variables but does not indicate a scale or distance between the variables (IBM,
21

2011). Ordinal regression also allows for multiple independent variables. In this study, the field
type is designated as the independent variable.
The soft skill clusters and characteristics are designated as the dependent variables.
Using the ‘cellinfo’ option it was determined that all of the cells were populated allowing for
analysis of the full data set. The analysis was run 56 times, once for each dependent variable (7
clusters plus 49 characteristics). The findings include significant differences from the
Environmental and Natural Resource Specialists to the other Fields. Due to the large sample size
(n=8,124), the Wald statistic is used and differences equal to or less than 0.05 are considered
significant. To further interpret the findings and provide feedback for faculty and employers
training young adults, another ordinal regression dissected the rank order of the employers,
faculty, alum, and students within the ENRS cluster

22

CHAPTER 4: DATA RESULTS
Overall Differences
Each cluster has the possibility of 49 differences when comparing the ENRS to the other
seven fields. In comparison to the ENRS, this study found 152 out of 392 possible significant
differences, or 38.8%. The most differences (33 and 29, more than 50% of possible differences)
occur when comparing to the Service Industry and Health Services. The clusters with the most
differences are the Experiences, with 26 significant differences (or 53.1% of possible Experience
differences) and Core Skills and Communication, each with 24 (or 49%) (Table 2: Significant
Difference Count as Compared to ENRS).
Table 2: Significant Difference Count as Compared to ENRS
Core Com. D.P. Self. Exp. Team. Prof. Lead. Total
Ag. Services
3
2
1
5
6
1
3
2
22
Education
2
4
3
3
2
3
2
2
21
Government
2
3
2
1
4
0
2
3
15
Health Services
4
6
4
4
2
3
2
2
29
Product Creation
2
2
1
3
2
1
1
2
14
Service Industry
6
5
2
5
4
4
3
4
33
Other
5
2
1
5
2
1
0
1
18
Total
24
24
14
22
26
13
13
16
152
The order of both the ENRS and the non-ENRS mean ranking mirror each other. The
order is Communication, Decision-Making/Problem-Solving, Self-Management, Experiences,
Team Skills, Professionalism, and Leadership (See Appendix B: Soft Skill Clusters and
Characteristics as Ranked the ENRS). The rank order of characteristics in these fields, however,
differs from the original study’s ranking, which ordered the skills and characteristics according
to the overall employer mean.

23

Core Skills
The ENRS respondents rank order the soft skill clusters with Communication, Decisionmaking/Problem-solving and Self-management as the most important with Leadership as the
least important. However, ENRS respondents significantly value Communication less than the
Government, Health Services, Service Industry, and Other fields, while placing significantly
more emphasis on Decision-making/Problem-solving than Education, Government, Health
Services, Production Creation, Service Industry, and Other fields (Table 3: Core Skills’
Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and Standard Error as Compared to ENRS; Table 4: Core
Skills’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error) ENRS continue to place more emphasis on SelfManagement (compared to Health Services), Experiences (as compared to Agricultural Services,
Service Industry, and Other fields), and Team Skills (as compared to Agricultural Services and
the Service Industry). At the end of the core skills ranking, ENRS place significantly less
emphasis on Professionalism (as compared to Health Services, Service Industry, and other
fields), and significantly less emphasis on Leadership than all fields except the Government.

Table 3: Core Skills Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and Standard Error as Compared to
the ENRS
Com.
Ag.

Sig
Services
Wald
Std. Err
Sig
Education
Wald
Std. Err
Product
Sig
Creation
Wald
Std. Err
Sig
Government Wald

D.P.

Self.

Exp.

Team

Prof.

0.379
0.774
0.075
0.599
0.277
0.076
0.220
1.504
0.105
0.011
6.492

0.252
1.311
0.075
0.000
15.001
0.076
0.002
9.774
0.122
0.035
4.436

0.225
1.473
0.075
0.127
2.330
0.076
0.764
0.090
0.122
0.570
0.322

0.000
14.575
0.076
0.526
0.401
0.076
0.057
3.609
0.122
0.210
1.568

0.016
5.802
0.075
0.607
0.264
0.076
0.901
0.016
0.122
0.406
0.690

0.858 0.000
0.032 33.389
0.075 0.076
0.440 0.000
0.596 21.401
0.076 0.076
0.507 0.006
0.440 7.607
0.122 0.123
0.700 0.226
0.149 1.468

24

Lead.

Table 3
(cont’d)

Health
Services
Service
Industry

Other

0.105
0.105
0.105 0.105 0.105 0.106
Std. Err 0.105
0.099
0.002
0.000
0.232 0.129 0.003 0.042
Sig
2.718
9.917 15.517 1.426 2.309 8.822 4.143
Wald
0.081
0.081
0.082 0.081 0.082 0.082
Std. Err 0.082
0.000
0.000
0.175
0.003 0.027 0.017 0.000
Sig
13.980 40.629 1.842
8.758 4.913 5.673 51.951
Wald
0.084
0.084
0.084 0.084 0.084 0.084
Std. Err 0.084
0.044
0.000
0.800
0.006 0.667 0.037 0.022
Sig
4.055 13.778 0.064
7.585 0.185 4.349 5.234
Wald
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090 0.090 0.090 0.091
Std. Err
significant ENRS LOWER PRIORITY than comparison field
significant ENRS HIGHER PRIORITY than comparison field

Table 4: Core Skills Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Deviation

ENRS

Mean
N
Std. Dev.
Ag.
Mean
N
Services
Std. Dev.
Mean
N
Education
Std. Dev.
Product
Mean
Creation
N
Std. Dev.
Mean
Government N
Std. Dev.
Health
Mean
Services
N
Std. Dev.
Service
Mean
Industry
N
Std. Dev.

Com.
3.100
915
1.726
3.017
1354
1.649
3.040
1316
1.646
2.952
269
1.664
2.828
406
1.601
2.965
951
1.672
2.803
842
1.635

D.P.
3.178
914
1.787
3.263
1355
1.786
3.501
1324
1.905
3.569
269
1.789
3.415
405
1.842
3.449
954
1.841
3.743
841
1.873
25

Self.
3.641
908
1.893
3.544
1354
1.906
3.771
1313
1.938
3.593
268
1.859
3.573
407
1.880
3.995
949
1.924
3.770
839
1.932

Exp. Team. Prof. Lead.
4.012 4.218 4.650 5.150
913
905
906
913
2.253 1.787 1.855 1.780
4.374 4.401 4.658 4.685
1344 1352 1351 1345
2.289 1.785 1.874 1.892
4.070 4.258 4.576 4.764
1310 1318 1322 1315
2.272 1.803 1.909 1.917
4.285 4.218 4.553 4.792
267
266
266
264
2.332 1.889 1.915 1.870
4.174 4.297 4.625 5.005
403
404
400
403
2.272 1.792 1.797 1.851
3.861 4.345 4.392 4.967
951
948
948
945
2.304 1.808 1.863 1.857
4.321 4.402 4.443 4.484
841
839
837
841
2.277 1.835 1.847 1.976

Table 4
(cont’d)

Other
NonENRS

Mean
N
Std. Dev.
Mean
N
Std. Dev.

2.912
660
1.635
2.954
5798
1.647

3.526
658
1.890
3.472
5806
1.850

3.671
656
1.938
3.721
5786
1.925

4.318
663
2.304
4.188
5779
2.294

4.178
667
1.752
4.318
5784
1.803

4.444
656
1.917
4.533
5780
1.880

4.919
655
1.890
4.774
5768
1.906

Communication
ENRS rank listening effectively as significantly more important that Education,
Government and Health Services (Table 5: Communication Characteristics’ Significant
Differences, Wald Statistic, and Standard Error as Compared to the ENRS; Table 6:
Communication Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error). The other seven fields
combined rank communicating accurately and concisely ahead of listening. The second ranked
characteristic, ENRS rank accurate and concise ahead of the Service Industry. ENRS place
significantly less emphasis on oral communication (as compared to Education and Health
Services), pleasant and professional communication (as compared to Health Services, Product
Creation, Service Industry, and Other fields), and written communication (as compared to the
Government). ENRS, however, place significantly more emphasis on written communication
than Agricultural Services, Health Services, Product Creation, and the Service Industry as well as
asking good questions than Agricultural Services, Government, Health Services, and the Service
Industry. Education places significantly more emphasis on asking good questions. ENRS place
more emphasis on communicating professionally with social media than education but not as
much as Health Services, Service Industry, or Other fields.

26

Table 5: Communication Characteristics’ Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and Standard
Error as Compared to the ENRS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Characteristic:
Ag.
Sig
0.708 0.423 0.153 0.543
0.000
0.011
0.092
Wald
0.140 0.642 0.204 0.370 12.506 6.516
2.840
Services
Std. Err 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.073
0.074
0.074
0.089
Sig
0.009 0.996 0.021 0.133
0.924
0.002
0.004
Wald
6.854 0.000 5.287 2.254
0.009
9.935
8.515
Education
Std. Err 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.074
0.074
0.074
0.086
Product
Sig
0.578 0.255 0.961 0.003
0.000
0.813
0.274
Creation
Wald
0.310 1.294 0.002 8.672 17.204 0.056
1.195
Std. Err 0.119 0.119 0.118 0.118
0.118
0.119
0.138
Sig
0.048 0.977 0.171 0.948
0.001
0.036
0.746
3.895 0.001 1.875 0.004 11.506 4.411
0.105
Government Wald
Std. Err 0.103 0.103 0.102 0.102
0.102
0.103
0.123
Health
Sig
0.006 0.307 0.039 0.000
0.000
0.001
0.004
Services
Wald
7.511 1.044 4.282 36.482 20.155 11.369 8.073
Std. Err 0.079 0.080 0.079 0.079
0.079
0.080
0.092
Service
Sig
0.081 0.010 0.375 0.000
0.007
0.001
0.000
Industry
Wald
3.048 6.585 0.788 19.456 7.181 10.547 38.295
Std. Err 0.082 0.082 0.082 0.081
0.082
0.082
0.093
Sig
0.519 0.240 0.899 0.040
0.936
0.144
0.019
Wald
0.415 1.383 0.016 4.209
0.006
2.138
5.543
Other
Std. Err 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087
0.087
0.087
0.101
significant ENRS LOWER PRIORITY than comparison field
significant ENRS HIGHER PRIORITY than comparison field

Table 6: Communication Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error
Characteristic:
ENRS
Mean
N
Std. Dev.
Ag.
Mean
N
Services
Std. Dev.
Mean
Education
N
Std. Dev.
Product
Mean

1
2.904
964
1.624
2.893
1409
1.666
3.098
1395
1.696
2.962

2
2.939
960
1.675
2.874
1401
1.632
2.949
1399
1.702
2.819
27

3
3.401
965
1.637
3.300
1405
1.594
3.248
1400
1.632
3.422

4
3.787
964
1.858
3.741
1391
1.815
3.674
1389
1.885
3.418

5
3.887
964
1.721
4.131
1393
1.733
3.897
1396
1.679
4.361

6
4.767
960
1.768
4.594
1395
1.752
4.991
1386
1.723
4.736

7
6.215
968
1.462
6.340
1405
1.304
6.085
1396
1.504
6.236

Table 6
(cont’d)

Creation

N
Std. Dev.
Mean
Government N
Std. Dev.
Health
Mean
Services
N
Std. Dev.
Service
Mean
Industry
N
Std. Dev.
Mean
Other
N
Std. Dev.
NonMean
N
ENRS
Std. Dev.

288
1.624
3.106
424
1.711
3.112
1014
1.656
3.048
900
1.681
2.962
711
1.651
3.024
6141
1.674

287
1.665
2.939
424
1.669
2.866
1007
1.669
3.143
902
1.716
3.056
709
1.755
2.952
6129
1.687

287
1.639
3.265
426
1.559
3.254
1012
1.617
3.340
898
1.661
3.398
712
1.644
3.301
6140
1.622

287
1.885
3.791
426
1.844
3.279
1002
1.849
3.417
905
1.923
3.605
709
1.936
3.574
6109
1.880

288
1.687
3.548
425
1.699
4.240
1006
1.642
4.099
1006
1.642
3.896
709
1.656
4.034
6108
1.705

284
1.804
4.993
420
1.677
5.042
1001
1.682
4.998
897
1.768
4.884
708
1.767
4.885
6091
1.744

284
1.268
6.283
424
1.353
6.116
1003
1.460
5.827
894
1.689
6.123
707
1.447
6.136
6113
1.464

Decision-Making/Problem-Solving
ENRS place significantly more emphasis on identifying and analyzing problems than
Education and the Service Industry (Table 7: DMPS Characteristics’ Significant Differences,
Wald Statistic, and Standard Error as Compared to the ENRS; Table 8: DMPS Characteristics’
Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error). They place less emphasis on the second ranking
characteristic (take effective action) than Health Services. While transferring knowledge
contains no significant differences, it is the third ranking characteristic for the ENRS but the
fourth ranking characteristic for Non-ENRS fields. The Other field places more emphasis on
realizing the effect than the ENRS. ENRS put more emphasis on the fifth ranked characteristic
(creative and innovative) than Government, Health Services, and Product creation as well as the
seventh characteristic (think abstractly) than Agricultural Services, Education, Government, and

28

Health Services. Life-long learning, however, is not prioritized with the ENRS as much as
Education, Health Services, and Service Industry.
Table 7: DMPS Characteristics’ Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and Standard Error as
Compared to the ENRS
Characteristic:
Ag.
Services

Education
Product
Creation
Government

Health
Services
Service
Industry
Other

1
2
3
4
5
6
0.152
0.111 0.396 0.214
0.720
0.116
Sig
2.056
2.536 0.720 1.542
0.128
2.468
Wald
0.075 0.074 0.075
0.075
0.076
Std. Err 0.077
0.000
0.174 0.440 0.274
0.428
0.000
Sig
13.636 1.852 0.597 1.195
0.629
24.620
Wald
0.075 0.075 0.075
0.075
0.076
Std. Err 0.077
0.622
0.222 0.499 0.799
0.033
0.302
Sig
0.243
1.494 0.456 0.065
4.523
1.065
Wald
0.122 0.121 0.121
0.122
0.123
Std. Err 0.125
0.119
0.096 0.308 0.083
0.005
0.381
Sig
2.436
2.767 1.038 3.000
7.975
0.769
Wald
0.104 0.104 0.104
0.104
0.106
Std. Err 0.108
0.136
0.006 0.896 0.314
0.001
0.000
Sig
2.219
7.678 0.017 1.014
10.134 15.737
Wald
0.081 0.080 0.081
0.081
0.082
Std. Err 0.082
0.037
0.871 0.533 0.118
0.249
0.000
Sig
4.343
0.026 0.388 2.448
1.330
16.733
Wald
0.083 0.083 0.083
0.083
0.084
Std. Err 0.085
0.081
0.955 0.326 0.001
0.544
0.588
Sig
3.046
0.003 0.966 11.119
0.369
0.293
Wald
0.091
0.089 0.088 0.089
0.089
0.091
Std. Err
significant ENRS LOWER PRIORITY than comparison field
significant ENRS HIGHER PRIORITY than comparison field

7
0.000
16.852
0.076
0.022
5.232
0.076
0.351
0.870
0.123
0.001
11.912
0.106
0.002
9.754
0.082
0.089
2.890
0.084
0.060
3.543
0.090

Table 8: DMPS Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error
Characteristic:
ENRS
Mean
N
Std. Dev.
Ag.
Mean
N
Services
Std. Dev.

1
2.445
928
1.597
2.372
1363
1.604

2
3.485
932
1.777
3.362
1363
1.710
29

3
3.884
932
1.767
3.958
1368
1.757

4
3.915
930
1.691
3.821
1366
1.659

5
4.013
927
1.749
3.985
1359
1.735

6
5.070
930
2.156
4.972
1259
2.144

7
5.118
931
1.869
5.441
1358
1.715

Table 8
(cont’d)

Mean
N
Education
Std. Dev.
Product
Mean
Creation
N
Std. Dev.
Mean
Government N
Std. Dev.
Health
Mean
Services
N
Std. Dev.
Service
Mean
Industry
N
Std. Dev.
Mean
N
Other
Std. Dev.
NonMean
N
ENRS
Std. Dev.

2.720
1341
1.713
2.432
271
1.680
2.277
412
1.483
2.575
973
1.659
2.633
856
1.710
2.614
679
1.689
2.547
5895
1.665

3.588
1337
1.790
3.312
269
1.634
3.312
413
1.717
3.254
967
1.699
3.473
853
1.764
3.465
677
1.694
3.418
5879
1.733

3.834
1339
1.793
3.805
272
1.755
3.779
412
1.765
3.889
973
1.768
3.945
855
1.831
3.804
679
1.847
3.880
5898
1.789

3.838
1326
1.754
3.933
270
1.662
3.734
410
1.607
3.842
972
1.743
3.793
852
1.712
3.631
678
1.709
3.801
5874
1.705

4.079
1334
1.772
4.268
269
1.860
4.315
409
1.715
4.272
969
1.788
4.107
857
1.833
4.061
678
1.809
4.116
5875
1.783

4.618
1335
2.283
5.015
271
2.168
5.015
414
2.099
4.713
971
2.219
4.664
858
2.235
5.027
676
2.136
4.813
5884
2.204

5.283
1331
1.829
5.246
268
1.789
5.493
412
1.699
5.404
969
1.698
5.312
847
1.716
5.333
678
1.704
5.363
5863
1.741

Self-Management
ENRS prioritize working efficiently and effectively more than Agricultural Services,
Product Creation, Service Industry, and Other fields (Table 9: Self-Management Characteristics’
Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and Standard Error as Compared to the ENRS; Table 10:
Self-Management Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error). They further value
self-starting more than Health Services but less the Agricultural Services and Government.
ENRS do not value working under pressure as much as Health Services, Service Industry, and
Other fields. Agricultural Services places more emphasis on urgency than ENRS, but ENRS
value urgency more than Education and Government as well as technology more than

30

Agricultural Services, Health Services, Product Creation, Service Industry, and Other fields.
Technology is valued as the sixth characteristic for ENRS but the seventh for Non-ENRS fields.
ENRS significantly value professional development more than Agricultural Services but less
than Education, Health Services, and Service Industry.
Table 9: Self-Management Characteristics’ Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and Standard
Error as Compared to the ENRS
Characteristic:
Ag.
Services

Education
Product
Creation

Government
Health
Services
Service
Industry

Other

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.000 0.000 0.971 0.921
0.012
0.008
0.047
Sig
17.080 23.553 0.001 0.010
6.276
6.986
3.956
Wald
0.075
0.076
0.076
Std. Err 0.076 0.075 0.075 0.075
0.087 0.694 0.554 0.808
0.004
0.882
0.000
Sig
2.928 0.154 0.350 0.059
8.148
0.022 15.717
Wald
0.075
0.076
0.076
Std. Err 0.077 0.075 0.075 0.075
0.013 0.892 0.823 0.161
0.303
0.010
0.224
Sig
6.212 0.018 0.050 1.968
1.061
6.692
1.477
Wald
0.122
0.124
0.123
Std. Err 0.123 0.122 0.122 0.121
0.245 0.004 0.186 0.099
0.027
0.654
0.339
Sig
1.349 8.226 1.753 2.720
4.878
0.201
0.915
Wald
0.105
0.106
0.107
Std. Err 0.106 0.106 0.105 0.105
0.552 0.000 0.811 0.000
0.833
0.000
0.000
Sig
0.354 13.524 0.057 12.977 0.045 17.135 15.887
Wald
0.081
0.082
0.082
Std. Err 0.082 0.081 0.081 0.081
0.000 0.504 0.210 0.000
0.820
0.000
0.004
Sig
23.356 0.446 1.569 13.028 0.052 13.436 8.323
Wald
0.083
0.085
0.084
Std. Err 0.085 0.084 0.084 0.084
0.008 0.818 0.915 0.006
0.468
0.047
0.401
Sig
7.119 0.053 0.011 7.520
0.527
3.929
0.705
Wald
0.089
0.090
0.090
Std. Err 0.090 0.089 0.089 0.089
significant ENRS LOWER PRIORITY than comparison field
significant ENRS HIGHER PRIORITY than comparison field

31

Table 10: Self-Management Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error
Characteristic:
ENRS
Mean
N
Std. Dev.
Ag.
Mean
N
Services
Std. Dev.
Mean
N
Education
Std. Dev.
Product
Mean
Creation
N
Std. Dev.
Mean
N
Government
Std. Dev.
Health
Mean
Services
N
Std. Dev.
Service
Mean
Industry
N
Std. Dev.
Mean
N
Other
Std. Dev.
NonMean
N
ENRS
Std. Dev.

1
2.494
923
1.548
2.698
1363
1.479
2.598
1326
1.574
2.744
270
1.624
2.559
404
1.501
2.494
967
1.467
2.809
848
1.573
2.670
673
1.555
2.647
5851
1.532

2
3.183
923
1.905
2.787
1363
1.765
3.211
1329
1.891
3.137
271
1.816
2.851
403
1.771
3.511
964
1.964
3.259
852
1.956
3.234
675
1.984
3.143
5857
1.899

3
3.407
920
1.981
3.412
1363
2.012
3.463
1226
2.013
3.459
268
2.078
3.561
403
1.950
3.403
968
2.048
3.299
854
1.993
3.422
671
1.989
3.419
5853
2.012

4
4.156
921
1.671
4.157
1359
1.719
4.128
1326
1.755
3.971
271
1.682
3.973
405
1.708
3.860
967
1.739
3.854
848
1.711
3.905
666
1.701
4.007
5842
1.729

5
4.254
918
1.772
4.073
1365
1.738
4.471
1328
1.790
4.119
268
1.789
4.489
405
1.774
4.285
963
1.732
4.274
853
1.753
4.193
668
1.765
4.272
5850
1.765

6
5.145
918
1.638
5.334
1350
1.569
5.120
1318
1.676
5.391
266
1.648
5.090
399
1.677
5.441
957
1.566
5.383
846
1.649
5.306
666
1.595
5.293
5802
1.623

7
5.308
920
1.739
5.471
1361
1.648
4.990
1324
1.860
5.138
269
1.837
5.395
405
1.717
4.981
961
1.826
5.055
852
1.844
5.210
668
1.820
5.170
5840
1.799

Experiences
Overall, the Experience cluster has the lowest mean standard deviation (1.5209) of the
seven cluster and the core skills. The rank order for each field is the same except for the Service
Industry, which instead ranks leadership and teamwork two and three respectively. However, as

32

previously shown and discussed in Table 2: Significant Difference Count as Compared to ENRS,
the ENRS have the most significant differences in this cluster.
ENRS significantly place the second highest ranking of the fields on related work
experience, significantly more than Agricultural Services, the Service Industry, and Other fields.
Human and Animal Medicinal and Health Services, however, value this characteristic more than
all other fields and significantly more than ENRS. (Table 11: Experience Characteristics’
Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and Standard Error as Compared to the ENRS; Table 12:
Experience Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error). Though placing the
second highest emphasis on Teamwork, ENRS value this characteristic significantly more than
the Service Industry. Leadership is valued significantly less by the ENRS in comparison to all
fields except the Government. ENRS value project management less than Agricultural Services
and Product Creation. Similar to the leadership characteristic, ENRS place the second highest
emphasis on cross disciplinary experience, significantly more than all fields except the
Government. Community engagement earns significantly higher priority for the ENRS than
Agricultural Services, but a significantly lower priority than Education, Human and Animal
Medicinal and Health Services, the Service Industry, and Other fields. Lastly, ENRS place more
emphasis on international experience than Government and less than Other fields.

Table 11: Experience Characteristics’ Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and Standard Error
as Compared to the ENRS
Characteristic:
Ag.
Services

Education

Sig
Wald
Std. Err
Sig
Wald

1
0.002
9.934
0.076
0.186
1.747

2

3

4

5

6

7

0.541 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.656
0.374 31.777 21.061 11.198 16.070 0.198
0.073 0.073 0.073 0.073 0.074 0.083
0.137 0.000 0.203 0.018 0.049 0.998
2.206 13.459 1.617 5.564 3.861 0.000
33

Table 11
(cont’d)

Std. Err 0.077 0.073 0.073 0.073 0.073 0.074 0.083
Product
Sig
0.246 0.253 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.088 0.351
Creation
Wald
1.345 1.309 15.164 7.833 13.027 2.911 0.871
Std. Err 0.121 0.117 0.116 0.116 0.116 0.117 0.135
Sig
0.108 0.831 0.437 0.575 0.556 0.510 0.012
2.577 0.046 0.605 0.315 0.346 0.433 6.343
Government Wald
Std. Err 0.107 0.103 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.103 0.122
Health
Sig
0.033 0.186 0.000 0.101 0.000 0.021 0.774
Services
Wald
4.572 1.746 14.995 2.682 35.226 5.332 0.082
Std. Err 0.084 0.079 0.078 0.078 0.078 0.079 0.089
Service
Sig
0.003 0.041 0.000 0.085 0.000 0.005 0.220
Industry
Wald
8.684 4.161 84.135 2.966 72.468 7.754 1.502
Std. Err 0.084 0.081 0.081 0.080 0.081 0.081 0.091
Sig
0.002 0.400 0.011 0.303 0.000 0.021 0.004
Wald
9.664 0.709 6.448 1.059 18.415 5.353 8.244
Other
Std. Err 0.090 0.086 0.086 0.085 0.086 0.087 0.095
significant ENRS LOWER PRIORITY than comparison field
significant ENRS HIGHER PRIORITY than comparison field

Table 12: Experience Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error
Characteristic:
ENRS
Mean
N
Std. Dev.
Ag.
Mean
N
Services
Std. Dev.
Mean
N
Education
Std. Dev.
Product
Mean
Creation
N
Std. Dev.
Mean
Government N
Std. Dev.

1
2.195
997
1.568
2.383
1432
1.636
2.296
1419
1.652
2.323
307
1.666
2.309
424
1.556

2
2.768
995
1.459
2.783
1408
1.409
2.879
1417
1.546
2.841
301
1.393
2.775
427
1.446
34

3
3.380
994
1.491
3.040
1398
1.523
3.161
1414
1.526
3.007
306
1.500
3.310
429
1.545

4
3.917
991
1.668
3.607
1413
1.610
3.992
1717
1.628
3.604
303
1.549
3.955
420
1.616

5
4.088
994
1.652
4.324
1422
1.571
4.238
1412
1.667
4.483
302
1.500
4.012
424
1.642

6
5.165
997
1.434
5.400
1405
1.362
5.028
1407
1.521
5.298
309
1.449
5.088
423
1.507

7
6.217
1003
1.371
6.242
1433
1.269
6.251
1428
1.270
6.306
307
1.290
6.351
428
1.309

Table 12
(cont’d)

Health
Services
Service
Industry

Other
NonENRS

Mean
N
Std. Dev.
Mean
N
Std. Dev.
Mean
N
Std. Dev.
Mean
N
Std. Dev.

2.036
1044
1.468
2.422
930
1.696
2.463
726
1.745
2.313
6282
1.636

2.848
1038
1.455
2.891
935
1.464
2.763
747
1.593
2.831
6273
1.481

3.116
1032
1.462
2.774
939
1.474
3.203
730
1.532
3.076
6248
1.514

4.025
1031
1.553
3.777
928
1.555
3.989
745
1.628
3.857
6257
1.605

4.507
1036
1.622
4.714
931
1.558
4.505
733
1.697
4.388
6260
1.626

4.995
1031
1.532
4.944
933
1.593
4.974
731
1.560
5.105
6239
1.509

6.256
1056
1.293
6.162
955
1.374
6.024
744
1.515
6.219
6351
1.326

Teamwork
ENRS rank being productive more than the Service Industry and punctuality more than
Education. Agricultural Services, Health Services, and Service Industry rank positive attitude
significantly higher than ENRS (Table 13: Teamwork Characteristics’ Significant Differences,
Wald Statistic, and Standard Error as Compared to the ENRS; Table 14: Teamwork
Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error). Accountability is more important with
ENRS than Education and working with multiple approaches than Health Services and Service
Industry. Sharing ideas with multiple audiences ranks higher with the Service Industry than
ENRS. ENRS place less emphasis on diversity than Education, Health Services, and Other fields
but more than Product Creation.

Table 13: Teamwork Characteristics’ Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and Standard Error
as Compared to the ENRS
Characteristic:
Ag.
Services

Sig
Wald

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0.361
0.836

0.114
2.501

0.001
10.630

0.850
0.036

0.526
0.403

0.196
1.676

0.058
3.604

35

Table 13
(cont’d)

Std. Err.
0.074
0.074
0.074
0.073
0.073
Sig
0.310
0.042
0.607
0.001
0.483
Education
Wald
1.032
4.150
0.264
11.364
0.491
Std. Err.
0.074
0.074
0.073
0.073
0.074
Product
Sig
0.784
0.524
0.598
0.960
0.495
Creation
Wald
0.075
0.406
0.278
0.003
0.467
Std. Err.
0.119
0.118
0.118
0.117
0.117
Sig
0.778
0.705
0.493
0.844
0.847
Government Wald
0.080
0.144
0.470
0.039
0.037
Std. Err.
0.104
0.102
0.102
0.102
0.102
Health
Sig
0.232
0.598
0.020
0.458
0.028
Services
Wald
1.427
0.279
5.379
0.550
4.824
Std. Err.
0.080
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
Service
Sig
0.006
0.538
0.036
0.913
0.021
Industry
Wald
7.622
0.378
4.392
0.012
5.286
Std. Err.
0.082
0.081
0.081
0.081
0.081
Sig
0.520
0.256
0.988
0.381
0.285
Other
Wald
0.410
1.292
0.000
0.767
1.142
Std. Err.
0.087
0.086
0.086
0.086
0.086
significant ENRS LOWER PRIORITY than comparison field
significant ENRS HIGHER PRIORITY than comparison field

0.075 0.077
0.092 0.000
2.847 19.402
0.075 0.076
0.103 0.018
2.656 5.643
0.120 0.125
0.082 0.523
3.022 0.408
0.104 0.107
0.077 0.014
3.127 6.011
0.080 0.081
0.034 0.445
4.487 0.583
0.082 0.084
0.371 0.001
0.801 10.384
0.088 0.089

Table 14: Teamwork Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error
Characteristic:
ENRS
Mean
N
Std. Dev.
Ag.
Mean
N
Services
Std. Dev.
Mean
N
Education
Std. Dev.
Product
Mean
Creation
N
Std. Dev.

1
2.549
974
1.566
2.583
1406
1.517
2.621
1402
1.602
2.560
293
1.531

2
2.885
977
1.541
2.982
1405
1.537
3.076
1403
1.728
2.856
292
1.625
36

3
3.208
972
1.777
2.979
1400
1.765
3.176
1406
1.788
3.141
290
1.730

4
3.507
984
1.574
3.503
1396
1.594
3.755
1398
1.684
3.493
292
1.604

5
4.403
967
1.745
4.453
1405
1.715
4.446
1388
1.800
4.507
292
1.645

6
5.565
979
1.442
5.467
1401
1.515
5.398
1396
1.622
5.415
287
1.467

7
5.722
979
1.595
5.878
1390
1.453
5.445
1409
1.680
5.931
291
1.505

Table 14
(cont’d)

Mean

Government N
Std. Dev.
Health
Mean
Services
N
Std. Dev.
Service
Mean
Industry
N
Std. Dev.
Mean
N
Other
Std. Dev.
NonMean
N
ENRS
352603
Std. Dev.

2.564 2.961 3.281 3.565 4.366 5.418 5.705
427
1.548
2.599
1028
1.506
2.719
914
1.555
2.607
726
1.603
2.614
6196
1.553

430
1.671
2.866
1027
1.592
2.859
910
1.589
3.011
734
1.676
2.962
6201
1.630

423
1.800
3.017
1033
1.720
3.051
916
1.705
3.206
729
1.765
3.092
6197
1.757

425
1.674
3.569
1024
1.636
3.512
908
1.659
3.587
727
1.662
3.586
6170
1.647

423
1.781
4.579
1027
1.691
4.574
904
1.759
4.481
725
1.797
4.490
6164
1.748

428
1.493
5.652
1024
1.444
5.401
906
1.539
5.483
721
1.497
5.468
6163
1.528

420
1.529
5.579
1027
1.610
5.669
916
1.615
5.469
729
1.712
5.641
6184
1.604

Professionalism
ENRS place more emphasis on effective relationships than Education but less than
Government and Service Industry (Table 15: Professionalism Characteristics’ Significant
Differences, Wald Statistic, and Standard Error as Compared to the ENRS; Table 16:
Professionalism Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error). ENRS also place
more emphasis on accepting critique than Agricultural Services and Service Industry.
Trustworthiness is more important with Agricultural Services, Education, Health Services, and
Service Industry than the ENRS. ENRS rank the mentor relationship higher than Government
and Product Creation and dealing with ambiguity higher than Agricultural Services and Health
Services.

37

Table 15: Professionalism Characteristics’ Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and Standard
Error as Compared to the ENRS
Characteristic:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sig
Ag.
0.792
0.041
0.021
0.767
0.660 0.675 0.028
Wald
Services
0.070
4.178
5.305
0.087
0.194 0.176 4.821
Std. Err.
0.076
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.076 0.076 0.076
Sig
0.006
0.828
0.000
0.636
0.711 0.193 0.075
Wald
Education
7.473
0.047
15.344
0.224
0.137 1.696 3.175
Std. Err.
0.076
0.076
0.076
0.075
0.076 0.076 0.076
Sig
Product
0.214
0.065
0.998
0.492
0.368 0.015 0.440
Wald
Creation
1.545
3.415
0.000
0.473
0.809 5.869 0.596
Std. Err.
0.124
0.122
0.122
0.122
0.123 0.076 0.123
Sig
0.014
0.446
0.058
0.145
0.423 0.000 0.532
Wald
Government
5.999
0.580
3.594
2.119
0.643 14.595 0.390
Std. Err.
0.106
0.105
0.105
0.104
0.105 0.106 0.105
Sig
Health
0.728
0.130
0.002
0.272
0.077 0.092 0.000
Wald
Services
0.121
2.289
9.149
1.206
3.137 2.833 20.001
Std. Err.
0.082
0.081
0.081
0.081
0.081 0.082 0.082
Sig
Service
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.075
0.825 0.079 0.051
Wald
Industry
19.181
16.977
27.437
3.165
0.049 3.090 3.808
Std. Err.
0.086
0.084
0.084
0.084
0.084 0.084 0.085
Sig
0.302
0.315
0.516
0.141
0.469 0.066 0.965
Wald
Other
1.066
1.009
0.421
2.171
0.525 3.382 0.002
Std. Err.
0.091
0.090
0.090
0.089
0.090 0.090 0.090
significant ENRS LOWER PRIORITY than comparison field
significant ENRS HIGHER PRIORITY than comparison field

38

Table 16: Professionalism Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error
Characteristic:
ENRS
Mean
N
Std. Dev.
Ag.
Mean
Services
N
Std. Dev.
Mean
Education
N
Std. Dev.
Product
Mean
Creation
N
Std. Dev.
Mean
Government N
Std. Dev.
Health
Mean
Services
N
Std. Dev.
Service
Mean
Industry
N
Std. Dev.
Mean
Other
N
Std. Dev.
NonMean
ENRS
N
Std. Dev.

1
2.873
913
1.848
2.848
1349
1.830
3.085
1325
1.907
2.678
267
1.717
2.625
408
1.769
2.805
957
1.739
2.450
835
1.589
2.753
661
1.769
2.804
5802
1.795

2
3.419
912
1.780
3.553
1351
1.726
3.421
1323
1.750
3.647
266
1.821
3.479
407
1.707
3.524
960
1.761
3.750
835
1.766
3.491
658
1.712
3.538
5800
1.747

39

3
3.496
909
1.861
3.302
1343
1.782
3.197
1319
1.835
3.491
267
1.858
3.276
406
1.779
3.225
957
1.765
3.038
835
1.769
3.433
660
1.849
3.249
5787
1.804

4
3.786
915
1.993
3.763
1348
2.006
3.828
1325
2.016
3.681
266
1.905
3.958
406
2.001
3.686
957
1.987
3.956
831
1.949
3.634
664
1.957
3.788
5797
1.989

5
4.727
908
1.860
4.696
1334
1.853
4.770
1318
1.807
4.597
263
1.941
4.656
407
1.804
4.574
952
1.897
4.767
831
1.778
4.796
662
1.843
4.707
5767
1.840

6
4.730
911
1.855
4.758
1336
1.865
4.625
1321
1.877
5.015
264
1.837
5.136
405
1.773
4.885
9554
1.791
4.901
835
1.775
4.911
659
1.794
4.825
5774
1.832

7
4.906
906
1.817
5.061
1335
1.814
5.040
1312
1.795
4.808
266
1.834
4.837
405
1.732
5.270
946
1.716
5.073
831
1.782
4.883
656
1.892
5.045
5751
1.804

Leadership
ENRS rank seeing the “big picture” higher than Education, Service Industry, and Other
fields but rank dealing with conflict less than Government (Table 17: Leadership Characteristics’
Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and Standard Error as Compared to the ENRS; Table 18:
Leadership Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error). ENRS rank recognizing
when to lead and when to follow as second and dealing with conflict third, while Non-ENRS
rank them conversely. Respecting contributions is more important with the ENRS than Service
Industry and motivating and leading more than Government, Health Services, and Product
Creation. Leading others ranks fifth with ENRS and building professional relationships sixth,
while the Non-ENRS rank the aforementioned skills conversely. As such, Agricultural Services
and Government rank professional relationships higher than ENRS while the ENRS place more
value on it than the Service Industry. Lastly, ENRS rank recognizing change and leading the
change effort significantly lower than all fields except Government and the Other fields.
Table 17: Leadership Characteristics’ Significant Differences, Wald Statistic, and Standard Error
as Compared to the ENRS
Characteristic:
Ag.
Services

Sig
Wald
Std. Err.
Sig
Education
Wald
Std. Err.
Product
Sig
Creation
Wald
Std. Err.
Sig
Government Wald
Std. Err.
Health
Sig
Services
Wald

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0.915
0.011
0.075
0.004
8.273
0.075
0.295
1.096
0.121
0.082
3.018
0.104
0.234
1.418

0.174
1.846
0.074
0.702
0.147
0.074
0.755
0.098
0.120
0.167
1.909
0.103
0.999
0.000

0.154
2.033
0.074
0.264
1.248
0.074
0.574
0.316
0.120
0.030
4.731
0.103
0.496
0.464

0.258
1.282
0.074
0.643
0.215
0.074
0.166
1.916
0.120
0.670
0.181
0.103
0.523
0.407

0.882
0.022
0.074
0.732
0.117
0.074
0.023
5.203
0.120
0.007
7.275
0.104
0.007
7.249

0.046
3.993
0.074
0.324
0.974
0.074
0.101
2.696
0.120
0.030
4.715
0.103
0.783
0.076

0.009
6.854
0.075
0.015
5.893
0.075
0.003
8.751
0.121
0.686
0.164
0.105
0.016
5.823

40

Table 17
(cont’d)

Service
Industry

Other

Std. Err.
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080 0.081
Sig
0.030
0.491
0.356
0.000
0.778
0.000 0.004
Wald
4.689
0.475
0.851
14.029
0.079 24.813 8.330
Std. Err.
0.083
0.082
0.082
0.082
0.082
0.082 0.083
Sig
0.004
0.313
0.854
0.945
0.536
0.445 0.098
Wald
8.229
1.019
0.034
0.005
0.382
0.583 2.733
Std. Err.
0.088
0.088
0.088
0.088
0.088
0.088 0.089
significant ENRS LOWER PRIORITY than comparison field
significant ENRS HIGHER PRIORITY than comparison field

Table 18: Leadership Characteristics’ Mean, Sample Size, and Standard Error
Characteristic:
ENRS
Mean
N
Std. Dev.
Ag.
Mean
N
Services
Std. Dev.
Mean
N
Education
Std. Dev.
Product
Mean
Creation
N
Std. Dev.
Mean
Government N
Std. Dev.
Health
Mean
Services
N
Std. Dev.
Service
Mean
Industry
N
Std. Dev.
Mean
N
Other

1
3.109
948
1.989
3.114
1378
2.047
3.347
1359
2.018
3.252
274
2.052
3.293
416
1.971
3.214
996
2.021
3.307
873
2.039
3.343
694

2
3.361
949
1.938
3.493
1380
2.007
3.351
1362
1.999
3.426
275
2.010
3.236
416
2.002
3.370
996
1.958
3.440
875
1.991
3.293
694
41

3
3.784
948
1.709
3.895
1376
1.728
3.864
1355
1.730
3.714
276
1.663
3.572
416
1.710
3.737
987
1.751
3.866
877
1.697
3.759
692

4
3.866
946
1.807
3.944
1380
1.748
3.827
1359
1.784
4.033
274
1.820
3.814
419
1.767
3.805
990
1.732
4.171
875
1.831
3.855
688

5
4.291
933
1.896
4.275
1366
1.921
4.307
1360
1.965
4.586
275
1.900
4.593
415
1.891
4.518
985
1.925
4.301
878
1.982
4.341
690

6
4.334
948
2.092
4.158
1372
2.047
4.250
1358
2.055
4.098
276
2.137
4.064
421
2.062
4.307
989
2.098
3.845
875
2.123
4.251
689

7
5.199
943
1.800
5.014
1374
1.819
4.996
1356
1.902
4.826
275
1.910
5.291
416
1.686
5.006
984
1.846
4.975
876
1.830
5.054
688

Table 18
(cont’d)

NonENRS

Std. Dev. 1.991 2.016 1.676 1.817 1.955 2.104 1.846
Mean
3.260 3.388 3.811 3.912 4.370 4.159 5.018
N
5990 5998 5979 5985 5969 5980 5969
Std. Dev. 2.025 1.996 1.719 1.782 1.944 2.099 1.844

42

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
Core Skills
ENRS rank the core skills in the same order as the mean of all Non-ENRS rankings.
Both ENRS and non-ENRS put a priority on the base clusters of communication, decisionmaking/problem-solving, and self-management instead of the advanced clusters such as
professionalism and leadership. Seventy-five percent of employers within the ENRS rank
Communication within the top three core skills, and none of the employers rank Communication
as the least important skill cluster. Regardless of field, a priority of resource allocation can
promote communication, decision making, and self-management.
With the second largest range between the most and least prioritized core skills and the
second lowest mean standard deviation of the eight fields, the ENRS have a clear delineation of
prioritized skills. The ENRS field however, does not delineate between the top two core skills
[Communication and Decision-making/Problem-solving (DMPS)] as much as the other eight
fields. ENRS place a significant higher emphasis on DMPS than six of the seven other fields.
As such, students must be able to eloquently and intelligently write and speak about their critical
thinking skills throughout each academic exercise.
The employers within ENRS rank the DMPS as a critical cluster fourth (See Appendix C:
Significant Differences of ENRS Stakeholders) (Table 19: ENRS Significant Differences Among
the Stakeholders – Core Skills). Faculty and alum value DMPS significantly higher than students
and employers. ENRS Faculty may want to emphasize critical thinking in the classroom, as
research in college curriculums suggest (Arum and Roksa, 2011), but may face pushback from
students who do not value this skill as much and may not experience it during their internship
experiences. Undergraduate work experiences under senior level guidance instead may

43

emphasize Communication, Self-Management, and Teamwork while working with middle
management may experience an emphasis of DMPS, Communication, and Self-Management (the
rank order of top three core skills by ENRS alum).
The ENRS places the second highest emphasis, of the eight fields, on Experiences (the
fourth ranked core skill), significantly differing from Agricultural Services, the Service Industry,
and the Other fields. However, experiences, with the highest standard deviation of the seven
clusters, is a polarizing cluster for the ENRS as 20.6% say it is the most important, while 17.7%
say it is the least important. This could reflect either the great difference in quality of the student
experiences or a great difference in the student’s ability to communicate their experiences and
transfer their learning into their new employment.
Students within the ENRS place a significantly higher emphasis on Experiences as a core
skill than faculty, employers, and alum. If students remain motivated to find new experiences,
faculty can help to better incorporate the outside learning experiences into the curriculum design.
This includes a connection between internship experience (such as construction/engineering,
design details, budgeting) and the exercises in the classroom, thus enhancing a well-thought
through design. Experiences outside of the classroom for students in design professions may
include helping to grade assignments in other classes, working in professional student
organizations, and participating (under faculty guidance) in authentic design/planning projects
with budgets, clients, and zoning restrictions.
The ENRS places the least emphasis on Leadership (the sixth ranked core skill) of the
eight fields, significantly differing from all but the Government. Most professional firms within
the ENRS cluster have a clear hierarchy of job titles, from designer through project manager and
associate. The entry level employees are not selected for their leadership qualities, but can

44

develop these skills overtime with a firm or organization. ENRS faculty place the least emphasis
on Leadership of the four stakeholder groups, though not significantly less than the employers.
Possibly creating tension in the classroom and the office, students significantly emphasize
Leadership more than the faculty and the alum.
Communication – The Highest Ranked Core Skill
Listening effectively and the ability to communicate accurately and concisely are the top
two skills for each field, though only three of the eight (including ENRS) rank listening as
number one. With an average range of .07 between the two characteristics’ means, one of these
skills may easily become the most important with any individual, regardless of discipline. Of the
ENRS stakeholders, employers’ ranking has the greatest difference between listening and
accurate and concise. The close mean ranking for the ENRS and Non-ENRS fields may indicate
the relatively few significant differences in the top ranked characteristics as compared to the
characteristics on the opposite spectrum.
Across all fields, oral communication outranks written communication. ENRS place the
second least emphasis on oral communication and the second highest emphasis on writing skills
of the eight fields. This indicates the importance of technical writing to accurately explain
construction drawings as well as the design as a whole. The faculty is the only ENRS
stakeholder to rank written over oral, while students have the greatest difference between the two
means (Table 20: ENRS Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders – Communication
Skills). Frustration may exist in classrooms with faculty over-prioritizing written
communication. Regardless, each skill has value for an entry level employee and should begin in
the classroom. Other research shows a general trend towards less prepared recent graduates in
oral AND written communication (Stevens, 2004).

45

Asking good questions and using social media are the least prioritized characteristics of
the cluster, regardless of the field. Landscape Architects, however, asking rank good questions
as more important than six of the other seven fields, significantly differing from five. Asking
questions is a foundational component of the design process and may impact the increased
importance. Given the breadth of Landscape Architecture as field, universities cannot teach
every skill needed but can teach their graduates how to understand what they do not know and
how to find solutions.
Decision-Making/Problem-Solving – The Second Ranked Core Cluster
The top four characteristics (identify and analyze problems, take effective and
appropriate action, transfer knowledge from one situation to another, and realize the effect of
decisions) are inherent in the basic design process. Designers, regardless of specific discipline,
must begin with inventory analysis, proceed to use this information to make decisions, bring in
past experiences and experts from other fields, and understand the future impact. The few
significant differences in these four characteristics, as compared to the next three, indicate a
universal process for entry level employees to master these basic skills.
Creative and innovative solutions spikes in popularity against the other Fields as the
ENRS rank it with significant greater importance than the Product Manufacturers, Government,
and Health Services. As artistically inclined people, ENRS push for functional creativity in the
work place. Engaging in life-long learning is not as highly ranked with ENRS. This may reflect
a higher priority on the creative solutions, or an assumption that entry level Landscape Architects
will continue professional education to earn their license. ENRS put the highest importance on
the ability to think abstractly in comparison to the other Fields, again proving that working and
thinking outside of the box sets ENRS apart from the other fields.

46

Seven of the eight significant differences based on ENRS stakeholder ranking occur
between the student and another stakeholder. Overall, employers find the mid ground in ranking
as they do not have significant differences with any group (Table 21: ENRS Significant
Differences Among the Stakeholders – Decision-making/Problem-Solving Skills). The future
graduates should meet the average implicit needs of employers and work well with the mid-level
employees (alum). The physical classroom environment can introduce creativity in the
classroom by immersing students in the environment in which they will work, as Doyle, 2011,
suggests for enhanced authentic learning.
Self-Management – The Third Ranked Core Skill
ENRS place the highest value on the efficiency and effectiveness characteristic of the
eight fields. Of the seven characteristics, it has the lowest standard deviation, indicating the
highest assurance of its ranking. Employers and faculty place the highest value on this skill,
indicating that it can be implemented during internship or classroom experiences (Table 19:
ENRS Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders – Self-Management Skills). No matter
the learning environment, the bosses can teach the best processes to assemble and implement
professional documents without the need for continued review. This includes teaching students
to plan ahead to write term projects, creating assignments that can feed into the term projects,
and assuring the students complete each portion of the term project to meet high standards that
they do not need to redo them when the final is due. Faculty and employers should expose
students to professional documents, including formal letterheads through to a complete and
professional product.
Architects and engineers, under risk of losing a professional license, need their products
done well, while the time-management characteristics (work well under pressure and sense of

47

urgency to address and complete tasks) rank further down the list as the fourth and fifth most
important characteristics respectively. ENRS put the second least stress to work under pressure
of the eight fields, significantly less than Health Services, Service Industry, and Other fields.
Though it is the sixth ranked characteristic, adapt and apply appropriate technology is
significantly more important for the ENRS than five of the other Fields. As new technologies
emerge with more advanced features, ENRS expect their young hires to efficiently use the
correct software for design, sales, and reports. Students in ENRS majors, compared to most
fields, must learn to use multiple types of technology, keep up with software advancements, and
know when to use which tool so as best complete the project. Faculty and employers rank this
characteristic higher, though not significantly, than the compared stakeholders; entry level
employees, raised in the age of computers, can easier adapt to technology and assist the senior
level employees.
Experiences – The Fourth Ranked Core Skill
Overall, ENRS significantly differ from Agricultural Services, Service Industry, and
Other fields for five of the seven skill characteristics. These three of seven field comparisons
account for 58% of all differences within the cluster. Two key characteristics within the cluster
include placing higher emphasis on cross disciplinary experience than six of the seven fields and
less emphasis on leadership than six of the seven fields. As ranking suggest, recent graduates
must be able to lead, but the ENRS should also be able to appreciate, communicate, and work
with other professions. Landscape Architects (one discipline within the field), as the 2013 Labor
Statistics indicate, will work with architects, builders, designers, artists, engineers, foresters,
horticulturalists, planners, ecologists, and soil scientists and must come into their entry level
employment having previous interacted with these professionals. Similarly to leadership, ENRS

48

place significantly less emphasis on project management than two of the fields, indicating less
emphasis within this field for senior level tasks. As licensure increases across the nation for the
ENRS fields, leadership qualities among entry level employees may grow as more important
characteristic.
Related work or internship experience is the most important characteristic among all
eight Fields, but ENRS put significantly more importance on it than the Agricultural Services,
the Service Industry, and Other fields but less than Health Services. While the recent American
recession could have impacted the value of internships, every field as well as the students,
faculty, alum, and employers within the ENRS rank this characteristic first (Table 20 ENRS
Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders – Experiences). With a general agreement
among the ENRS stakeholders, employers and faculty can help bridge the learning environments
in the classroom and the office.
International experience ranks last with every field, and ENRS is in the middle of the
Fields’ means. During international experience, students in design professions can expand their
horizons but, as research indicates, do not articulate these skills (Gardner, et al, 2008). Instead,
employers during the 2011 APLU Summit, discussed that students only grow personally during
their study abroad and not professionally. An employer from the CASS Report (2011) writes “I
would like to see more students who are able to tell me what the experience taught them and how
it would make them a better fit for my company and the role they are pursuing.” Authentic
reflection, according to Doyle (2011) may include reports, portfolios, concept mapping, and
evaluations of each other and of oneself.

49

Teamwork – The Fifth Ranked Core Skill
Ten of the thirteen significant differences among the ENRS and the other Fields are
among Education, Health Services, and Service Industry (nearly 25% of all differences occur
with the Service Industry).
Each Field ranks productive as a team member and punctual and meets deadlines as the
most important characteristics. The design professions, however, place a stronger emphasis than
all other fields on being a productive team member, significantly more than the Service Industry.
Entry level employees will be expected to bring their skills to a team and complete their
assignment on time. These recent graduates will not be master of all skills, but having a strong
sense of self-awareness will enable them to bring their attributes to the table. Research indicates
that students often overestimate their own abilities when transitioning skills in the classroom to a
professional atmosphere (Ambrose, et al., 2010). Kalantzis, et al., (2005, p.93-94) suggest group
assessments for the individual to better understand the group dynamics and the skills needed and
accomplished for a project.
Designers place much less importance on the attitude of the employee. While this
characteristic is still the third most important among the ENRS, more emphasis is placed on the
quality of the work.
Similarly to stressing cross disciplinary experiences, working with multiple approaches
ranks higher compared to all other fields except for the Government. Entry level employees
within ENRS will be expected to think differently and evolve design ideas from abstract
concepts to construction details. The relatively low value for sharing ideas to multiple audiences
demonstrates that entry level employees may work on multiple types of projects but may not
present the finished product until more seasoned.

50

The most differences for this cluster occur with the sensitivity to diversity as the ENRS
undervalue this characteristic for three of the four significant differences. Unsurprisingly,
Education and ENRS have the greatest significant difference as educators must work with
students and parents from all backgrounds. The Non-ENRS value sensitivity more as historically
architecture and most related professions are male dominated fields. This further demonstrates
the trend among the ENRS that the quality of the product and the job-specific soft skills take
precedent over the personal relationship characteristics of entry level employees.
Effective teamwork activities can be difficult to instill in the classroom, as students will
have a variety of motivational levels. As a quote from the CASS report (Crawford, et al., 2011b)
demonstrates, students and alum reflect that many teamwork activities allow the weakest
members to rely upon the stronger members. The stronger members must work harder for equal
grading and learn that independent work better befits their talents. On a positive note students
can learn to work with varying personalities and adaptations during their extracurricular
activities and value experiences with other disciplines (Table 21 ENRS Significant Differences
Among the Stakeholders – Teamwork Skills).
Professionalism – The Sixth Ranked Core Skill
Though effective relationships with the customers, businesses, and the public is the most
important Professionalism characteristic, ENRS place the second least importance on it among
the eight fields. This further demonstrates that entry level employees will work in house with
various disciplines, but not sell the final product. Instead, the ENRS place more emphasis on
accepting and applying critique, further stressing the need for a quality product. Less emphasis
is placed on trustworthy, indicating that entry level employees may not work with confidential
client documents and should direct their attention to the quality of the product. As the ENRS

51

have the placed the second most emphasis on mentors, the new hires have a better chance of
finding a mentor than in other field types. However, the ability to work with the mentor is a low
ranked characteristic, indicating that entry level employees must be able to self-manage and
produce quality work without depending on the senior level employees. Overall, ENRS tend to
rank in the middle of the eight Fields and have a small gap between the most and least important
characteristics, demonstrating ambiguity in the field. Similarly, the ENRS stakeholders contain
relatively few significant differences (Table 22 ENRS Significant Differences Among the
Stakeholders – Professionalism Skills). A general education for professionalism allows great
fluidity for success in professions.
Leadership – The Seventh Ranked Core Skill
More than most employment fields, designers must understand relationships between
spaces, from long term planning and neighborhood scales to site details. Most fields rank seeing
the big picture as the most important characteristic, but ENRS significantly rank it higher than
three of the seven fields. Entry level employees should quickly master the office organization
while thinking strategically on site and at the desk. In contrast, most fields rank leading the
change effort as the last characteristic, and ENRS emphasize it significantly less than five of the
seven fields. Understanding when to lead and follow ranks as the second most important
characteristic, indicating that entry level employees may lead in certain situations. The ENRS
field does not want the entry level employees to change the structure and processes of the office.
This characteristic can develop over time as one progresses to project manager and associate
levels.
Faculty place significant more emphasis on the seeing the “big picture,” a critical
thinking skill (Table 23 ENRS Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders – Leadership).

52

This shift towards the first characteristic allows students to value the second characteristic
(recognizing when to lead and when to follow) more than faculty, though not significantly. With
the exception of characteristic two, the students place significantly more value than faculty on
skills that specifically mention leading. Students will push for leadership opportunities, possibly
overstepping boundaries, but can channel this motivation into student organizations. Faculty can
foster a positive student attitude by listening to input for curriculum and course projects, thus
following the suggestions of Weinstein and Novodvorski’s for an effective classroom.
Implications
Today’s global market places ever-increasing demands on our future work force, and
student must develop these vital skills to emerge as productive members in the 21st century.
There remains a fear that recent graduates and current students have not learned these skills and
have not learned to implement them in their field (Bolman and Gallos, 2011; Bok, 2006;
Gardner, et al., 2008). This study quantifies the priorities of different Fields in Agriculture and
Natural Resources to help bridge misunderstandings and guide improvement. Environmental
and Natural Resource Specialists have a distinct set of soft skill priorities for new graduates
entering the work force. Both the faculty and employers have an obligation to instill these skills
in the entry level employees through multi-dimensional projects and assignments, experiential
training during internships, and helping students connect the professional to the academic world.
Students and recent graduates have an obligation to remain open to alternative training methods
and authentically reflecting on their learning experience.
The ENRS respondents rank order of soft skills is: Communication, Decisionmaking/Problem-solving, Self-management, Experiences, Teamwork, Professionalism, and
Leadership. The employers within the field rank the core skills as Communication, Self-

53

Management, Teamwork, Decision-making/Problem-solving, Experiences, Professionalism, and
Leadership. Overall, ENRS most greatly differ from the Human and Animal Medicinal and
Health Services and the Service Industry, encompassing over 40% of all differences. The
classroom environment can involve conflict as the students constitute nearly 1/3 of all
differences among the four stakeholders, while student-faculty comparisons contain the most
significant differences (26 of the 99 total stakeholder differences). The two most emphasized
characteristics (as compared to other fields) include adapting and applying technology and crossdisciplinary experience while the least emphasized characteristics include leadership, leading the
change effort, a pleasant and professional attitude, and trustworthy with sensitive information.
While some of these skills may not be emphasized as much as others, each characteristic was
chosen from the literature as important components for success in the work force.
The findings can inform educational curriculum to match soft skill training with the
professional path of their students. While there is much in common, and ALL of the soft skills
are important, the priority rankings can aide in where to focus limited resources. The final
solution will be a combined education, industry and individual effort.
Limitations
The study faces limitations stemming from the original data collection. As each
university emailed the link to their list-serves, many of the employer links spread through word
of mouth. As such, the employer response rate is impossible to determine. Furthermore, the
demographic of the employer could influence their rank as they may serve as middle or upper
management. The list-serves were also sent through Colleges of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, while many of the design and construction disciplines remain in colleges based in
planning or design. The Other field proposes limitations as the employment demographics of

54

such respondents are unknown. These respondents may be a true anomaly, as the survey allowed
for an “Other” option, but those who left the demographic absent could have incorrectly
answered the survey.
While the hypothesis that ENRS will have significantly different priorities is accepted,
the ENRS do not significantly differ from the seven other fields in all characteristics. As such,
this study accepts the Type I error. The null hypothesis is true for skills and compared fields
without significant differences. Furthermore, a high Wald Statistic, as shown in the tables above
indicates the possibility of a Type II error. As one narrows the parameters of the study (e.g.
analyzing only ENRS students instead of all students, or further limiting to only female or male
students with the ENRS instead of all ENRS students), the likelihood of significant differences
without error increases (R value decreasing).
Future Study
Future work may include finding correlations of priorities so that students may take the
most effective interdisciplinary elective courses and faculty of elective courses can adjust their
learning objectives for each class depending on their student population. Each of the remaining
six named fields will also contain significant differences and correlations as compared to the
other fields and can help a multitude of students and faculty to direct curriculum, syllabi, and
learning for key soft skills. While this study runs tests for differences among ENRS stakeholders
to better interpret and understand field differences, a study is needed to further dissect and
discuss ENRS significant differences and correlations among the four stakeholders (ENRS
students, faculty, alum, and employers).

55

APPENDICES

56

Appendix A: Fields and Their Defining Disciplines
Agricultural Services
Faculty:
Agricultural Advocacy
Agricultural Production
Agricultural Supplies and Sales
Aquaculture or Fisheries
Biotechnology
Chemical, Pesticide, or Fertilizer Manufacturing
Food Manufacturing or Sales
Food Sales
Alum:
Agricultural Advocates
Agricultural Inputs, Manufacturing, or Sales
Agricultural Production
Biotechnology
Chemical, Pesticide, or Fertilizer
Food Manufacturing, Processing, or Sales
Agricultural Advocates
Chemical, Pesticide, or Fertilizer
Faculty:
Agricultural Business and Management
Agricultural Mechanization and Engineering

57

Agricultural/Public Services (including Communications, Extension Education, or Agricultural
Education
Food Sciences
Plant Sciences (including Agronomy, Crop Sciences, Horticulture, and Production)
Education and Knowledge Development
Employers:
Education K-12
Higher Education
Research
Alum:
Education
Research
Student:
Educator or Education Administration
Researcher
Environmental and Natural Resource Specialists
Employers
Engineering and Construction
Environmental Management or Consulting
Forestry or Forest Product Industry
Landscape Design or Landscaping
Parks, Recreation, or Golf Industries
Alum:

58

Design, Engineering, and Constructions
Forestry or Forest Product Industry
Parks, Recreation, or Golf Industries
Environmental Management or Consulting
Faculty:
Forestry
Natural Resources Conservation, Management, Research, or Policy
Landscape Architecture, Design, Construction, Recreation and Community Development
Related Sciences (Biological sciences, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Earth Sciences, Geography,
Biotechnology)
Wildlife Sciences and Management, Fisheries, Ecology
Student
Professional/Specialist: ecology, fisheries, forestry, landscape architecture, management research
or policy, Wildlife Science and Management
Product Creation/Manufacturing
Faculty:
Apparel/Textile Manufacturing or Sales
Energy Research, Production, or Distribution
Equipment Design, Manufacturing, or Sales
IT or Software Design
Sales or Manufacturing
Transportation
Alum:
Energy Production or Distribution
59

Transportation
Equipment Design, Manufacturing, or Sales
IT or Software Design
Faculty:
Apparel and Textiles
Student:
IT
Owner/Operator of Small Business
Professional/Specialist: apparel and textile
Government
Employers:
Federal Government – Non-regulatory
Federal Government – Regulatory
Military
State or Local Government – Non-regulatory
State or Local Government – Regulatory
Alum:
Government – Non-regulatory
Government – Regulatory
Military
Student:
Policy
Human and Animal Medicinal and Health Services

60

Employers:
Animal Health or Veterinary
Human Health or Medicine
Nutrition or Dietetics
Pharmaceuticals
Alum:
Animal Health or Veterinary
Human Health or Medical
Pharmaceuticals
Faculty:
Animal Sciences
Family and Consumer Sciences
Nutrition
Student:
Professional/Specialist: Animal science, family and consumer science nutrition
Service Industry
Employers:
Financial or Banking Industry
Hospitality Management/Hotel and Restaurant Management
Legal
Management Consultants
Marketing
Media or Communications

61

Real Estate
Social Services / Human Services
Alum:
Financial Industry or Banking Industry
Hospitality Management / Hotel and Restaurant Management
Real Estate
Legal
Marketing, Media and Communications
Management Consultants
Real Estate
Social Services / Human Services
Student:
Communications or Public Relations
Finance
Fundraising and Development
Human Resources
Management
Marketing and Sales
Retail
Other:
Responses of “Other” and those who did not answer the demographic question

62

Appendix B: Soft Skill Clusters and Characteristics as Ranked the ENRS
1. COMMUNICATION SKILLS:


Listen effectively



Communicate accurately and concisely



Effective oral communications



Communicate pleasantly and professionally



Effective written communications



Ask good questions



Communicate appropriately and professionally using social media

2. DECISION-MAKING / PROBLEM-SOLVING SKILLS:


Identify and analyze problems



Take effective and appropriate action



Transfer knowledge across situations



Realize the effect of decisions



Creative and have innovative solutions



Engage in life-long learning



Think abstractly about problems

3. SELF-MANAGEMENT SKILLS:


Efficient and effective work habits



Self-starting



Well-developed ethic, integrity and loyalty



Work well under pressure



Sense of urgency to complete tasks
63



Adapt and apply appropriate technology



Dedication to continued professional development

4. EXPERIENCES:


Related work or internship experiences



Cross disciplinary experiences



Leadership experiences



Teamwork experiences



Project management experiences



Community engagement experiences



International experiences

5 .TEAMWORK SKILLS:


Productive as a team member



Punctual and meets deadlines



Positive and encouraging attitude



Maintains accountability to the team



Work with multiple approaches



Share ideas to multiple audiences



Aware and sensitive to diversity

6. PROFESSIONALISM SKILLS:


Effective relationships with customers, businesses and the public



Accept critique and direction in the work place



Trustworthy with sensitive information



Understand role, realistic career expectations
64



Maintain appropriate decor and demeanor



Select mentor and acceptance of advice



Deal effectively with ambiguity

7. LEADERSHIP SKILLS:


See the “big picture” and think strategically



Recognize when to lead and when to follow



Recognize and deal constructively with conflict



Respect and acknowledge others contributions



Motivate and lead others



Build professional relationships



Recognize change is needed and lead the change effort

65

Appendix C: Significant Differences of ENRS Stakeholders
Skills ranked in this appendix do not reflect the ENRS order of core skills and characteristics but
the order of the employers within the ENRS. The letter indicates the stakeholder that places
higher emphasis on the skill/characteristic: S= student, F=faculty, A=alum, E=employer

Table 19: ENRS Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders - Core Skills

Comm.
DM/PS
Self-Manage.
Experiences
Teamwork
Profess.
Leadership

Employer
-Student
0.047 E

EmployerAlum

FacultyStudent

0.025 E

0.043 A

0.003 E

FacultyAlum

StudentAlum

0.005 F
0.000 F
0.006 S

0.033 F

0.013 A
0.003 A
0.001 S

0.000 S

0.019 E
0.024 S
0.003 E
0.041 S

EmployerFaculty

0.001 A

0.016 S

0.011 E

Table 20: ENRS Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders - Communication Skills
EmployerStudent
Listen
Ac&Concise
Pleasant
Oral
Written
Questions
Social
Media

EmployerFaculty

EmployerAlum

FacultyStudent

FacultyAlum

StudentAlum

0.005 E

0.000 S

0.001 A

0.002 S

0.001 F

0.000 F
0.000 F
0.000 S

0.000 F

0.000 A
0.000 A
0.000 S

0.021 E
0.017 S

66

Table 21: ENRS Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders – Decision-making/Problem
Solving Skills
EmployerStudent

EmployerFaculty

EmployerAlum

Identify
Action
Effect
Transfer
Creative
Life. Learn
Abstract

FacultyStudent
0.000 F

FacultyAlum

StudentAlum
0.035 A

0.021 A
0.001 S
0.006 F
0.029 S

0.032 F
0.007

Table 22: ENRS Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders – Self-Management Skills
EmployerStudent
Effective
SelfStarting
Ethic
Urgency
Pressure
Technology
Prof. Devel.

EmployerFaculty

EmployerAlum
0.028 E

FacultyStudent

FacultyAlum
0.013

StudentAlum
0.024 S
0.000 A

0.000 E

0.000 F

0.000 A
0.001 A

0.001 A

0.027 S

0.025 S
0.000 S
0.000 S

0.001 F

0.000 S

0.046 E
0.001 S

Table 23: ENRS Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders - Experiences
EmployerStudent
Work
Teamwork
Leadership
Proj. Mngmt.
Cross Disc.
Community
International

0.011 F
0.001 E
0.001 F

EmployerAlum

0.004 E

67

FacultyStudent

FacultyAlum

0.002 S

0.027 S

EmployerFaculty

0.026 A
0.014 A
0.002 F

0.000 F
0.000 S
0.000 F

0.000 F

StudentAlum
0.014 S

0.000 A
0.004 A
0.000 S

Table 24: ENRS Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders - Teamwork Skills
EmployerStudent
Productive
Attitude
Accountable
Deadlines
Approaches
Audiences
Diversity

EmployerFaculty

Employer
-Alum

FacultyStudent

FacultyAlum

0.009 E

StudentAlum
0.000 A

0.013 S

0.018 A
0.022 F
0.038 A

0.000 A

Table 25: ENRS Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders – Professionalism Skills
EmployerStudent
Customers
Critique
Role
Trustworthy
Ambiguity
Décor
Mentor

EmployerFaculty
0.026 E

Employer
-Alum

FacultyStudent
0.001 S

FacultyAlum
0.000 A

StudentAlum
0.040 A

0.003 F
0.017 F

0.000 S

0.000 F

0.001 S
0.002 F

0.021 F

Table 26: ENRS Significant Differences Among the Stakeholders - Leadership Skills
Employer
-Student

EmployerFaculty

Employer
-Alum

FacultyAlum

0.000 F

Big Picture
LeadFollow
Respect
Conflict
Relationships
Motivate
Lead Change

FacultyStudent
0.041 F

0.001 F

0.013 S
0.000 S

68

Student
-Alum

0.010 S

REFERENCES

69

REFERENCES

Agriculture Future of America, The, and Millennium Research. "Afa Corporate Study." 1-19.
Kansas City: Agriculture Future of America, 2009.
Agriculture Future of America, The, and Millennium Research. "Future Leader Preparedness
Study." 1-4. Kansas City: Agriculture Future of America, 2009.
Agriculture Future of America, The, and Millennium Research. "Afa Student Study." 1-27.
Kansas City: Agriculture Future of America, 2009.
Ambrose, Susan A., Michael W. Bridges, Michelle DiPietro, Marsha C. Lovett, and Marie K.
Norman. How Learning Works: 7 Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2010.
APLU. 2011 National Academic Programs Summit 2011. Cited December 2011.
Arocena, P., Imanol Nunez, and Mikel Villanueva. "The Effect of Enhancing Workers'
Employability on Small and Medium Enterprises: Evidence from Spain." Small Business
Economics 29 (2007): 191-201.
Arum, Richard, and Josipa and Roksa. Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College
Campuses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.
Atkins, M.J. "Oven-Ready and Self-Basting: Taking Stock of Employability Skills." Teaching in
Higher Education 4, no. 2. 1999.
Barkley, Andrew P., Wendy A. Stock, and Cynthia K. Sylvius. "Agricultural Graduate Earnings:
The Impacts of College, Career, and Gender." American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 81, no. 4 (1999): 785-800.
Barry, Nancy. When Reality Hits: What Employers Want Recent College Graduates to Know.
Dallas: Brown Books Publishing Group, 2007.
Bok, Derek. Our Underachieving Colleges: A Candid Look at How Much Students Learn and
Why They Should Be Learning More. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006.
Bolman, L.G. & Gallos, J.V. (2011). Reframing Academic Leadership. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Boyer, Ernest L. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of Professoriate. Stanford, CA: The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990.
Chao, Georgia T., and Philip D. Gardner. "Important Characteristics of Early Career Jobs: What
Do Young Adults Want?", 1-16. E. Lansing: Michigan State University, 2007.
70

Chao, Georgia T., and Phillip D. Gardner. "Young Adults at Work: What They Want, What They
Get, and How to Keep Them." 1-13. E. Lansing: MIchigan State University, 2008.
Commission for Employment and Skills. "The Employability Challenge." 1-76. South Yorkshire,
UK: UK Commission for Employment and Skills, 2009.
Commonwealth of Australia, The. "Employability Skills and Workplace Culture in Australia. ."
edited by East Perth: Department of Education and Training. East Perth, 2009.
Conference Board of Canada, The. "Employability Skills 2000+." 1-2. Ottawa, CA: Conference
Board of Canada, 2000.
Crawford, Pat, Suzanne Lang, Wendy Fink, Robert Dalton, and Laura Fielitz. Comparability of
Soft Skills: Data Set. Washington, DC: Association of Public and Land-grant
Universities. 2011a
_____. "Comparability of Soft Skills: What Is Important for New Graduates?" Paper presented at
the APLU Academic Programs Summit, Indianapolis, In, August 2011b.
Crawford, Pat, Amber Johnson, Robert Dalton, Blue Brazelton, & Sihua Hu. Montessori Goes to
College: A Qualitative Case Study on Incidental Learning. Presented at Great Lakes
Conference on Teaching and Learning. Mt. Pleasant, MI., 2012.
Dewey, John. Experience and Education. 15 ed. New York: Collier Books, 1938.
Donovan, M.S., J.D. Bransford, and J.W. Pellegrino. How People Learn: Bridging Research and
Practice. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999.
Doyle, Terry. Learner-Centered Teaching: Putting the Research on Learning into Practice.
Sterling: Stylus Publishing, LLC, 2011.
Fink, Wendy. The Importance of Soft Skills to Employers: AgWired: News from the World of
Agribusiness, 2011.
Gardner, Phil. Recruiting Trends 2012-2013. Collegiate Employment Research Institute. 42 ed.
East Lansing: Michigan State University, 2013
Gardner, Dr. Phil, Ian Render, and Noelle Sciarini. "Recruiting Trends 2010-2011." In
Recruiting Trends, 1-38. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 2011.
Gardner, Phillip, Linda Gross, and Inge Steglitz. "Unpacking Your Study Abroad Experience:
Critical Reflection for Workplace Competencies." 12. Michigan State University, 2008.
Gardner, Phil. "Moving up or Moving out of the Company? Factors That Influence the
Promoting or Firing of New College Hires." 1-7. East Lansing: Michigan State
University, 2007.
71

Grisel, H. and B. Parker. Graduate Attributes: A Baseline Study on South African Graduates
from the Perspective of Employers. Pretoria: Higher Education South Africa, 2009
Hacker, Andrew, and Claudia Dreifus. Higher Education. New York: Henry Holt and Company,
LLC, 2010.
Hanneman, Larry F., and Philip D. Gardner. "Changing Employer Expectations: Under the
Economic Turmoil a Skills Gap Simmers." Paper presented at the American Society for
Engineering Education, Vancouver, B.C. 2011.
Ibm Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 19, Armonk, New York.
Ivancevich, Susan, Daniel Ivancevich, and Richard Roscher. "The First Two Years of
Employment: Strategies and Pitfalls." The CPA Journal 79, no. 7 (2009).
Jagger, Nick. "Employers' Views of Postgraduate Physicists." 1-41. Swindon, UK: Institute for
Employment Studies 2001.
Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative,
Competitive, and Individualistic Learning. 5 ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1999.
Kalantzis, Mary, Bill Cope, and the Leaning by Design Project Group. Learning by Design.
Melbourne: Victorian Schools Innovation Commission, 2005.
Kay, Ken. "Forward." In 21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn. Bloomington:
Solution Tree Press, 2010.
Levy, F., and R. Murnane. The New Division of Labor: How Computers Are Creating the Next
Job Market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.
Lowden, Kevin, Stuart Hall, Dr. Dely Elliot, and Jon Lewin. "Employers' Perceptions of the
Employability Skills of New Graduates." 1-42. London: The SCRE Centre Research in
Education at the University of Glasgow, 2011.
Mallett-Hamer, Beverly. "Communication within the Workplace." University of WisconsinStout, 2005.
Mattson, M.P., W. Duan, R. Wan, and Z. Guo. "Prophylactic Activation of Neuroprotective
Stress Response Pathways by Dietary and Behavioral Manipulation." NeuroRx (2004).
Michigan State University Committee on Liberal Learning. "Liberal Learning at MSU." 2009.
Modie, J. "Good" Chemical: Neurons in Brain Elevated among Exercise Addicts." Science Daily
(2003).

72

North Central Regional Education Laboratory. Traits of Authentic Learning 2011 [cited January
2013]. Available from
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/science/sc500.htm.
Nyhus, Ellen K., and Empar Pons. "The Effects of Personality on Earnings." Journal of
Economic Psychology 26 (2005): 363-84.
Pascarella, Ernest T., Charles Blaich, Georgianna L. Martin, and Jana M. Hanson. "How Robust
Are the Findings of Academically Adrift?" Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning
2011, 20-24.
Plamondon, Kevin E., Michelle A. Donovan, Elaine D. Pulakos, and Sharon Arad. "Adaptability
in the Workplace: Development of a Taxonomy of Adaptive Performance." Journal of
Applied Psychology 85, no. 4 (2000): 612-24.
Reuben, Julie A. The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the
Marginalization of Morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Robinson, J. Shane, Bryan L. Garton, and Paul R. Vaughn. "Becoming Employable: A Look at
Graduates' and Supervisors' Perception of the Skills Needed for Employability." North
American of Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture 51 (2007): 19-26.
Scholar Ship. Study Abroad Boosts Employability Say Global HR Execs in New
Study. 2007. http://old.goinglobal.com/newsletter_atricles/june07_general_study.asp
Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. "Skills and Tasks for Jobs: A Scans
Report for America 2000." 1-5529. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, 2000.
Stern, Y. "Cognitive Reserve." Neuropsychologia 47 (2009): 2015-28.
Stevens, Betsy. "How Satisfied Are Employers with Graduates' Business Communication Skills?
A Survey of Silicon Valley Employers." 1-12: Elon University, 2004.
Tagg, John. The Learning Paradigm College. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.,
2003.
Trilling, Bernie, and Charlie Fidel. 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment Statistics, 2013.
http://www.bls.gov/home.htm
Weinstein, Carol Simon, and Ingrid Novodvorsky. Middle and Secondary Classroom
Management: Lessons from Research and Practice. 4 ed. New York: McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc, 2011.

73

Weuve, Jennifer, Jae Hee Kang, JoAnn E. Manson, Monique M.B. Breteler, James H. Ware, and
Francine Grodstein. "Physical Activity, Including Walking, and Cognitive Function in
Olden Women." The Journal of the American Medical Association 292, no. 12 (2008):
1454-61.
Wickramasinghe, Vathsala, and Lasantha Perera. "Graduates', University Lecturers' and
Employers' Perception Towards Employability Skills." Education + Training 52, no. 3
(2010).
Wilton, Nick. "Do Employability Skills Really Matter in the UK Graduate Labour Market? The
Case of Business and Management Graduates." Work, Employment, & Society 25, no. 85
(2011).
Zaharim, A., Y. Yosoff, O. Mohd, A. Mohamed, N. Muhanad. Engineering employability skills
required by employers in Asia. 6th WSEAS International Conference on Engineering
Education (2009).

74