Unraveling the concept of employability, bringing together research on employability in higher education and the workplace

ABSTRACT

In different streams of literature employability has been defined in different, often related ways. We take an interdisciplinary approach, combining insights from research on higher education and workplace learning, taking a Western perspective. In doing so we take a multi-dimensional, competence-based approach. Our approach to conceptualizing employability responds to research from both disciplines arguing for a need of integrating approaches to employability, for a unified overview of conceptual frameworks and agreement on definitions of the concept. We conclude that models of employability from these different disciplines can reinforce each other. Certain dimensions of employability are less taken into account in one discipline, while receiving a lot of attention in the other. Hence, our work opens new avenues for conceptual and empirical research on employability in both domains. Moreover, it might influence how researchers and practitioners research and support (lifelong) learning for employability, both in higher education and in the workplace.

KEYWORDS:

• Employability
• European higher education area
• conceptions
• workplace learning
• professional competences

1. Introduction

In our globally competitive knowledge economy, where change is an everyday reality, the importance of employability is generally agreed-upon by policy makers and scholars alike (Peeters et al. 2019). Higher education institutions need to prepare students for jobs that do not exist yet, for using technologies that have yet to be invented, and for solving problems that nobody has yet thought of (Kumar 2007). Once they are part of the labor market, graduates need to continue working on their employability in order to find and keep jobs (Akkermans et al. 2013). Hence, economic, political and social pressures compel policy makers and higher education professionals to prioritize the topic of employability in strategic agendas. Particularly since the 2008 economic crisis and its effects on both public funding for higher education and graduates’ struggles with finding connection to the globally competitive labor market, employability has been at the center of higher education agendas in many Western countries (see e.g. Pegg et al. 2012; Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap 2015; Artess, Hooley, and Mellors-Bourne 2017). In the light of these developments, we focus specifically on conceptualizations of employability in a Western context.

The topic is receiving a lot of scholarly attention. Employability research builds on a rich history (Forrier, Verbruggen, and De Cuyper 2015). The concept employability has been defined in many different, yet often related ways. Researchers from different academic backgrounds define and study the topic differently (Forrier and Sels 2003; Thijssen, Van der Heijden, and Rocco 2008). In face of the different approaches to studying employability, a widely shared criticism is that the concept is fuzzy, lacking clarity and specificity of meaning. Several authors from different disciplinary backgrounds have therefore stressed the need for creating more unified definitions and for integrating conceptual frameworks of employability (Knight and Yorke 2004; Helyer and Lee 2014; Forrier, Verbruggen, and De Cuyper 2015; Smith, Ferns, and Russell 2016; Small, Shacklock, and Marchant 2018; Peeters et al. 2019).

Our paper responds to said call for more integrated approaches to employability research by bringing together two streams of employability literature, where we found this call independently of each other. We combine insights from employability research in higher education and in workplace learning. These streams of literature have not yet been connected in that an in-depth study of conceptualizations of employability in both contexts has not yet been done. The reason for connecting these specific streams of literature is twofold. Firstly, research shows that both are on the same learning continuum. Higher education is commonly perceived as preparation for workplace learning, an assumption that underpins research on transfer of knowledge between different contexts such as from education to the workplace (Eraut 2009). Other authors go a step further, arguing for close connectedness between learning in higher education and the workplace (Hodkinson 2005).

The second reason is that in both research on higher education and the workplace, mostly conducted in Europe, we find competence-based approaches to employability. Competence-based approaches define employability as a multidimensional process that is in development over time (Forrier and Sels 2003; Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden 2006). All conceptualizations of employability included in our study deal with identifying competences at the level of the individual. It is generally agreed-upon that individuals need competences that help them manage both obtaining and retaining a job in a highly competitive labor market (Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden 2006). The concept of competence (also referred to as competency) is itself highly complex and understood differently in different contexts, as for instance the discussions about the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) from the Higher Education context show. Many different lists of competences exist at EU level that aim at giving education direction (Brockmann, Clarke, and Winch 2009, 2011). In line with Delamare Le Deist and Winterton (2005) we take a multi-dimensional perspective on competence including both what Delamare Le Deist and Winterton call conceptual and operational factors: knowledge and understanding, applied psycho-motor skills, behavior and attitudes and the ability to learn how to learn (Delamare Le Deist and Winterton 2005, 39). This approach is in line with other definitions of competence, such as the one of Athey and Orth (1999), where competency is defined as ‘a set of observable performance dimensions, including individual knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors … ’ (1999, 216).

Given the lack of connection between the different streams of literature, invaluable links might be missed and unnecessary discontinuities might occur. Hence our aim of exploring how both research streams might reinforce each other when it comes to defining employability competences by providing a comparative overview. The paper is organized as follows. First, we present insight in how employability is generally defined according to competence-based approaches in both streams of literature. Secondly, we present integrated overviews of frequently-cited conceptual frameworks of employability from the respective streams of literature, starting with workplace learning. Thirdly, we discuss similarities and differences between the two streams of literature and present an integrated overview of employability dimensions derived from the comparison. Next, we discuss implications of taking a more integrated approach to defining employability and make suggestions for future research.

2. A competence-based approach to employability: definition

All definitions of employability come down to an individual's (perceived) ability to obtain and maintain employment throughout his/her career (see e.g. Hillage and Pollard 1998; Harvey 2001; Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth 2004; Bridgstock 2009; Cole and Tibby 2013). We start by specifying the complex and multifaceted perspectives on defining employability from both the literature on higher education and workplace learning.

In higher education research the focus is on how to prepare students for the uncertainties, changes and challenges they may face throughout their careers. Hence, the Western employability literature focuses on competences that contribute to graduate employability (Knight and Yorke 2004; Dacre Pool and Sewell 2007; Kumar 2007; Bridgstock 2009; Pegg et al. 2012; Cole and Tibby 2013). In this context, studies perceiving employability from a perspective of competence-development are well established (Hennemann and Liefner 2010; Boahin and Hofman 2013; Jackson 2014; Hernández-Fernaud et al. 2017). When it comes to defining employability, in this stream of literature three authors are cited the most: Hillage and Pollard (1998), Harvey (2001) and Yorke (2006). First, Hillage and Pollard define employability as ‘the capability to move self-sufficiently within the labor market to realize potential through sustainable employment’ (1998, 2). According to these authors the employability of individuals depends on their knowledge, skills and attitudes. Moreover, they argue that employability is linked to career management skills or the way in which individuals mobilize, present and update their resources in the context of the job market. Harvey (2001) continues on the definition of Hillage and Pollard (1998). He defines individual employability as the ‘propensity of students to obtain a job’ (Harvey 2001, 98); adding to Hillage and Pollard (1998) that a distinction should be made between individual and institutional employability – the latter referring to institutional performance. Thirdly, according to Yorke the individual's employability is ‘a set of achievements – skills, understandings and personal attributes – that makes graduates more likely to gain employment and be successful in their chosen occupations, which benefits themselves, the workforce, the community and the economy’ (2006, 8). Yorke (2006) agrees with Hillage and Pollard (1998) in the sense that he connects the concept of employability to the ability of the individual to obtain and secure a job. However, in contrast to Hillage and Pollard (1998), he specifies the type of employment by referring to the term graduate job, i.e. a job an individual considers suitable for them. In addition, he clarifies that when talking about achievements, he refers to skills, understanding and personal attributes. The author points out that employability is a complex concept that depends on the individual's ability to mix and juggle with generic achievements and/or those related to a specific context. He also emphasizes that employability is a dynamic concept, constantly evolving and linked to the ability to learn from experiences.

Competence-based approaches to employability also emerged in literature focusing on employees’ learning and development in the workplace (e.g. McQuaid and Lindsay 2005; Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden 2006; Clarke 2008; Forrier, Sels, and Stynen 2009; Forrier, Verbruggen, and De Cuyper 2015; Peeters et al. 2019). Such competence-based approaches to employability focus on the identification and development of knowledge, skills and attitudes that contribute to effective performance in the labor market. A frequently cited definition of employability in workplace learning literature is ‘The continuous fulfilling, acquiring or creating of work through the optimal use of competences’ (Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden 2006, 453). However, between different studies terminology and conceptualizations of the competence-based approach differ. Forrier, Sels, and Stynen (2009) for instance speak of movement capital instead of employability. These authors define movement capital as: ‘individual skills, knowledge, competencies and attitudes influencing an individual's career mobility opportunities’ (2009, 742). Peeters et al. (2019) introduce the term employability capital as a variation on the term movement capital to emphasize that the competences identified for employability not only help people to successfully change jobs, but also to retain a job. Despite such differences in terminology, the different definitions and approaches all refer to behavioral tendencies directed at acquiring, maintaining and using competences in order to cope with changes in the labor market throughout a career (Thijssen, Van der Heijden, and Rocco 2008). Moreover, all scholars included in this study seem to agree that mobility has become central to our understanding of how careers develop (e.g. Forrier, Sels, and Stynen 2009). Concepts such as boundaryless (e.g. DeFillippi and Arthur 1994) and protean (e.g. Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth 2004; Hall 2004) career are introduced, referring to dynamic careers in which people need to take responsibility for self-managing (transitions between) different positions in or affiliations with multiple organizations and possibly even industries. Such a dynamic career environment requires workers to manage change continuously. Hence, competence-based approaches to employability are also well-established in the context of research on workplace learning.

3. Six leading conceptualizations of employability in workplace learning literature

This section focuses on the rich stream of literature on competence-based approaches to employability in the context of workplace learning. Specifically, six frequently-cited conceptual frameworks¹ of employability are discussed. All consist of sets of dimensions. These are clusters of competences.

The oldest of the six, the one by DeFillippi and Arthur (1994), defines a set of what the authors call career competencies. They distinguish three types: know-why, know-how and know-whom competencies (p. 308). Know-why competencies include a person's reflection on goals and motivation and awareness of personal as well as organizational values and interests. It also includes an individual's identification with corporate goals and culture. Know-how competencies refer to an individual's knowledge, skills and abilities needed to perform successfully in their career and jobs. The authors speak of ‘career-relevant skills and job-related knowledge’ (p. 309). Know-whom competencies reflect an individual's social capital (ibid.). This includes career relevant, professional networks of interpersonal relationships. Interestingly, Defillippi and Arthur do not use the term employability. Instead, they are one of the first to introduce the term boundaryless career, to refer to their at the time innovative approach focusing on career mobility. This term, as well as their distinction of know-why, -how and -whom is widely referenced in later studies.

Secondly, building on the stream of literature on the protean career (e.g. Hall 2004) Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth (2004) introduce employability as ‘a form of work specific active adaptability that enables workers to identify and realize career opportunities’ (p. 16). Focusing on person-centered factors, three component dimensions are defined. First, Career identity refers to how people define themselves in a career context. It describes ‘who I am or who I want to be’, which may include for instance goals, hopes and fears, personality traits, values, beliefs and norms (pp. 17,19). The authors explain that career identity resembles concepts such as role identity, occupational identity and organizational identity (p. 20). Referring to the approach of Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth (2004), McArdle et al. (2007) draw an explicit link between the concept of career identity and Defillippi and Arthur's know-why. Fugate et al.'s second dimension is Personal adaptability, defined as the ability to adapt to changing situations determined by personal characteristics that predispose individuals to engage in (pro)actively adaptive efforts, such as propensity to learn, locus of control and self-efficacy (p. 22). Thirdly, the authors combine social and human capital. Here, McArdle et al. (2007) again draw an explicit link to DeFillippi and Arthur (1994), relating social capital to know-whom and human capital to know-how. Fugate et al. define social capital as the ‘goodwill inherent in social networks’ and the size and strength of a network’ (pp. 23–24). The second part, human capital, includes a host of factors that influence a person's career advancement possibilities, such as age, education, cognitive abilities, emotional intelligence and work experience (p. 24).

Inspired by the framework of Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth (2004), Forrier and her colleagues (2009) identify four dimensions of what they call movement capital. Intentionally avoiding the term employability (because of a lack of consensus on the specific meaning and measurement of this concept), they instead define movement capital as: ‘skills, knowledge, competencies and attitudes influencing an individual's career mobility opportunities’ (p. 742). Their four dimensions show a lot of overlap with Fugate et al.'s dimensions, but they differ from the latter approach by drawing an explicit link to Defillippi and Arthur's framework, whereas Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth (2004) did not explicitly draw this link themselves. Forrier and colleagues separate Fugate's human and social capital into two distinct categories, respectively defined as ‘knowledge, skills and abilities […] to meet the performance expectations of a given occupation […] “knowing-how” competencies’ (p.743) and ‘social, career-relevant networks, “knowing-whom” competencies’ (ibid.). Instead of career identity, these authors speak of self-awareness, referring to knowing-why competencies, which they define as a person's awareness of their strengths, weaknesses, goals, values and beliefs. Forrier, Sels, and Stynen (2009) furthermore keep adaptability as well. This is defined as ‘the willingness and ability to change behaviors, feelings and thoughts in response to environmental demands’ (ibid.).

Fourthly, we include the much-cited conceptualization of Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden (2006). These authors deviate from DeFillippi and Arthur (1994) in that their approach does not include the know-why, -how and -whom distinction. Instead, they define five dimensions of employability. Firstly, occupational expertise refers to the knowledge and skills, including meta-cognitive ones, related to a particular professional domain. This also includes social recognition by important key figures. Secondly and thirdly, Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden introduce two different concepts for what they consider to be two different types of adaptation to changes in terms of employment: respectively anticipation and optimization and personal flexibility. The latter refers to what the authors consider adaptation in its basic form, namely passive adaptation to changes. This as opposed to the former, which ‘does not concern adaptation in its basic form, but rather entails preparing for future work changes in a personal and creative manner’ (p. 454). With this, the authors mean proactive willingness to anticipate and adapt to changes, by taking personal initiative. The fourth dimension of employability for Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden is corporate sense, or an employee's identification with corporate goals and the tasks and responsibilities of the organization they are part of. In this regard, the authors explain that employees ‘have to accept collective responsibility for the decision-making process’ (p. 455). The authors conclude with balance as fifth dimension. This is defined as compromising between opposing interests, at the employers or organizational as well as at the personal level (pp. 455–6).

A yet different approach to competences is taken by Akkermans et al. (2013). Similar to DeFillippi and Arthur (1994), these authors speak of career competencies, which they define as ‘knowledge, skills and abilities central to career development, which can be influenced and developed by the individual’ (p. 246). Referencing Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden when stating that ‘individuals increasingly need career competencies […]’ (ibid.), Akkermans et al.'s framework differs from that of Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden as it explicitly excludes what Akkermans et al. (2013) call ‘job skills and work competencies, which are aimed at successfully performing a job’ (p. 248). This way, they exclude Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden's occupational expertise. Instead, based on among others Defillippi and Arthur, Akkermans et al. distinguish between the following three dimensions: reflective career competencies are defined as focusing on creating an awareness of one's long-term career and on combining personal reflections and one's professional career. It includes reflection on motivation (reflection on ‘values, passions and motivations with regard to one's personal career’) and reflection on qualities (reflection on ‘strengths, shortcomings, and skills with regard to one’s personal career’) (p. 249). The second dimension, communicative career competencies, means being able to effectively communicate with significant others to improve one's chances of career success. It includes networking (‘the awareness of the presence and professional value of an individual network, and the ability to expand this network for career-related purposes’) and self-profiling (‘presenting and communicating personal knowledge, abilities and skills to the internal and external labor market’) (p. 251). Thirdly, behavioral career competencies entail the ability to shape one's career by proactively taking action. This includes work exploration (‘actively exploring and searching for work-related and career-related opportunities on the internal and external labor market’) and career control (‘actively influencing learning processes and work processes related to one's personal career by setting goals and planning how to fulfill them’) (ibid.). Particularly interesting for the purpose of our study is that Akkermans et al. indicate that the need for competencies that help manage ones career can be particularly pertinent in the case of young workers. However, although conducting empirical research among young workers (the mean age of their research participants is 19.5 years) the authors do not include frameworks from the higher education context in their study.

Lastly, in the most recent framework, Peeters et al. (2019) introduce the concept employability capital as a variation on Forrier, Sels, and Stynen’s (2009) movement capital. The authors propose this variation to better capture the combination of both obtaining and retaining employment (p. 3; emphasis added). Peeters and her colleagues specify the personal resources (referred to as capital and consisting of knowledge, skills and attitudes) that help individuals in addressing challenges they may face when aiming to strengthen their labor market position (employability). Building on the previously cited typologies, which Peeters et al. mark as key publications concerning employability and which they check with an expert-panel, they identify four dimensions, which are not as such further specified: job-related attitudes, job-related expertise, career-related employability capital and development-related capital. The term employability is used to differentiate between job-related, career-related and development-related resource categories. Furthermore, capital refers to knowledge, skills and attitudes as well as social capital (p. 9).

3.1. Integrating the six leading conceptual frameworks: five dimensions of employability in the workplace

As we have seen, all frameworks use a different approach and terminology in referring (more or less explicitly) to employability. Most studies, for instance, explicitly articulate and define the term employability (Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth 2004; Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden 2006; Peeters et al. 2019). Others, however, explicitly avoid this term (Forrier, Sels, and Stynen 2009) or do not define it (DeFillippi and Arthur 1994). Another difference is that some typologies are explicitly centered around competences (DeFillippi and Arthur 1994; Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden 2006; Akkermans et al. 2013) whereas others less so. Forrier, Sels, and Stynen (2009) for instance introduce the term movement capital instead. Furthermore, the frameworks differ in their approach to the different dimensions, which, as we have seen, are the competency-clusters they identify. Amongst the different studies, these clusters differ in number, emphasis and terminology. Despite these differences and in line with other authors (Forrier, Verbruggen, and De Cuyper 2015) we find a lot of overlap when comparing these six typologies. Hence, inspired by the work of Forrier and colleagues (2015), who call for connecting different notions of employability, we will now present five dimensions that summarize all six leading frameworks. The dimensions are explained and defined below and summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Dimensions of employability in workplace learning.

	DeFillippi and Arthur (1994)	Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth (2004)	Forrier, Sels, and Stynen (2009)	Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden (2006)	Akkermans et al. (2013)	Peeters et al. (2019)	Our five integrated dimensions
1.	Know-how competencies	Human capital	Human capital	Occupational expertise		Job-related expertise and attitudes	1. Human capital
2.	Know-why competencies	Career identity	Self-awareness	Corporate sense	Reflective career competencies		2. Reflection on self and organization
3a.		Personal adaptability	Adaptability	Anticipation & optimization	Behavioral career competencies	Development-related capital	3. Lifelong learning and (active and passive) flexibility
3b.				Personal flexibility
4.	Know-whom competencies	Social capital	Social capital		Communicative career competencies	Career-related employability capital (incl. social capital)	4. Social capital
5.				Balance			5. A healthy work-life balance

3.1.1. Human capital

The human capital dimension refers to the knowledge, skills and attitudes that are needed to meet the performance expectations of a given occupation or professional domain. Several authors explicitly utilize the term human capital (Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth 2004; Forrier, Sels, and Stynen 2009; Peeters et al. 2019). This dimension also encompasses DeFillippi and Arthur’s (1994) know-how competencies and Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden’s (2006) occupational expertise (knowledge and skills related to a particular professional domain). When combining the different authors’ perspectives it becomes clear that human capital refers both to job-specific and to generic and meta-cognitive knowledge, skills and attitudes that enable individuals to thrive in the labor market. The latter not only includes subject-specific expertise and skills, but also a general insight in the labor market and development opportunities that are available (such as learning opportunities, available jobs and possibilities for transition). This way human capital also encompasses what Akkermans et al. (2013) call behavioral career competencies, or (active) work exploration and career control.

3.1.2. Reflection on self and organization

The second dimension focuses on reflection in the broadest sense. It is about awareness of the individual's position in the work context, including an awareness of personal goals, values, interests, expectations and motivations as well as strengths and weaknesses. As such it encompasses Fugate et al.'s (2004) career identity, Forrier, Sels, and Stynen’s (2009) self-awareness, Akkermans et al.’s (2013) reflective career competencies and DeFillippi and Arthur’s (1994) know-why competencies. In addition to reflection on a personal level, it includes reflection of the individual vis-à-vis the organization they are part of (Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden’s 2006 corporate sense). Hence, it also includes the extent to which the individual identifies with the organization's goals and values and the extent to which they are willing to accept collective responsibilities.

3.1.3. Lifelong learning and (active and passive) flexibility

Flexibility is an important dimension underpinning most of the frameworks. It includes a willingness and ability to both (pro-)actively and passively develop oneself and adapt to changing situations and environments. Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden (2006) explicitly distinguish between pro-active and passive adaptation, speaking respectively of anticipation and optimization and flexibility. Other frameworks are less clear about this distinction. Therefore, we stress that both are included in this dimension. Following Peeters et al. (2019), we furthermore make explicit that this dimension includes knowledge, skills and attitudes needed for lifelong learning as well.

3.1.4. Social capital

Except for Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden all typologies explicate social capital as dimension of employability. Although not explicitly defining social capital as a separate dimension, Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden do refer to it by mentioning that occupational expertise ‘also includes social recognition by important key figures’ (2006, 454). Moreover, this dimension is arguably implied in their corporate sense – which also includes team working skills. Social capital refers to embeddedness in relevant social networks and the knowledge, skills and attitudes to develop relevant work-related relationships. As such, it includes what Akkermans et al. (2013) call communicative career competencies, involving both networking and self-profiling abilities. These abilities are summarized in DeFillippi and Arthur’s (1994) know-whom competencies, which are also included by Fugate et al as well as by Forrier, Sels, and Stynen (2009) and Peeters et al. (2019).

3.1.5. A healthy work-life balance

Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden’s (2006) fifth dimension, balance, is not explicitly included in any of the other frameworks. Yet, we would like to re-introduce it as an explicit dimension. Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden define balance as ‘compromising between opposing employers’ interests as well as one's own opposing work, career, and private interests (employee) and between employers’ and employees’ interests’ (2006, 456). As such, one could argue that it is related to what we defined in our second dimension as reflection. In our understanding, however, balance adds an aspect that is not covered by our second dimension, namely the practical juggling of sometimes paradoxical demands that individuals face while working. This includes resilience and stress management and balancing what Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden refer to as investments and profits from a working relationship as well as the individual's (opposing) personal or private and work-related needs. Adding an explicit reference to work-life balance in our view thus adds clarification of this dimension.

4. An integrated overview of four leading conceptualizations of employability in higher education research

The analysis of the literature of higher education reveals that four models are regularly used to conceptualize the notion of employability in this context. We will first discuss the oldest and finish with the most recent one, respectively, the USEM model of Knight and Yorke (2004), the Key to Employability model of Dacre Pool and Sewell (2007), the Career management for maximum employability of Bridgstock (2009) and the Concept of graduate identity of Hinchliffe and Jolly (2011).

The USEM model² of Knight and Yorke (2004) is the oldest of the selected frameworks and probably the best known. This model had the purpose to make the discourse around the notion of employability more scientific. Probably the definition of employability proposed by Yorke (2006) was based on this model. In their model, Knight and Yorke (2004) propose a dynamic approach to employability by specifying a list of key skills that evolve along different phases, ranging from entry into higher education to continuous development in the workplace. More specifically, and as its name suggests, the USEM model is articulated around four interconnected components (Yorke and Knight 2006). The first component, Understanding (U) corresponds to the student's mastery of his or her subject of study and the ability to transfer that to other contexts. The second component, Skills (S) or Skillful Practices, is the procedural knowledge of the student. This knowledge can be generic or specific. The third component, Efficacy beliefs (E), is inspired by self-theories. It entails a student's perception of their intelligence, learning approach and the confidence they have in their abilities (self-efficacy) and their learning motivation. The fourth component is entitled Metacognition (M). It includes reflection and corresponds to the student's awareness of their knowledge, learning processes and willingness to learn (Knight and Yorke 2004). Although the USEM model is frequently-cited in higher education literature, it also has several limitations. The authors themselves recognize the need to deepen certain aspects of the model (Knight and Yorke 2004). For example, some authors criticize the USEM model for not sufficiently taking into account individual characteristics, such as motivation, personality, identity, etc. (Clark and Zukas 2013). Other authors criticize the complexity and lack of clarity of the model, which would make it difficult to apply and understand (Dacre Pool, Qualter, and Sewell 2014; Sumanasiri, Yajid, and Khatibi 2015).

Therefore, Dacre Pool and Sewell (2007) propose another model: the Key to Employability. Their aim is to introduce a model that is directly applicable and accessible to all stakeholders in higher education. In addition, these authors add a nuance to the definition of employability proposed by Yorke (2006). Indeed, for Dacre Pool and Sewell (2007), it is not enough to be successful in the position obtained. It is also important to be satisfied about the job: ‘employability is having a set of skills, knowledge, understanding and personal attributes that make a person more likely to choose and secure occupations in which they can be satisfied and successful’ (p. 280). Their model, starting from this definition, identifies five essential components of employability.

The first component revolves around the development of students’ expertise. Expertise includes domain-specific knowledge, understanding and skills. Secondly, the model includes generic skills as defined by Bennett, Dunne, and Carré (1999) as ‘the skills, which can support study in any discipline, and which can potentially be transferred to a range of contexts, in higher education or the workplace’ (p. 76). To identify a list of generic skills Dacre Pool and Sewell (2007) refer to research in which they enquired among employers which skills students need to be entrepreneurial. For example, skills such as ‘imagination/creativity; adaptability/flexibility’ (p. 282) are included in their list. The third component articulates emotional intelligence competencies. These include the identification and the management of emotions as crucial factors in terms of personal motivation and interpersonal relationships. The fourth component concerns career development learning. This entails that in order to preserve pleasure and success throughout their career, a student must be aware of the ways of creating and taking advantage of opportunities for reflecting on their abilities and interests. Work and life experiences are the fifth and last part of Dacre Pool and Sewell's (2007) model. To increase their level of employability, students must be confronted with life or work experiences. They must also learn how to take advantage of these experiences. According to the authors, these five components provide the basis for the Key to employability model. In addition, to be able to exploit these competences, students must be able to benefit from reflection and evaluation. Time for reflection should allow students to become aware of their abilities and to gain confidence in their capacities. This way, reflection enhances self-efficacy, self-confidence and self-esteem. The latter elements in turn are considered mediators of students’ employability. Indeed, according to the authors, a graduate with a sense of self-efficacy is more likely to get the job they target and to be successful in this job. The graduate with self-confidence will probably be more successful in their professional life. The graduate with self-esteem tends to evaluate their practices more realistically. Therefore, they will be better at identifying and addressing points for improvement and lifelong learning. Dacre Pool and Sewell (2007) regret that no empirical evidence has been provided for their model.

Thirdly, the model of Bridgstock (2009) is entitled Career management for maximum employability. Similar to Knight and Yorke, the author considers narrow definitions of employability that only focus on the development of general skills too simplistic. Instead, she proposes a continuous process of reflection and decision-making based on several skills: self-management skills; career building skills; discipline-specific skills and generic skills. In addition to this continuous reflection process, the model encourages to rely on the student's dispositional traits and factors such as ‘openness to experience, agreeableness, sociability, self-confidence and initiative’ (p. 37). The different components are defined as follows: the discipline-specific skills are skills related to a specific field of study. To define the notion of generic skills, Bridgstock uses the work of Kearns (2001) who defines these skills as ‘those transferable skills, essential for employability which are relevant at different levels for most’ (p. 2). Self-management skills refer to the student's ability to assess and coordinate his or her values, abilities, interests and goals. Lastly, career building skills are ‘the skills relating to finding and using information about careers, labor markets and the world of work and then locating, securing and maintaining work, as well as exploiting career opportunities to gain advancement or other desired outcomes’ (pp. 37–38). In this category of skills, Bridgstock (2009) includes, for example, the ability to create a social network or to identify professional opportunities. However, the author notes that little empirical research has been carried out around the link between career management competence and graduate employability.

Fourth and final is the model proposed by Hinchliffe and Jolly (2011). In an empirical study conducted among 100 employers, these authors question definitions of employability that consist of a list of competences. Rather than proposing a traditional model solely focused on the transfer of employability competences, they propose to broaden the scope and instead study the student's identity potential. Their results show that four components play an important role in promoting graduate identity. The first is ‘the extent to which the graduate has engaged with values’ (p. 575). For Hinchliffe and Jolly (2011), the student's capacity to become aware of and to share social, ethical and entrepreneurial values is crucial in terms of employability. Second, intellect. That is: the level of expertise developed by students within their specific discipline, their curiosity, creativity and reflexive capacity. Thirdly, Hinchliffe and Jolly (2011) discuss the performance or ability to produce results. Performance is defined as ‘the application of skills and intellect in the workplace and for the graduate this equates the ability to learn quickly and effectively and to develop skills appropriate to the role’ (p. 578). Some skills are considered specifically important in this regard, namely interpersonal skills, written communication and IT skills. Hinchliffe and Jolly’s (2011) last component is ‘engagement’, which is ‘a willingness to meet personal, employment and social challenges head on and to be “outward looking”’ (p. 580).

4.1. Integrating the models: six dimensions of employability in higher education

Although each model has its own characteristics, a comparison reveals several similarities. In this section, we list those similarities and differences to give an overall overview of the concept of employability in higher education. Table 2 provides a summary of the different component dimensions.

Table 2. Dimensions of employability in higher education research.

	Yorke and Knight (2006)	Dacre Pool and Sewell (2007)	Bridgstock (2009)	Hinchliffe and Jolly (2011)	Our six integrated dimensions
1.	Understanding	Knowledge, understanding and skills	Discipline-specific skills	Intellect	1. (Applying) disciplinary knowledge
2.	Skilful practices	Generic skills	Generic skills	Performance	2. Transferable generic skills
3.		Emotional intelligence competencies			3. Emotional regulation
4.		Career development learning	Career building skills	Engagement	4. Career development skills
5.	Metacognition	Reflection and evaluation	The self-management skills		5. Self-management
6.	Efficacy beliefs	Self-efficacy, self-confidence and self-esteem	Underpinning traits and dispositions	Values	6. Self-efficacy

4.1.1. (Applying) disciplinary knowledge

The mastery of discipline-specific knowledge plays a central role in each of the leading conceptual frameworks. More than knowledge, often confused with retention, Knight and Yorke (2004) prefer to speak of understanding and mastery. Hinchliffe and Jolly (2011) add to these notions of knowledge and understanding the importance of being able to apply and develop academic background through intellectual curiosity, creativity and the ability to reflect on achievements.

4.1.2. Transferable generic skills

Transferable generic skills are also mentioned in each framework. Knight and Yorke (2004) talk about skillful practices to emphasize the transferability of these skills. Hinchliffe and Jolly (2011) present these skills as the basis for the individual's performance and results. Many lists of skills have been published (Dacre Pool and Sewell 2007). Examples of generic skills include ‘information literacy, working with technology, written and verbal communication, working in teams and numeracy’ (Bridgstock 2009, 37). Hinchliffe and Jolly (2011) also report different generic skills, such as interpersonal skills, written skills, presentations skills, IT and numeracy.

4.1.3. Emotional regulation

Emotional intelligence is not addressed in all models. Dacre Pool and Sewell (2007) mainly address this component. As mentioned above, according to these authors developing the ability of students to regulate and resonate around emotions is likely to increase their employability competences. Furthermore, these authors claim that the development of emotional intelligence promotes personal motivation, strengthens the relationships and the health of the individual. Although the other models do not explicitly address ‘emotional intelligence’, they all emphasize the importance of creating and maintaining positive interpersonal relationships. That is why we identify emotional regulation as an important dimension.

4.1.4. Career development skills

Another component, which is recognized as important relates to the development of capacity for career building. According to Bridgstock (2009), a pro-active graduate in terms of career development is likely to have more realistic professional expectations and build coherent career scenarios. In her model, Bridgstock presents several skills that can develop this capacity, such as ‘knowing how to effectively apply for and obtain work; representing one's skills and abilities in a way that is attractive to employers or clients’ (p. 38). In addition, Dacre Pool and Sewell (2007) argue that the development of this capacity increases the chances of success and professional satisfaction.

4.1.5. Self-management

This component is originally proposed by Bridgstock (2009). It refers to skills that allow the individual to self-evaluate, evaluate his or her practices and the different facets of his or her identity. Nevertheless, the need to adopt a self-reflexive practice is also present in other frameworks. For example, Dacre Pool and Sewell (2007) highlight the need to give students time for evaluation and reflection on their learning experiences in order to develop their employability. In addition, the concept of metacognition from the model of Knight and Yorke (2004) could be part of this dimension.

4.1.6. Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy, self-confidence and self-esteem are central components of employability in all frameworks discussed. These elements are linked to the willingness to act, the motivation, the positive attitude towards problems, the development of positive relationships and lifelong learning.

5. Towards an integrated overview of employability: similarities and differences between higher education and workplace learning

Having unraveled the definitions and concept-dimensions of the leading conceptual frameworks of employability in both research on higher education and workplace learning, we now continue with comparing and contrasting the insights from the two research streams. From the literature on workplace learning, we take the five competence dimensions identified: (1) Human capital, (2) Reflection on self and organization, (3) Lifelong learning and (active and passive) flexibility, (4) Social capital and (5) A healthy work-life balance. These dimensions are compared to the six dimensions we identified based on the higher education literature: (1) (Applying) disciplinary knowledge, (2) Transferable generic skills, (3) Emotional regulation, (4) Career development skills, (5) Self-management and (6) Self-efficacy. An integrated overview of the components from both streams of literature is provided in Table 3.

Table 3. Comparison of the dimensions of employability in workplace learning research and higher education research.

Dimensions/Research strand	Workplace learning	Higher education
Dimension 1	Human capital	(Applying) disciplinary knowledge
Dimension 2	Social capital	Transferable generic skills
Dimension 3	–	Emotional regulation
Dimension 4	Lifelong learning and (active and passive) flexibility	Career development skills
Dimension 5	Reflection on self and organization	Self-management
Dimension 6	–	Self-efficacy
Dimension 7	A healthy work-life balance

First, the strongest overlap concerns the first dimension, Human capital, as conceptualized in workplace learning literature and the first and second dimensions in higher education literature, i.e. (Applying) disciplinary knowledge and Transferable generic skills. All three dimensions refer to the knowledge and skills, in other words the level of expertise, needed to perform a job well. Human capital is more broadly defined than its higher education counterpart, including both the know-how or expertise needed to meet the professional expectations of a given occupation as well as general insight in the labor market and development opportunities. Disciplinary knowledge on the contrary, more narrowly focuses on mastery and understanding of a specific subject matter. Hinchliffe and Jolly’s (2011) addition of the ability to develop academic background through intellectual curiosity, creativity and reflection brings the two domains closer together though. Furthermore, Transferable skills nicely complements Applying disciplinary knowledge as a counterpart to Human capital as this dimension includes the general skills needed to perform a given occupation.

Next, a parallel can be drawn between some Transferable generic skills identified in the higher education context and the Social capital dimension from workplace learning. This comparison specifically holds for those generic skills addressing (written and verbal) communication and teamwork. However, we have seen that the ‘Social capital’ dimension is broader than these generic skills, also including networking skills in general. The latter entails having the resources necessary for developing relevant work (or, we could add, study) related networks. The latter competence is less explicitly addressed in the higher education literature. We argue, however, that paying more explicit attention to this competence could be beneficial to students in higher education as well, as they also need to learn about the value of developing relevant professional networks and how to build these up (Baker-Doyle 2010).

Thirdly, Lifelong learning and (active and passive) flexibility (workplace learning) can be connected to Career development skills (higher education), dimensions 4 in Table 3. In this regard, both strands of research show that having the competence to continue learning and to (pro-) actively as well as passively adapt to changing situations and environments is considered pivotal for (maintaining) employability.

A fourth parallel concerns the dimensions Reflection on self and organization (workplace learning) and Self-management and Self-efficacy (higher education). All three have to do with meta-cognitive skills and are about reflection on one's goals and values (motivation), ambitions and identity (Zimmerman 2002). Previously, literature argued that self-efficacy, referring to beliefs about the capability to realize a task or execute (a) course(s) or action(s), was defined as a motivational variable (see e.g. Bandura 1977; Bandura 1986; Kochoian et al. 2017).

In addition to the similarities, both frameworks also introduce unique dimensions. While the higher education literature highlights Emotional regulation as a cluster of competences, workplace learning introduces the dimension A healthy work-life balance. Here we argue for complementarity in both directions. For, on the one hand, emotional regulation, or the ability to regulate and resonate around emotions is a phenomenon we see in all kinds of (social) situations (Koole 2009). Hence, it plays a role in the workplace as well. Regarding the workplace context, specific studies furthermore hint at a link between emotional regulation and our Social capital dimension, as social networks in the workplace have been found to be an important instrument for coping with emotions in the workplace (Bozionelos 2003). On the other hand, echoing what we have identified as A healthy work-life balance, research about resilience and stress management among students shows that also students need to learn how to deal with different (conflicting) demands and interests (see e.g. Struthers, Perry, and Menec 2000). Such research underpins the relevance of this dimension for the higher education context.

6. Discussion

Nowadays employability is defined as a multi-dimensional, competence-based construct in the fields of both research on higher education and workplace learning. As we have seen, the concept has been criticized for lacking conceptual specificity and clarity. Although higher education and workplace learning are two phases on the same lifelong learning continuum and although both streams of literature know some leading authors who have conceptualized employability by referring to various (clusters of) competences, both streams of literature were not brought together before. Our integrated overview of employability, presenting combined insights from higher education and workplace learning literature responds to calls for more integrated approaches to employability research. By integrating the different approaches, our analysis contributes to increasing definitional clarity. It becomes clear that identifying similarities and differences between the two, mostly European, streams of research enriches the conceptualization of employability for both research domains. Hence, we argue that both research streams reinforce each other when it comes to defining employability competences.

The ongoing discussion on which competences graduates should possess upon graduation underlines the relevance of our focus on defining employability in a Western context (McQuaid and Lindsay 2005; European Council 2012). In this regard, our contribution can be understood as a generic start focusing on general, widely-cited employability frameworks that deal with defining the concept. However, a generic approach might overlook less known (non-European/Western) frameworks as well as, for example, intercultural differences or cross-national differences in understandings of competences and thus employability (Brockmann, Clarke, and Winch 2011). Future research could set-up systematic narrative literature reviews on the conceptualization and measurement of employability and address the differences in conceptualization in different cultures and/or countries specifically.

Furthermore, given its broad focus on integrating perspectives on competence-based definitions of employability, our contribution might reinitiate the discussion on how to measure employability. Keeping in mind all dimensions and the links identified, employability could be measured through self-reports (e.g. such as in Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden 2006) or through questioning teachers and supervisors. Also, more objective measures could be called upon, such as tracking sick leave as an indicator of A healthy work-life balance or tracking career paths to measure Lifelong learning and (active and passive) flexibility. When measuring employability, including all dimensions is important in order to obtain a complete overview of strengths and weaknesses of a student or employee.

By providing a broad overview, our paper lays the groundwork for research on personal development practices that contribute to enhancing employability in the different contexts. In this regard, future research could for instance look into the relative importance of each competence depending on the career phase, sector, or type of task or function of an individual. This is important, because although several parallels between the dimensions from the different research contexts can be drawn, the relative weight and importance of the respective components might differ depending on the sector, function and moment in a person's career (e.g. student, graduate, mid- or late-career). Insight in the role and importance of competences at different moments in a career might shed new light on antecedents and outcomes of employability. In this regard, it might have consequences for how theory and practice look at (lifelong) learning for employability, both in higher education and the workplace. This way, a broader definition of employability might shed new light on Learning and Development policies, study programs, curriculum design and personal development planning. We agree with Knight and Yorke (2003, 2004) who state that the aims of providing a good, high quality curriculum and of enhancing employability are not oppositional, but that instead ‘good learning, teaching and assessment projects will be developing practices that are also likely to help students make good, well-founded claims to employability’ (Knight and Yorke 2003 as cited in Pegg et al. 2012, 33). Thus we see that curriculum design and personal development planning are closely linked to discussions on employability competences (Kraus and Vonken 2009; Billet 2015). Hence, future research can look into how pedagogical practices can support our integrated component dimensions of employability. For example at the question whether or not to include policies addressing the balance between private and professional life, as one of the employability competences might lead to courses or Learning and Development policies focusing more on wellbeing and job satisfaction.

7. Conclusion

Our integrated overview of competence-based dimensions in defining employability responds to calls for more integrated approaches to studying employability that have been echoed in both the higher education and the workplace learning context. In this paper, we have compared and contrasted insights from higher education and workplace learning literature from a Western, mostly European, perspective. Despite of differences in terminology and focus, we found that competence-based definitions of employability from both these contexts show a lot of overlap. To summarize, we found strong parallels between the two research streams regarding several component dimensions of employability. These include the prevalence of disciplinary knowledge and general skills needed to perform a given occupation; the importance of social skills, including networking skills; the necessity to continue learning and to (pro-) actively as well as passively adapt to changing situations and environments; and meta-cognitive skills for reflecting on one's goals and values, ambitions and identity. Both research streams complement each other in explicating the importance of respectively emotional regulation (from higher education) and achieving a healthy work-life balance (from workplace learning). We have argued that by providing an interdisciplinary and integrated overview, our paper opens new avenues for future research in both the domain of workplace learning and higher education research. Given their close ties and complementarity, future research in either context should include a broader definition of employability, taking into consideration the concept dimensions from both contexts.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 We utilize the term conceptual framework acknowledging that some authors use the term model instead. In this paper the terms model and conceptual framework are used interchangeably.

2 We follow the authors’ use of the term model here. Again, the terms conceptual framework and model are used interchangeably by authors.