EMPLOYEE-RECRUITER MATCHING
A quantitative study about students’ perceptions and recruiters’ wants
_________________________________________________________________
______
Authors: Emelie Lindwall Marketing Programme
Johanna Gustafsson Marketing Programme
Martin Stadig
Marketing Programme
Examiner: Dr. Setayesh Sattari
Tutor: Dr. Martin Amsteus
Bachelor Thesis
Spring 2013
ABSTRACT
Recruiters are hiring people with the right set of skills and attributes in order to fit the demands of the company. Simultaneously, students who decide to invest in a university education are most likely doing it for one major reason – to become more attractive in the labor market. A problem arose concerning whether there is a discrepancy between students’ perceptions of sought employee attributes and wanted attributes by recruiters, or not. Therefore, the current study aimed at assessing the discrepancy between the employee attributes that employers want, and students’ perceptions of sought employee attributes.
Available literature within the field was reviewed, resulting in an identified research gap which led to a research question as well as four stated hypotheses.
Methodology wise, a pre-study was conducted in the current research which had a qualitative approach in order to construct the questionnaires for the main part of the study, which had a quantitative approach. The questionnaires were answered by 83 students and 126 recruiters.
The results from the study showed that discrepancies exist concerning 10 of 26 measured attributes. Students perceived interpersonal skills, teamwork, knowledge about the market, gender, and well formulated CV and personal letter to be more important than recruiter considered them to be. Moreover, recruiters considered self-management, commitment, responsibility, self-awareness, and physical well-being to be more important than students perceived them to be.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following study was performed as our bachelor thesis during our last semester at the Marketing Programme at Linnaeus University. The process of writing the thesis has not only developed us as individuals and as a team, but has also broadened our knowledge of the chosen subject. This thesis is valuable, not only for us, but for all students studying at marketing programs throughout Sweden, who sooner or later will face the reality outside the walls of the universities. Our journey of writing this thesis has come to an end, and with the final draft in our hands we would like to conclude by thanking the people who have been important for us, as well as for the result of the thesis.
First of all we would like to thank our examiner Dr. Setayesh Sattari who has always been there to support us with our ongoing thesis work. The feedback has not only been invaluable, but also crucial to how our final product is presented. We would also like to thank our tutor Dr. Martin Amsteus, who week after week has given us invaluable comments and feedback. Thanks to Dr.
Magnus Hultman who gave us not only valuable feedback on our thesis, but who has also broadened our knowledge and insight in how to work with the methodological tools. We would also like to thank our fellow students who throughout the whole process of writing this thesis have given us valuable comments.
Linnaeus University May 2013
Emelie Lindwall Johanna Gustafsson Martin Stadig
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ... 1
1.2 PROBLEM DISCUSSION ... 2
1.3 DELIMITATIONS ... 3
1.4 OUTLINE OF THE PAPER ... 3
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 5
2.1 SKILLS ... 5
2.2 EMPLOYEE ATTRIBUTES ... 6
2.2.1 From a Recruiter’s Point of View ... 6
2.2.2 From an Employee’s Point of View ... 7
2.3 STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ... 8
2.4 RECRUITERS’ WANTS ... 9
2.5 EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE AND MATCHING ... 9
2.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY ... 10
3. RESARCH GAP AND HYPOTHESES ... 11
3.1 RESEARCH GAP ... 11
3.2 RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES ... 11
3.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY ... 12
4. METHODOLOGY...13
4.1 RESEARCH APPROACHES ... 13
4.1.1 Inductive vs. Deductive Research ... 13
4.1.2 Dyadic Research ... 14
4.1.3 Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research ... 14
4.2 RESEARCH DESIGNS ... 14
4.3 DATA SOURCES ... 16
4.4 RESEARCH STRATEGIES ... 16
4.5 DATA COLLECTION METHODS ... 16
4.5.1 Focus Groups ... 17
4.5.2 Interviews ... 17
4.5.3 Questionnaires ... 18
4.6 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS ... 18
4.6.1 Operationalization ... 19
4.6.2 Interview Guide/Questionnaire Design ... 20
4.6.3 Pretesting ... 22
4.7 SAMPLING ... 24
4.7.1 Sampling Frame ... 24
4.7.2 Sample Selection ... 24
4.8 DATA ANALYSIS ... 26
4.8.1 Qualitative Data Analysis ... 26
4.8.2 Quantitative Data Analysis ... 27
4.9 QUALITY CRITERIA ... 29
4.9.1 Quality Criteria for Qualitative Research ... 29
4.9.2 Quality Criteria for Quantitative Research ... 30
4.10 CHAPTER SUMMARY ... 31
5. EMPIRICAL DATA ...33
5.1 EMPIRICAL DATA – FOCUS GROUPS ... 33
5.2 EMPIRICAL DATA - INTERVIEWS ... 34
5.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY ... 35
6. RESULTS ...36
6.1 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ... 36
6.1.1 Qualitative Reliability and Validity ... 36
6.1.2 Qualitative Results ... 36
6.2 QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH ... 39
6.2.1 Quantitative Reliability and Validity ... 39
6.2.2 Descriptive Statistics ... 40
6.2.3 Hypotheses ... 42
6.2.4 Additional Results ... 45
6.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY ... 47
7. DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS & SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ...48
7.1. DISCUSSIONS ... 48
7.1.1 Discussion of Research Question and Hypotheses ... 48
7.1.2 Discussion of Additional Results ... 49
7.2 CONCLUSION ... 51
7.3 IMPLICATIONS ... 52
7.3.1 Theoretical Implications ... 52
7.3.2 Managerial Implications ... 53
7.4 LIMITATIONS ... 53
7.5 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ... 54
7.6 CHAPTER SUMMERY ... 55
REFERENCE LIST ...56
APPENDIX A: METHOD ...63
APPENDIX B: RESULTS ...73
APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN ...85
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Research Question ... 12Figure 4.1: Inductive and Deductive Research ... 13
Figure 4.2: Research Design ... 15
Figure 4.3: Data Collection Methods ... 17
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Method Summary ... 31Table 5.1: Empirical Data – Focus Groups ... 33
Table 5.2: Empirical Data – Interviews ... 34
Table 6.1: Soft Skills ... 37
Table 6.2: Hard Skills ... 38
Table 6.3: Other Attributes ... 39
Table 6.4: Descriptive Statistics Students ... 41
Table 6.5: Descriptive Statistics Recruiters... 42
Table 6.6: Hypotheses ... 43
1
. INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the background of the study is presented. This is followed by a problem discussion of the field, which leads to the purpose of the study. Finally, the delimitations of the study are stated followed by an outline of the paper.
1.1 BACKGROUND
“Too many leave university without the right skills” (Daily Mail, 2012) and the numbers of students graduating from universities in Sweden are increasing (HSV, 2011). However, it is getting harder for students with a university degree to find a job directly after graduation (SCB, 2011). The aim for these students is often to collect knowledge and skills to become attractive in the labor market. For these students to be attractive to companies, they have to show proof of having the skills required by the employers (Raybould & Sheedy, 2005). Employers are hiring employees with the right knowledge and skills to fit the culture in the company (Adkins et al, 1994). Recruitment from a company perspective can be defined as a process of attracting the right persons into a company (Gatewood et al, 1993).
It is important for companies to find the right applicants during the recruitment process, to sustain competitive advantage against rivals in the market (Pfeffer, 1994). Burack and Singh (1995) demonstrate the importance of hiring people that will be adjustable for rapid changes in the market field. Pfeffer (1994) writes that it is the individual worker who is the source for companies’ competitive advantages. With this in mind, the human resources department has an important role to maintain this competitive advantage by recruiting the right people that fit the company culture. Attracting the right people for the jobs is of big interest for employers, to minimize the risk of employing wrong personnel (Kazlauskaité & Bučiūnienė, 2008).
According to Hutchinson and Brefka (1997), job objective, academic background and work experience are important hard skills companies look for when they are looking for new employees. Hutchinson and Brefka (1997) also argue that personal and social skills, also known as soft skills, are not as important when employing new personnel. On the other hand, Nealy (2005) argues that soft skills are more important in today’s labor market for productive
1
2 performance and that current and future business leaders are looking more at these skills than hard ones when employing new personnel.
Hesketh (2000) conducted a study which showed that employers prefer to recruit students from specific universities, more specifically the universities that had “high status” in the university market. A study conducted by Salas Velasco (2012), demonstrates that students with higher average grades have a better chance of finding a job after graduation. However, Branine (2008) found that recruitment of students have become more about finding people with the right attitudes and personality.
1.2 PROBLEM DISCUSSION
Employers may have specific opinions about which attributes an employee should possess. For instance, when an organization looks at hiring newly graduated students, employers look at grades, personality as well as other personal qualities that an organization may have use for in newly graduated students, according to Salas Velasco (2012). Branine (2008) highlights the importance of applicant attitudes and personality, which he says are more important to employers than the type or level of qualification acquired. However, Behrenz (2001) states that it is not until in the second round of the recruitment process that employers start to look at soft skills and that job seekers often are eliminated in the first round due to lack of experience or education. Hence, the opinions regarding which attributes that are attractive to possess vary across available literature.
Salas Velasco (2012) highlights that a students’ human resources and intangible assets are two of the main things that will lead to competitive advantages for an organization. Salas Velasco (2012) also contends that the hiring process within the graduate labor market is poorly understood and hardly studied at all.
Students may have perceptions of what employers are looking for. What students perceive is what employers will target in an applicant does not usually match the organization’s perception of the subject (Salas Velasco, 2012). Moreover, according to Salas Velasco (2012), sought employee attributes may differ depending on what kind of job and position or in what kind of
3 market the applicant is applying for. If there is a mismatch, there is no adaption to the environment. Hence, more knowledge is needed concerning whether students’ perceptions of wanted employee attributes match the employee attributes that employers want.
Consequently, a problem arises concerning whether there is a discrepancy between students’
perceptions of sought employee attributes and wanted attributes by employers or not. Hence, a dyadic research, which will be further explained in chapter 4, is needed to see whether there is a mismatch or not.
Purpose: To assess the discrepancy between the employee attributes that employers want, and students’ perceptions of sought employee attributes.
1.3 DELIMITATIONS
The study focuses exclusively on undergraduate marketing students at Linnaeus University, a public university situated in Växjö in the south of Sweden. This delimitation is made since the authors themselves are graduating from the marketing program at Linnaeus University 2013, but also since the graduated labor market hardly is studied at all (Salas Velasco, 2012).
Delimitations are also made concerning which companies to conduct the study on. The study will be conducted on manufacturing companies that were the largest employers in Sweden during year 2012, based on a list from allabolag.se (Allabolag, 2013). Focus will exclusively lie on the attributes perceived as important, and wanted, for employment at the marketing department in the manufacturing industry.
1.4 OUTLINE OF THE PAPER
The current study is divided into seven chapters, containing the following structure.
Chapter 1 presents a short background within the field of recruitment. This is followed by a problem discussion that leads to the purpose of the study. The chapter ends with the delimitations and outline of the thesis.
4 Chapter 2 presents the theoretical background including concepts, definitions and available literature within the field.
Chapter 3 presents the research gap, research question and the hypotheses of the study.
Chapter 4 presents and justifies the choices of research approach, research design, data sources, research strategy, data collection instruments, sampling, data analysis and quality criteria.
Chapter 5 presents the empirical data, collected through focus groups and interviews.
Chapter 6 presents the results from the qualitative data analysis followed by the result from the quantitative data analysis.
Chapter 7 presents discussions around the finding from the data analysis and a conclusion, which answers the purpose and research question. The chapter also presents the theoretical and managerial implications of the study, limitations and suggestions for future research.
5
. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter presents relevant theories from available literature, including definitions and discussions around them. First, skills are presented followed by employee attributes seen from two perspectives. This is followed by a discussion about perceptions, wants, and finally matching and evolutionary perspective.
2.1 SKILLS
Skills can be defined as the certain personal abilities that an individual possesses (Raybould &
Sheedy, 2005). Skills can also be divided into hard skills and soft skills. Hutchinson and Brefka (1997) define hard skills as job objectives, work experience and academic background.
Hutchinson and Brefka (1997) further define soft skills as the personal and social skill that a person possesses. McCorkle et al (2003) have a discussion about discipline related and support skills. McCorkle et al (2003) say that discipline skills are knowledge gathered from school, and support skills are the same as soft skills, and further mentions communication skills, interpersonal skills and creativity as examples of soft skills.
Salas Velasco (2012) divides skills into four different categorizations: hard skills, practical experience, master/languages/study abroad, and soft skills. Salas Velasco (2012) refers to hard skills as academic ability, knowledge and computer skills. Furthermore, Salas Velasco (2012) says that soft skills are linked to the personality of a person and examples of soft skills could be communication, teamwork and leadership. Sharma (2009, p.19) defines soft skills as “the extra edge that set apart the leader from the followers”. Sharma (2009) also describes soft skills as the basic life skills or survival skills, which helps people to polish their outer veneer. Moreover, Sharma (2009) mentions examples of soft skills such as communication skills, interpersonal skills, negotiation skills, emotional intelligence, teamwork and cooperation.
Another author who discusses the differences between hard skills and soft skills is Robles (2012). Robles (2012) describes hard skills as the technical expertise and knowledge needed to find a job, and soft skills as interpersonal qualities. Interpersonal qualities are the people skills and personal attributes that someone has. Hurrell et al (2012) define a soft skill as a non-
2
6 technical skill that involves interpersonal and intrapersonal capabilities to handle performance in different contexts.
2.2 EMPLOYEE ATTRIBUTES
Two perspectives were found to have been taken upon the attributes necessary for employees to possess in available literature – from a recruiter’s point of view, and from an employee’s point of view. These two perspectives are further discussed below.
2.2.1 From a Recruiter’s Point of View
Results regarding which employee attributes that are attractive in new employees, such as graduates, vary between different articles within the field, but communication is seen as a vital attribute in most articles. For instance, Raymond and McNabb (1993), highlight that both employers and students regard communication skills as important to possess. Also in a study by Robles (2012), a finding was that executives think that employees should be able to communicate effectively. The same applies in Sharma’s study (2009), where communication skills were voted as the most important soft skill necessary to possess to be able to succeed at the workplace.
Authors highlight the importance of other soft skills, rather than communication skills. For instance, Anderson and Shackleton (1990, p.69) says that “the ideal graduate for all occupational groups was perceived as interesting, relaxed, strong, successful in life, active, mature, enthusiastic, sensitive, pleasant, honest and dominant”. Branine (2008) highlights the importance of soft skills and says that employers look beyond hard skills, and instead look for employees who are motivated, responsible, and are able to work both independently and in teams. As mentioned before, Robles (2012) discusses the importance of being able to communicate effectively, but Robles (2012) also mentions getting along with co-workers, teamwork, initiative taking, work ethics and professionalism as important. In the study by Sharma (2009), communication skills were voted as most important as mentioned before, but also teamwork and time management were mentioned as the second and third most important soft skills to possess.
Junek et al (2009) says that employers think that students who are being employed perform well in the areas accountability, cooperation, and productivity, to mention a few. Cook and Finch
7 (1994) also emphasize soft skills as more important, rather than hard skills. Anderson and Shackleton (1990) describe the ideal graduate for all occupational groups and only mention soft skills such as interesting, enthusiastic and honest, while Junek et al (2009) say that students are accountable and productive. However, Behrenz (2001) highlights personal engagement and social competence, but also professional knowledge. Cook and Finch (1994) looked at whether educational background, prior work experience, or training potential was viewed as most important to recruiters. The result showed that training potential was the most important of the three, hence, the soft skills overweight the hard skills (Ibid).
Not only soft skills are highlighted as important to possess. For instance, Sharma (2009) both mentions the soft skills that are necessary to have to succeed at the workplace as well as that employers also want experienced staff. Similarly, Behrenz (2001) says that job seekers are often eliminated in the first round of the recruitment process due to the fact that they lack the hard skills needed such as experience or education, and that it is first in the second round that employers start to look at the soft skills such as personal engagement and social competence.
However, Behrenz (2001) also says that results show that only somewhat half of those getting hired fulfilled the demands for experience and/or education completely.
2.2.2 From an Employee’s Point of View
McCorkle et al (2003) found that students with a higher GPA score are better prepared for the job market. This can be contrasted by Salas Velasco’s article (2012), where the author found that grades do not matter when applying for a job, and instead discusses that the most important skills are the soft ones. Junek et al (2009) found that students consider communication skill to be the most important skill to possess to get employed after graduation. Raymond and McNabb (1993) came up with the same results. They found that both students and employers have the same opinions about social skills and communication skills – that they are the most essential skills for companies when recruiting students (Ibid). DuPre and Williams’ study (2011), concerning the understanding of students’ perceptions, found that students rank communication skill high, right below work ethic. Work ethic was considered to be the most important skill (Ibid). All of the above mentioned studies were conducted within a time span of 18 years and they all got similar results: from a student’s point of view, communication skill is an important attribute to possess
8 in order to be employed by a company. Other important attributes that students consider essential to possess are work ethics, teamwork skills and to have a good personality (Raymond &
McNabb, 1993; DuPre & Williams, 2011; Salas Velasco, 2012). Attributes that students consider less important include previous work experience and level of university degree (Raymond &
McNabb, 1993; Salas Velasco, 2012).
Singer and Bruhns (1991) investigated which hard skills that were important to possess from a student’s perspective, and highlight that work experience is the most essential one. Work experience is followed by type of education and academic achievements (Ibid). Salas Velasco’s study (2012) shows that students think good grades are more important than previous working experience, in the discussion concerning hard skills. The two studies are conducted with a difference of 21 years and also in different countries, which might explain the differences in the result. The articles that investigated both soft skills and hard skills (Raymond & McNabb, 1993;
Salas Velasco, 2012) show that students consider soft skills to be more important than hard skills. The articles highlight the importance of applicants telling the organization or employer that they possess both the skills and the experience that the organization is demanding.
Graduating students most often have neither experience nor specific skills, but they may have personal interests or hobbies that in the end can turn into relevant skills. If this is the case, applicants need to demonstrate that the skills are both transferable and important for the job they are applying for (Dacre Pool & Sewall, 2007; Breaugh, 2008).
2.3 STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS
Perception is defined as the process by which stimuli are selected, organized and interpreted (Solomon et al, 2010). Applicants who are applying for a job often have inaccurate perceptions of the position that they are applying for, and often applicants get wrong expectations from the employers of what the job will give them in return (Breaugh, 2008). If an applicant gets hired with wrong expectations it will most likely lead to dissatisfaction, and subsequently quitting within a near future, than applicants who get a more accurate perception (Ibid). Dacre Pool and Sewall (2007) highlight the importance of aligning students’ perceptions with the industry’s expectations over how to perform to get a job. Moreover, Dacre Pool and Sewall (2007) say that as it is now, students’ perceptions do not match the industry’s expectations of performance.
9 According to DuPre and Williams (2011) students’ perceptions of what an employer seeks in new coworkers are: work ethic, communication skills, teamwork, analytical skills, and technical skills.
2.4 RECRUITERS’ WANTS
Wants is defined as a need that must be satisfied, which can be both individually and culturally determined (Solomon et al, 2010). Marketing is a broad field when it comes to applying for jobs, and recruiters want employees to possess both soft and hard skills (Salas Velasco, 2012).
Specific jobs demand specific attributes, as well as small employers versus large employers demand different attributes (Ibid). According to Kelley and Gaedeke (1990), the most wanted attributes by employers who are recruiting people for marketing positions are: oral communication skills, interpersonal skills, enthusiasm/motivation, written communication skills, as well as work experience. Floyd and Gordon (1998), among others, also highlight the value of problem-solving skills, while Salas Velasco (2012) highlights the importance of personal characteristics. Employers are less concerned about numerical and information technology skills of graduating students and instead appreciate skill such as self-management and teamwork (Ibid). Behrenz (2001) however, highlights that there is an interaction between wanted hard and soft skills. Behrenz (2001) says that employers mainly want job applicants with a good education and work experience in the first round of the recruitment process, but that they in the second round prefer skills such as professional knowledge, personal engagement as well as social competence.
2.5 EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE AND MATCHING
Evolutionary perspective has its roots in Charles Darwin’s famous theory Darwinism (Hodgson, 2005). Darwin said that the species that best fit the environment would survive and be able to pass on their positive attributes, while the species with non-surviving attributes will die out (Ibid). Darwinism principles about variation, replication and selection can also be applied outside the biological area and is then called universal Darwinism (Dawkins, 1976). Universal Darwinism can, and has been, applied to other evolving and open systems such as social evolution (Ibid). When general evolutionary concepts are applied to economic phenomena, this is referred to as evolutionary economics (Powell & Wakeley, 2003). According to Powell and
10 Wakeley (2003) evolutionary perspective aims to explain the process of change within a system.
If there is a change in the system, only those who best fit the environment will succeed in the future, and the others will fail and gradually disappear (Ibid).
The importance of matching has been discussed for decades, according to Salas Velasco (2012), for instance cornering matching the right person to the right job. Both employers and job seekers put a lot of time and resources into the process of job search (Salas Velasco, 2012). For instance, a conducted study in the North East showed that there was an acute mismatch between supply and demand of individuals that possessed the wanted set of attributes in sectors such as business- to-business services (Hartshorn & Sear, 2005). To avoid these happenings, Breaugh (2008) mentions that organizations must provide realistic information of their wants during the recruitment process, in order to improve the person-organization fit. Moreover, Breaugh (2008) says that applicants need to have self-insight to be able to identify a person-organization fit.
Therefore, the process of employee recruitment should be seen as one of the biggest challenges for organizations (Punia & Sharma, 2008). There is an ongoing uncertainty both within the economy and the competitive marketplace, why it is crucial for companies to find employees with the right set of attributes (Ibid). This is important since it might increase the chances for productivity which affects a company’s earnings, why matching employees to the demands of the organization becomes vital (Ibid).
2.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter has gone through relevant theories from available literature. First, skills were discussed, where the main discussion concerned the division of skills into categories. The main focus was on the division into soft skills such as communication skills and personality, and hard skills, such as experience and academic background. The second theory discussed employee attributes, seen from two perspectives. Here, researchers’ opinions vary concerning which attributes employees see as important, and which employee attributes employers find attractive.
The two following theories discussed were perceptions and wants, in relation to the current field of study. Finally, evolutionary perspective and matching was discussed.
11
. RESARCH GAP AND HYPOTHESES
Through the literature review in the previous chapter, it became clear that a research gap exists. This gap is further discussed in this chapter, followed by the stated research question and hypotheses of the study.
3.1 RESEARCH GAP
The results from available literature vary, both from recruiters’ and employees’ point of view on attractive employee attributes. Hence, an updated research was considered necessary. Available studies have also been conducted in different countries, on different target groups as well as on slightly or majorly differing subjects. Thus, it was considered necessary to conduct the current research since the two major viewpoints in available literature were taken together, and research was conducted on students as well as on recruiters at a possible job market for those students.
Through the literature review, it became clear that earlier researches concerned either which attributes students think are important to possess for an employee, i.e. from an employee’s point of view, or concerned which attributes personnel managers want when recruiting new employees, i.e. from a recruiter’s point of view. Hence, it became clear that no research compared these two outcomes, which showed a research gap within the field of the study. The authors therefore concluded that there might not be a match between students’ perceptions of wanted employee attributes and actually wanted employee attributes, hence this is what is covered in the current study.
3.2 RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES
The above identified research gap lead to the following research question:
RQ1: Is there a discrepancy between the attributes students perceive as wanted, and the attributes personnel managers actually want? (shown in figure 3.1)
Moreover, four hypotheses were stated:
● H1: There is a mismatch between the employee attributes that students perceive recruiters want, and the recruiters’ wants regarding employee attributes.
3
12
● H2: There is a mismatch between how important recruiters consider soft skills to be, and how important students perceive soft skills to be.
● H3: There is a mismatch between how important recruiters consider hard skills to be, and how important students perceive hard skills to be.
● H4: There is a mismatch between how important recruiters consider other attributes to be, and how important students perceive other attributes to be.
Figure 3.1: Research Question
3.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter has gone through the identified research gap of the study. For instance, an updated research was considered necessary since the results in available literature vary. Moreover, most available researches have had either one or the other of two identified viewpoints why it was considered necessary to combine the two viewpoints in the same research. Furthermore, a research question was stated, as well as four hypotheses.
13
. METHODOLOGY
The following chapter includes descriptions and justifications of choices of research approach, research design, data sources, research strategies, data collection methods and data collection instruments. The chapter also describes the process of sampling and data analysis, and finishes of by describing the quality criteria of the study.
4.1 RESEARCH APPROACHES
This subchapter presents inductive and deductive research, dyadic research, as well as quantitative and qualitative research, and justifies the approaches chosen for the current study.
4.1.1 Inductive vs. Deductive Research
Inductive and deductive theory are two philosophical approaches in research methodology, in which valid conclusions can be made (Bryman & Bell, 2011). An inductive approach is mainly the outcome of research, where conclusions are drawn from collected data and then developed into new theoretical frameworks (Ibid). According to Bryman and Bell (2011), deductive research is the most common type of research approach of the two, and represents the relationship between theory and research (Ibid). When creating hypotheses or research questions, only accessible theories within the domain are to be used (Ibid). The two approaches are illustrated in figure 4.1. The current study was exclusively deductive since the purpose, research question, and hypotheses were based on already existing theories. More information about inductive and deductive research can be found in Appendix A: Method, A1.
Figure 4.1: Inductive and Deductive Research (adopted from Bryman and Bell, 2011)
4
14
4.1.2 Dyadic Research
A dyad is described as when different individuals or organizations interact or work together over a length of time (Thompson & Walker, 1982; Medlin, 2003). Thompson and Walker (1982) list three different interpretations a dyad should have to be able to exist: consisting in time, mutual actions, as well as engage personnel elements from the two objectives in question. When conducting a dyadic research, conceptualizing the pattern between two individuals or organizations is essential (Ibid). This may take many forms due to different conceptual models of relationships and interactions, but can for instance be direction of interaction (Ibid). A dyadic research do not only reflect one individual or organization, but the relationship and interaction between them, hence a reflection from two perspectives (Ibid).
Since the current study combined two perspectives, which have been taken in already existing research, the research was dyadic.
4.1.3 Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research
Research can be divided into a quantitative and/or qualitative research approach (Bryman & Bell, 2011). According to Bryman and Bell (2011), the most obvious distinction is the fact that quantitative researchers use measurements, while qualitative researchers do not. As mentioned by Bryman and Bell (2011), there is also a possibility to successfully combine the two approaches into a mixed methods research approach.
For the current research, it was chosen to use a mixed methods approach, meaning that both qualitative and quantitative research methods were used. This was chosen since both words and quantifications were emphasized as important for the study. The qualitative research was used to collect data for the development of the quantitative research. The main conclusions of the study were drawn from the quantitative research. More information about quantitative and qualitative research can be found in Appendix A: Method, A2.
4.2 RESEARCH DESIGNS
A research design is the intended plan to be followed to be able to answer research aims and objectives, hence it gives a structure to be able to solve the actual problem (Bryman & Bell,
15 2011; Hair et al, 2003). There are several types of research designs, as can be seen in figure 4.2, but mainly three types are discussed by Bryman and Bell (2011): exploratory, descriptive, and causal research design. Further information about these research designs can be found in Appendix A: Method, A3.
When selecting which research design to use it is essential to look deeper into factors such as available resources, previous research, amount of control over variables as well as the purpose and research questions (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Two research designs were used for the current study: exploratory research design and descriptive research design. This was due to that both focus groups and interviews were used to come up with attributes for the questionnaires as well as a literature review to investigate both recruiters’ and students’ beliefs and opinions concerning recruitment. Moreover, the resources and time were limited for the current research.
Descriptive research design can be further divided into either longitudinal design or cross- sectional design, and the choice affect time and resource dimensions (Zikmund et al, 2010;
Bryman & Bell, 2011). Dependent on the previous decision of using a descriptive research design, a cross-sectional design was chosen thus it preferably can be used when working with quantitative studies, but also due to the time dimensions and resource constraints. Furthermore, it was chosen to work with multiple cross-sectional design since the study focuses on more than one section, i.e. recruiters and students. Figure 4.2 states the choices made regarding the research design. More information about longitudinal design and cross-sectional design can be found in Appendix A: Method, A3.
Figure 4.2: Research Design (adopted from Bryman and Bell, 2011)
16
4.3 DATA SOURCES
Primary data and secondary data is either qualitative or quantitative data that is collected to uncover the purpose of a study (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The difference between primary and secondary data is that the authors themselves collect primary data, while secondary data has been collected by another researcher and for another purpose (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2005).
The current study used both primary and secondary data. Due to the lack of previous studies within the chosen field, the study first and foremost relied on primary data collected through focus groups, interviews and questionnaires. Further information explaining data sources can be found in Appendix A: Method, A4.
4.4 RESEARCH STRATEGIES
There are several different research strategies to use when conducting a research, and all strategies are different when it comes to how to collect and analyze the empirical data (Yin, 2009). Yin (2009) presents five of these research strategies: experiment, survey, archival analysis, history, and case study.
The research strategy experiment was dismissed since the current study had no interest in having control over behavioral events. Since the research questions in the current study did not focus on how and why questions, the strategies history and case study could be excluded. Archival analysis was dismissed, due to the fact that the research was not conducted on observations and analyzes of documents or archives. The research strategy survey was considered most appropriate for the current study, since primary data was collected and focus was not on collecting and analyzing secondary data. Survey was also considered appropriate since the current study focuses on creating statistical inferences from the collected data. More information explaining the different research strategies can be found in Appendix A: Method, A5.
4.5 DATA COLLECTION METHODS
This subchapter presents different research methods to choose from when collecting data.
Bryman and Bell (2003) points out the following five main methods that can be used to collect
17 primary data: interviews, questionnaires, focus groups, observations and content analysis. The three methods used in the current study as can be seen in figure 4.3 – focus groups, interviews and questionnaires – are further explained in this chapter.
Figure 4.3: Data Collection Methods (adopted from Hair et al, 2003)
4.5.1 Focus Groups
According to Bryman and Bell (2003), focus group is a qualitative data collection method, which can be described as interviewing several people in a group at the same time, concentrating on one specific topic. Focus groups was considered to be the most appropriate data collection instrument to use for the first phase of the data collection, since the aim was to gain greater knowledge of the respondents’, i.e. students’, perceptions and opinions concerning a specific topic. More information about focus groups can be found in Appendix A: Method, A6.
4.5.2 Interviews
According to Bryman and Bell (2003) and Hair et al (2003), interviews can be both qualitative and quantitative and the goal with interviews is to collect information from respondents concerning their true opinions regarding a complex topic. In a simple way, interviews can be described as when a person, the interviewer, asks questions to another person, the interviewee (Hair et al, 2003; Eriksson & Wiedersheim-Paul, 2011). According to Ghauri and Grønhaug (2005), there are three different types of interviews: structured, unstructured, and semi- structured. More information about interviews can be found in Appendix A: Method, A7.
18 Due to the fact that semi-structured interviews give the interviewer flexibility, e.g. to change the order as well as ask follow-up questions concerning a specific topic, this approach was considered the most appropriate one to use. Telephone interviews were used in the current study for the second phase of the data collection. This was seen as appropriate since it was considered the easiest and least time consuming way to reach out to the respondents, i.e. personnel managers at manufacturing companies, and at the same time reach the desired amount of understanding.
4.5.3 Questionnaires
Questionnaire is a quantitative data collection method that preferably can be used if the aim is to collect data from a large amount of respondents (Hair et al, 2003; Bryman & Bell, 2011). In a questionnaire, respondents answer pre-determined questions of key characteristics of individuals, companies, events or other phenomena (Ibid).
For the third and last steps of the data collection, the quantitative research method questionnaire was used, since it was considered the best way to collect a large amount of data (Bryman & Bell, 2003). Online questionnaire was considered to be the least costly quantitative method to reach out to the desired large number of respondents, thus it was used (Ibid). More information about questionnaires as a data collection method can be found in Appendix A: Method, A8.
4.6 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
Two different qualitative research methods, focus groups and interviews, were used to create the basis for the main method of the current study, which was the quantitative research method questionnaire. Through three focus groups, a list of the employee attributes that students perceive recruiters look for when hiring employees was created. Through five interviews with personnel managers, a list of the employee attributes that recruiters want when hiring new employees was created. A merger of the outcomes was developed into the foundation of the final questionnaires which were sent to both students and personnel managers. This subchapter goes through the data collection instruments used for the different data collection methods.
19
4.6.1 Operationalization
Operationalization is the process of turning relevant concepts into something measureable, i.e.
developing questions from theories (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The following chapter includes operationalization for each data collection method used.
4.6.1.1 Operationalization – Focus Groups
Through an operationalization, the following question was developed to be used in the focus groups with students: “Which employee attributes do you think recruiters consider important when hiring employees for the marketing department at a manufacturing company?”. The operationalization can be seen in Appendix A: Method, A9.
4.6.1.2 Operationalization – Interviews
Through an operationalization, the following question was developed to be used in the interviews with personnel managers: “Which employee attributes do you consider important when hiring employees for the marketing department at your company?”. The operationalization can be seen in Appendix A: Method, A10.
4.6.1.3 Operationalization – Questionnaires
Through an operationalization, the following question was developed to be used in the questionnaire to students: “How important do you think the following employee attributes are for recruiters, when hiring new employees to the marketing department at a manufacturing company?”. The attributes are the ones developed through focus groups and interviews.
Through an operationalization, the following question was developed to be used in the questionnaire to recruiters: “How important do you consider the following employee attributes to be, when hiring new employees to the marketing department?”. The attributes are the ones developed through focus groups and interviews.
The operationalization for the two different questionnaires can be seen in Appendix A: Method, A11.
20
4.6.2 Interview Guide/Questionnaire Design
Before a focus group or interview is conducted, there is a need to have a brief list of the topics or areas that wants to be covered during the focus group or interview (Bryman & Bell, 2011). If semi-structured interviews are to be conducted, there is a need to have a somewhat more structured list of issues to be addressed or questions to be asked (Ibid). When it comes to a questionnaire, the process of designing the questionnaire is rather crucial, due to the well-known problem of low response rates connected to questionnaires (Ibid).
The interview guides for the focus groups and interviews are presented below, followed by the questionnaire designs.
4.6.2.1 Interview Guide – Focus Groups One question was stated during the focus groups:
Which employee attributes do you think recruiters consider important when hiring employees for the marketing department at a manufacturing company?
This question was lead by a discussion around the specific topic. The students got time to list the most important attributes individually on a paper, before the group discussion begun. The answers were compared and discussed between the respondents. The question was asked to find out which attributes students consider important to possess, and worked as a foundation when developing the questionnaires.
4.6.2.2 Interview Guide – Interviews
Five interviews with personnel managers were conducted to find out which employee attributes they consider important when hiring employees to their marketing department. During the interviews one question was asked:
Which employee attributes do you consider important when hiring employees for the marketing department at your company?
The aim with the interviews was similar to the aim with the focus groups. Since it was considered problematic to conduct focus groups with personnel managers, it was decided to conduct interviews instead. However, the question remained similar to the one asked during the
21 focus groups, but was developed to aim at personnel managers’ wants instead of students’
perceptions. Hence, the current question was not developed from other researchers’ interview questions dealing with similar topics. The aim with this question was to find out which employee attributes recruiters consider important when hiring new employees, and as with the outcome from the focus groups, this worked as a foundation when developing the questionnaires.
4.6.2.3 Questionnaire Design
Conducting an online questionnaire was acknowledged as the most appropriate way to reach the targeted population. The questionnaires were designed via Google Form and a total number of 31 questions were asked in the questionnaires. Two different questionnaires were constructed, due to that there were two different types of respondents – personnel managers and students. The questionnaires were designed in a way that they appeared important, where the questions, layout, color and length of the questionnaire easily could be changed to fit the wanted appeal (Hair et al, 2003). In the questionnaires, closed questions were used since questionnaires with many open questions have a tendency to lower the response rate (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Closed questions were also used because they are easier to answer from a respondent’s perspective and are not that time consuming to analyze (Eliasson, 2010).
The questionnaire designs were developed through a study by Robles (2012). The first part of the questionnaires contained a descriptive section, with an introduction where it was stated approximately how long time the questionnaire would take to answer, the purpose of the study, and who was responsible for it. The cover letters can be seen in Appendix A: Method, A12-A13
The questions were designed in a Likert type scale, where the respondents ranked their answer on a 1-7 scale depending on how “Not at all important” (1) or “Extremely important” (7) they considered the stated attribute to be (Bryman & Bell, 2011). This scale was applied on all items.
In the questionnaire sent to student the following question was asked:
How important do you think the following employee attributes are for recruiters, when hiring new employees to the marketing department at a manufacturing company?
In the questionnaire sent to personnel manager the following questions was asked:
22
How important do you consider the following employee attributes to be, when hiring new employees to the marketing department?
The items that were measured were divided into three categories: soft skills, hard skills, and other attributes. These categories were however not separated visibly in the questionnaires sent to the respondents. To see the categories used and the items connected to each category, see table 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 in chapter 6.
Questions of demography were added at the end of the questionnaires. The following questions were asked to the students:
Your gender?
Numbers of years you have been studying at the marketing program?
Are you actively searching for a job?
Dream employer?
E-mail address (optional)?
The following questions of demography were asked to the personnel managers:
Your gender?
Your position at the company?
Number of years at current position?
Number of employees at your company?
Industry your company is in?
To see the final drafts of the questionnaires, see Appendix C: Questionnaire Design, C1 for the questionnaire to students and Appendix C: Questionnaire Design, C2 for the questionnaire to recruiters.
4.6.3 Pretesting
According to Ghauri and Grønhaug (2005), a pilot study should be considered before conducting an interview, a focus group or sending out a questionnaire. The pretest should be conducted on a sample, preferably 3-5 people from the targeted population or with experts within the field, to
23 make sure that concepts and questions are understandable (Ibid). Pretesting gives the researchers a first hint of the responses (Ibid). All together, this makes it easier to prepare the final draft of questions, intended for the respondents (Ibid). Below, the pretesting for each data collection instrument is further explained.
4.6.3.1 Pretesting – Focus Groups
For the current study, the question for the focus groups was shown to one academic. It was considered hard to conduct a more thorough pretest of the intended question for the focus group, due to the data collection method’s flexibility (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
4.6.3.2 Pretesting – Interviews
For the current study, the interview question was pretested through a review by two academics (cf. Czaja, 1998; Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2005). Sending the questions to an academic or expert within the field is a good way of pretesting, since academics and experts easily can detect problems not found through other techniques (Czaja, 1998; Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2005). This approach is rather inexpensive, and you will get critique from multiple perspectives (Czaja, 1998). The pretesting of the interview questions was done to ease the understanding of certain words, terms, and concepts as well as to look deeper into the structure of the sentences and the possibility of probing (cf. Czaja, 1998). The main goal of the pretest was to receive immediate thoughts and reactions of the question, as well as to make sure that the question was well formulated (Czaja, 1998).
4.6.3.3 Pretesting – Questionnaires
According to Czaja (1998), the importance of pretesting a questionnaire first and foremost is about uncovering whether respondents understand the words, terms and concepts used as well as how the questions are asked (Ibid). Other crucial factors to uncover are if the respondents understand the answer format as well as interpret the questions as intended, otherwise the sentence structure might be too hard and complex (Ibid). If the respondents feel comfortable with the different response categories, and if they provide complete answers, are other aspects to look into (Ibid). Last but not least, it is important to look deeper into the respondents attentiveness and interest of the questionnaire which might give an overall indicator of how easy it is for the respondents to complete the questionnaire with correct answers (Ibid). Factors affecting this are
24 the overall logical flow of the questionnaire and lack of instructions (Ibid). One preferable way of pretesting a questionnaire is to send it to an academic or expert within the field (Czaja, 1998;
Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2005).
In the current study, the two questionnaires were first sent to three academics. Once feedback had been given and the questionnaires had been revised, they were sent to 10 potential respondents – five students and five personnel managers (cf. Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2005).
4.7 SAMPLING
This subchapter presents the sampling frames followed by the sample selection made for each data collection instrument used. Sample, in this sense, is defined as “the segment of the population that is selected for an investigation” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p.176).
4.7.1 Sampling Frame
According to Ghauri and Grønhaug (2005), a sampling frame needs to be used when sampling. A sampling frame can be described as a list where the whole population is listed, and it is from this list that the sample will be drawn (Hair et al, 2003; Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2005). The current study aimed at two populations. The first population was all undergraduate students who were studying at the marketing program at Linnaeus University in Växjö. The sampling frame for the students hence was a list of all of these students from which the sample for the focus group could be drawn. The sampling frame contained 229 units. The second population was personnel managers at the manufacturing companies which were the largest employers in Sweden during the year 2012, based on a list from the website allabolag.se. This list contained 687 units. Hence, this list was the sampling frame for the second population, from which the sample for the interviews could be drawn.
4.7.2 Sample Selection
When collecting data from one or more elements, there are two different methods to use (Ghauri
& Grønhaug, 2005). One method is to collect data from all people within the population, and the second one is to collect data from a representative sample of people from the population (Ibid).
The latter one is referred to as sampling (Ibid). There are many different reasons why sampling
25 should be used when conducting a research, but the two main reasons are that sampling is both less costly and less time consuming than collecting data from whole populations (Ibid). The sample selection for focus groups, interviews and questionnaires are further discussed below.
4.7.2.1 Sample Selection for Focus Groups
The sample for a focus group should be able to represent the population, meaning that the respondents should be able to represent a specific group (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Opinions concerning whether or not to select participants who are known to each other differ among researchers (Ibid). Bryman and Bell (2011) say that some researchers prefer to exclude people who are known to each other since their existing relationships may contaminate the session.
However, some researchers prefer to select natural groups whenever possible (Ibid). If a focus group is meant to explore a collective understanding of a topic within a specific group, this can be achieved more easily by selecting participants who are all members of the same group (Ibid).
The samples for the focus groups were drawn from the aforementioned sampling frame of students. 18 people accepted the invitations to participate in the focus groups, hence giving six participants in each of the three focus groups held.
4.7.2.2 Sample Selection for Interviews
The sample of interviewees should be able to give an in-depth analysis, and be able to represent the targeted population. According to Bryman and Bell (2011), it is more or less impossible for researchers to explain why the interviewees were selected. Most of the times, the interviewees are selected randomly from the targeted population by convenience, opportunity or occasion, and it is also widely known and accepted by the researchers (Ibid).
The sample for the interviews was drawn from the aforementioned sampling frame of personnel managers. The first five personnel managers from the sampling frame who accepted to participate in an interview were chosen.
4.7.2.3 Sample Selection for Questionnaires
According to Bryman and Bell (2011), there is almost always a need for sampling when conducting quantitative research. The validity and reliability, which will be discussed later in this
26 chapter, are to an extent affected by the chosen sample, according to Uprichard (2013). Bryman and Bell (2011) state that there are two different kinds of samples, defined by the way the sample was selected: probability sample and non-probability sample. If the sample is a probability sample, each unit in the population has a chance of being selected (Hair et al, 2003; Bryman &
Bell, 2011). In a non-probability sample, the sample has not been selected randomly, meaning some units are more likely to be selected than others (Ibid). As mentioned by Bryman and Bell (2011), a probability sample is more likely to generate a representative sample as well as minimizing the risk of sampling errors. A sampling error is by the same authors defined as “the difference between a sample and the population from which it is selected” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p.176).
The sampling made for the questionnaires, both the one to students and the one for personnel managers, were considered to be probability samples. The questionnaires were sent out to each unit of the sampling frames, why all units of the populations had the same chance to participate in the study. Hence, the sample of students contained 229 units and the sample of personnel managers contained 687 units, i.e. both populations.
4.8 DATA ANALYSIS
This subchapter covers techniques for analyzing qualitative and quantitative data. Analyzing data, both qualitative and quantitative, is something that should be considered in an early stage when conducting a research (Bryman & Bell, 2011). However, a common error is that no concern is taken on how to analyze the collected data until later in the research process (Ibid).
Therefore, the authors should in an early stage be aware of what techniques to use to be able to analyze collected data (Ibid).
4.8.1 Qualitative Data Analysis
In a research study, the analysis of data is made to gain knowledge and understanding of the collected data (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2005). Marshall and Rossman (1999) define data analysis as when the researchers structure, order and bring meaning to the data that has been collected. The data analysis helps the researchers to dived and reduce data, clarify problems as well as test hypotheses (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2005).
27 Miles and Huberman (1994) present three components to use as guidance when conducting the data analysis. The three components are: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawings/verification (Ibid). Data reduction is the process of simplifying, selecting, focusing, abstracting and transforming the collected data (Ibid). During this step, the researchers categorize the data and indentify themes and patterns (Ibid). Data display is when the relevant data is being presented together in some context, which can be in the form of a text document, charts or matrices (Ibid). The last step, conclusion drawing/verification, is the process of finding patterns and to draw conclusions from the collected data (Ibid).
In the current research, the aforementioned data analysis components that Miles and Huberman (1994) present were used to analyze the data collected from the focus groups and interviews.
When the focus groups and interviews had been conducted, the employee attributes mentioned were transcribed in a document, which became the foundation of the empirical data. The next step was to simplify and transform the collected data through reduction of data that was considered irrelevant for the study. Through a table, similar attributes were identified and put together into broader concepts that were to be used in the quantitative data collection instrument.
This process is further explained in chapter 6.1.
4.8.2 Quantitative Data Analysis
In a quantitative research, statistical analysis is conducted to test hypotheses and draw statistical inferences (Krishnaswami & Satyaprasad, 2010). It is also conducted to determine the value of unknown characteristics of the population investigated (Ibid). Before quantitative data is processed and analyzed it is rather meaningless and to make quantitative data meaningful it needs to be processed (Saunders et al, 2009). By processing data into graphs, charts, and statistics, it becomes possible to explore, present and examine relationships and trends within the data (Saunders et al, 2009).
4.8.2.1 Data Preparation
According to Hair et al (2003), researchers must examine data when it has been collected to ensure its validity, before it can be analyzed. Editing data involves for instance missing data, coding, as well as entering data (Hair et al, 2003). More information about data preparation can be found in Appendix A: Method, A14.
28 In the current study, the data was edited once it had been collected, which means that questionnaires with missing data were eliminated. The data from the collected questionnaires was later on entered into the system SPSS, which is a program developed for the whole process of planning, data collection, analysis, reporting and deployment (IBM, 2013).
4.8.2.2 Descriptive Statistics
According to Befring (1994), descriptive data includes principles, methods and techniques to be able to compile, present, identify and interpret empirical data. The descriptive data is all about organizing and identifying different patterns from collected data (Ibid).
The questionnaire sent to students included the following descriptive items: gender, number of years you have been studying at the marketing program, if you are actively searching for a job, and what dream employer you have. In the questionnaire to recruiters, the following descriptive items was included: gender, position at the company, number of the years working at the current position, number of employees working at the company, and what industry the company are in.
Further information about descriptive statistics can be seen in Appendix A: Method, A15.
4.8.2.3 Mann-Whitney U test
The most frequently asked question within business research is whether or not the means between two groups of respondents are significantly different (Hair et al 2003; Saunders et al, 2009). To be able to see whether or not there is a difference, a null hypothesis as well as an alternative hypothesis needs to be stated (Hair et al, 2003). Secondly, the significance level when testing the null hypothesis needs to be selected, where the traditional significance level (α) is 0.05 (Hair et al, 2003; Pallant, 2010). Last, an appropriate statistical test needs to be selected (Hair et al, 2003).
A Mann-Whitney U test can be used to test the difference between two independent groups on a single, ordinal variable, and demands no specific distribution (Weiner & Craighead, 2010). A Mann-Whitney U test can preferably be used when required assumptions for a t-test are not achieved (Ibid). For instance, when conducting a t-test, it is required that the items are measured at a interval or ratio level, but a Mann-Whitney U test only requires the variables to be measured at an ordinal level (Ibid). Moreover, a Mann-Whitney U test does not require the variables to be
