higher education policy for employees

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• A–Z Index

• Operating Status

Resources For

• New / Prospective Employees
• Federal Employees
• HR Professionals

Federal Academic Alliance

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) leads and serves the Federal Government in enterprise human resources management by delivering policies and services to achieve a trusted, effective civilian workforce. Our Governmentwide talent development focus is to ensure Federal employees have access to high-quality talent development opportunities in the identified Governmentwide mission critical occupations and leverage resources to increase impact.

The Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council and OPM established a joint initiative to address critical skills gaps, and identified the following Governmentwide mission critical occupations:  Economists, Human Resources, Cybersecurity, Auditors, Acquisition and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).  Additionally, OPM forecasts of future hiring trends suggest that healthcare be included under the STEM workforce.  By developing formal relationships with learning institutions, OPM can lead the effort to help agencies address current skill needs.

OPM is partnering with colleges and universities as a part of the continuing efforts to provide higher educational opportunities to the Federal workforce by providing current Federal employees with the opportunity to pursue post-secondary education at reduced tuition rates.  This program is a benefit that Federal employees can take advantage of at their own pace to pursue or enhance their higher academic education.  Some of the agreements extend the benefits to spouses and legal dependents.

The academic alliances are an additional educational resource for Federal employees and Federal agencies.  The alliances address the demand for high-quality learning and development as well as the extremely fast pace of change in the learning industry. 

With the endorsement of the CHCO Council, OPM began this leading effort to create relationships with colleges and universities to:

• Address current Governmentwide and agency-specific skills gaps
• Support career development for Federal employee
• Provide greater opportunities for Federal employees to obtain college degrees, certificates and/or college credits
• Provide this opportunity with colleges and universities that offer an online component to address our worldwide workforce.
• Provide current college students with a greater understanding of the Federal Government

Our Academic Partners

Questions and Answers

0">related categories.

No records found for current search/filters.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Why Companies Should Pay for Employees to Further Their Education

Sponsor content from Strategic Education.

By Terry McDonough and Cheryl Oldham

For today’s professional, a full-time job and family commitments are often so time-consuming that earning a college degree is a daunting gamble. Questions of affordability, flexibility, and relevance dominate decision making—in short, will the degree be worth the investment?

Alleviating risk in one area can make the decision easier. Financing higher education is perhaps the biggest obstacle to earning a degree, but what if the employer shouldered all of the financial burden? Through tuition assistance or reimbursement benefits, an employee could learn new skills and become a reliable asset to their organization, with less stress about how to pay for it.

The problem? At many organizations that offer education benefits, fewer than 5% of employees take advantage of these programs, according to SHRM .

This is a missed opportunity for both employee and employer, especially in light of the pandemic, as fears of wide-scale layoffs and furloughs have caused many employees to contemplate career shifts and building new skills.

“Companies will compete on how well they are able to find, source, develop, advance, and retain talent,” according to research by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation. “Learners and workers will compete on skills and credentials and the ability to be agile in a dynamic labor market and economy. Communities, too, will compete on their ability to attract, develop, and retain a competitive workforce that will drive economic growth, opportunity, and prosperity.”

The global pandemic has introduced new urgency and risks that require bold thinking to update antiquated talent and education financing practices. Current approaches to financing education and career readiness fail to meet the needs of the labor market. We in higher ed and the employment space need to create employee education programs that are attractive and relevant for the employee and that can build and retain a skilled workforce for the employer.

A 2016-17 survey administered by the Graduate! Network found that from an employer’s perspective, education programs were influential in their ability to achieve organizational goals, including decreased turnover and increased customer satisfaction, employee engagement and productivity, and profit. Experts at  McKinsey contend that businesses will emerge stronger from the pandemic if they start reskilling their workforces now.

There is enough evidence that this is the right path forward, so why aren’t we moving rapidly to scale employer-sponsored employee education programs?

Because employer-sponsored employee education programs are not ready to be scaled. The current user experience is Byzantine and lengthy, overly processed, and about as user-friendly as a rotary phone in an iPhone world.

To showcase the power of these programs, we need to create an experience that is both easy and interesting. Higher education and employers can come together to create innovative solutions that produce tangible results. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles US (FCA) partnered with Strayer University to offer its dealership employees and their families the opportunity to earn a degree at Strayer free of charge. According to 2017 data, participating dealers experienced nearly 40% higher employee retention and a 17% higher revenue growth than nonparticipating dealers.

But just creating a better experience isn’t enough. We need to show value, because for employees, the value of earning a degree or credential is not always clear.

A recent national poll by Strada Education Network found that there is growing interest in postsecondary education or training among adult learners aged 25 to 44 without a college degree. However, these learners are less likely than they were a year ago to believe that the education or training will be worth the cost and will help them get a good job. Fewer than one-third of adults without degrees reported understanding “very well” available career pathways, valuable skills, and details about potential education programs.

This is a call for employers to help. By developing solutions that provide employees with a clear path to success—from choosing a degree program that best fits their goals to mapping out which courses will be most applicable—employers can effectively train or reskill employees to meet their own workforce needs.

But how? Employers are working with cumbersome platforms, little to no measurement or tracking tools, and high fees for online program managers (OPMs) to administer education benefits.

The pandemic has reminded us vividly of the power of technology to alleviate and solve challenges. We talk with our doctors, bank securely, and order dinner, all on our phones—all but eliminating any argument that technology has no place in higher education. In that vein, to be successful, employee education programs must shift to be more like a make your own burrito bowl and less like a prix-fixe menu.

A partnership between Noodle Partners and Strategic Education—parent company of both Capella University and Strayer—adapts the insurance industry’s concept of “in network” and “out of network” to deliver relevant educational programs.

Through a newly developed employee education management portal, employees will be able to choose from Noodle’s network of public and private universities, find a program that fits their needs, and manage their benefits—all on one platform. Employers will be able to log into the same portal to administer and disburse funds as well as check on progress. This new level of data will allow benefits managers to better track returns on their investment and make adjustments as necessary.

This example shows how much there is to gain when higher ed and business come together for the benefit of adult learners. The key to a successful partnership is to prioritize the needs of employee-students, which are very different from those of traditional four-year college students.

There are more innovations like this that will achieve better results for employers and for workers. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, in partnership with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and others, recently launched Talent Finance , a groundbreaking initiative to explore new private-sector-led solutions for investing in people and skills that keep pace with innovation and advance economic opportunity, inclusion, and competitiveness. Constant innovation and investment in the economy’s most important resource—human capital—is needed to build the workforce of the future. Talent Finance will develop new ways for employers and the financial services community to work together to identify private sector tools for financing talent development and new strategies for managing risk in the labor market.

The pandemic reminds us all that the way we’ve done things in the past is no longer a feasible option. For the United States to grow its economy and strengthen its global competitiveness, the education and business industries must reimagine their approach to expanding economic opportunity. Strategic investments need to be made on both the employer side and the employee side—with assistance from higher education companies that are willing to invest in promising technologies—to evolve the tuition assistance and reimbursement programs for the future. Their alliance is a path forward for meeting the evolving demand for new skills with an affordable and accessible education that benefits employees, businesses, higher education, and the overall economy during a pandemic, and beyond.

To learn more about WorkforceEdge powered by Strategic Education, click here.

Terry McDonough serves as president of alternative learning at Strategic Education, Inc. — a mission-driven higher education organization dedicated to advancing economic and career mobility through higher education. In his role, Terry oversees Strategic Education’s non-degree portfolio, including Sophia Learning, self-paced general education courses that are ACE-recommended for college credit; WorkforceEdge, a full-service, online employee education management portal; Degrees@Work, customized employer-sponsored degree programs for businesses; and non-degree web and mobile application development programs through DevMountain, Generation Code, and Hackbright Academy.

Cheryl Oldham serves a dual role as vice president of education policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and senior vice president of the education and workforce program of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation.

Transforming HR to better support higher education institutions

Faculty and staff are often key contributors to whether colleges and universities can meet their strategic objectives, which range from improving outcomes for students and increasing the diversity of their student and faculty bodies to creating a more inclusive culture and expanding research impact. But like most organizations, higher education institutions face increasing competition in the race for talent—both for HR talent and the people HR recruits.

The COVID-19 pandemic upended the US labor market, and the number of job openings is far outpacing the pool of available workers. 1 Aaron De Smet, Bonnie Dowling, Bryan Hancock, and Bill Schaninger, “ The Great Attrition is making hiring harder. Are you searching the right talent pools? ,” McKinsey Quarterly , July 13, 2022. Many employers are rethinking what it takes to attract, develop, and retain talent. Higher education institutions are no exception. In recent conversations, college and university leaders have indicated that universities’ historical advantages for attracting talent—such as a strong brand, compelling mission, greater flexibility, and perceptions of a better work–life balance—are no longer sufficient in distinguishing them. Indeed, in an era of high inflation, and with companies increasingly offering more flexibility, the gap between higher education and corporate America is widening.

Human resources can play a pivotal role in maintaining a robust higher education talent pipeline, supporting faculty and staff, and building new skills across an institution. But many higher education faculty members, as well as clinical and research leaders, have told us that their HR functions need to evolve beyond what they mostly are seen as: compliance and administrative functions. In our conversations with administrators of higher education institutions, some have even suggested that a lack of strong HR engagement and support has delayed implementation of university strategies.

But higher education HR faces a unique set of circumstances, including having to operate within a decentralized governance structure that often reduces HR’s focus to compliance and administration rather than talent attraction, development, and retention. In this article, we examine the common challenges HR faces in playing a central and strategic role in universities. We also explore how an integrated approach that focuses on building capabilities and redesigning processes could help HR leaders overcome these hurdles to better support the university in achieving its strategic objectives.

HR today: Core challenges across universities

Current HR functions tend to focus on executing existing processes rather than on more strategic activities such as workforce planning. However, a more agile, strategic, and collaborative HR function could help universities be successful in this new era.

Expanding work beyond the execution of existing processes is a common challenge in HR departments across industries and sectors. But this challenge can be even more pronounced at colleges and universities given that most have a decentralized governance model, many processes tailored to meet different university needs (for example, one process for hiring faculty and another for hiring researchers), and poorly defined HR career paths.

Lack of alignment between the HR function and the rest of the university

University HR departments often have a central HR function analogous to “corporate HR” at many large private-sector organizations. These organizations often report to a vice president or the equivalent of a COO, and they set university-wide policies and procedures. Individual colleges or departments (especially in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields) may also hire their own HR staff, similar to business-unit HR in the private sector. The role of these staff members is often to meet a particular department’s individual needs, such as hiring and managing research teams to fulfill staffing requirements based on grant funding.

That said, unlike in the private sector, where chief human resources officers (CHROs) typically report to the CEO, university CHROs often do not report directly to the university president. In addition, these CHROs rarely have a university-wide mandate on the more strategic topics that cut across areas of the university, such as employer branding, modern organization design, cross-university career paths, culture, and employee experience. In fact, some of the most strategic activities related to human resources—for example, processes to determine faculty needs and the hiring process—may fall outside of HR altogether.

As such, university HR organizations are more likely to be seen by their institutions as compliance and administrative functions that are not always ready to support the strategic needs of the major divisions of the university.

Cumbersome and obscure processes

Despite a focus on operations, HR processes can drag on for weeks or even months and can be a source of frustration for university leaders. Organizational transactions, such as a reporting change or hiring a student for the semester, can take weeks or months. Critical activities, such as hiring candidates to support research grants, can also become bogged down by processes. Some of this reflects how people are paid (for example, federal work-study funding for students or research grants) and numerous people processes across various parts of the university (for example, reconciling different approaches to titles and compensation across departments).

Navigating these complexities in a compliant manner can be time-consuming, especially during times of peak demand. Many higher education HR functions also lack up-to-date technology that can support and streamline processes. Moreover, HR’s ability to change policies quickly is often limited, which can leave HR employees feeling powerless, stifle innovation, and erode trust among university leaders.

While some university leaders understand these complexities, others regard HR as a black box that emphasizes process and compliance and focuses too much on doing operational tasks squarely within policy rather than helping to further the university’s mission. HR leaders we’ve spoken to who aspire to be true partners with university leaders are often overworked due to a never-ending set of exceptions and escalations. As such, they are unable to invest the time required to develop proactive talent strategies while also keeping up with day-to-day operational work.

HR leaders who aspire to be true partners with university leaders are often overworked due to a never-ending set of exceptions and escalations.

Insufficient capability building across the university

Universities often source senior HR employees from non-HR roles across the university, such as research administration or academic functions, partially because of increased competition with the private sector for experienced HR talent.

While it is possible for such individuals to succeed in HR, not all receive the training or upskilling necessary for HR-specific work. Individuals coming from these roles are rarely well equipped to take on the strategic HR activities universities need to expand, such as succession planning, developing and supporting long-term career paths, and communicating with the complex web of stakeholders inherent to universities.

And given that university leaders are not trained in HR matters, they may not be able to provide the kind of actionable, informed feedback—that is, feedback on the policy rather than the people or process—that their HR colleagues need. This may compound the existing capability gap.

Initiatives that could help HR advance and support talent strategies

Due to their highly intellectual cultures and dedication to learning, universities are uniquely equipped to address these hurdles with the right investments and commitment to change. The decentralized nature of academic campuses naturally engenders a diversity of perspectives that can be brought together to solve the toughest challenges, including breaking the loop of overwork and building trust and collaborative relationships among HR and critical stakeholders.

The following four initiatives could help get higher education HR on track.

Creating talent goals that are explicitly aligned to the university’s strategy

Too often, HR strategic plans are created by HR and for HR. By conducting interviews with university leadership and gaining explicit alignment with the president, provost, and chief administrative officer (CAO), HR could establish goals for a broad transformation of its mission and capabilities that are aligned with the university’s mission and strategic plan, as well as with the needs of key leaders.

In the private sector, some organizations have elevated the CEO, CFO, and CHRO as the core team to oversee strategy and financing, ensuring they have the capabilities to execute key initiatives. 2 Dominic Barton, Dennis Carey, and Ram Charan, Talent Wins: The New Playbook for Putting People First , Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2018. This goes beyond having HR leaders actively join and participate in senior leadership discussions. HR becomes central to the initiatives most critical to the organization’s success.

In a university setting, however, we often find that HR leaders are at least two steps removed from a similar partnership, instead reporting to a CAO or provost. As such, they often are not included in core leadership meetings—and are certainly outside the inner circle of presidents, provosts, and CAOs creating and executing an integrated strategic plan.

Once HR and university leaders are aligned on the plan, HR will also need to understand progress against goals and continue to address gaps in perceived skills and performance. For instance, an anonymous survey may demonstrate that the HR function believes talent sourcing is strong (for example, technically strong and low cost), while university leadership sees it as weak (for example, too slow). In this case, HR leaders could have a more explicit conversation about what would need to change to improve processes, such as implementing a better IT system or investing more during peak hiring times.

Building and actively sustaining a pathway for HR professionals

Universities have the opportunity to reimagine the professional journey for HR practitioners from hiring and training to career development.

Hiring. HR job postings more than doubled from February 2020 to January 2022, 3 Audrey Eads and Jane Kellogg Murray, “2022 outlook: Trends and predictions for job seekers,” Indeed, updated July 26, 2022. reflecting the high market demand for talent professionals in a tight labor market. While universities may not stand out in terms of compensation in this competitive environment, they may have various other advantages, such as the university’s brand and prestige, the mission of the university, and the location of the job within a vibrant collegiate community. In addition, universities could consider offering flexible employment opportunities to employees who are unable to commit to full-time or fully in-person roles.

Training. Many university HR employees come from non-HR backgrounds, bringing extensive expertise in other areas that are beneficial to HR functions. At the same time, they would likely benefit from training programs in core HR skills to help them succeed in their roles, both as new hires and during role transitions. Specifically, during training and onboarding for entry-level employees and those transitioning in from non-HR roles, universities could teach technical HR skills, such as how to determine compensation.

To be better equipped to resolve conflicts, have difficult conversations with leadership, and solve problems efficiently and effectively, HR leaders could improve communication, problem-solving, customer-service, and stakeholder-management skills. To develop them, HR could undertake communication workshops, role playing, mentorship groups, leadership training, and HR-specific trainings. As a practical example, HR staff should be able to explain processes and rationales for policies that may cause friction; for example, it can be hard to communicate the impact of salary compression in a poorly implemented reorganization. HR should also be empowered to work with campus stakeholders to update or streamline policies or processes as needed to achieve the university’s mission.

University HR employees would likely benefit from training programs in core HR skills to help them succeed in their roles.

Career development. Ideally, leaders can articulate how each employee can advance to senior roles or switch to different HR units that provide growth opportunities throughout their career. Leaders can underwrite these paths by listing the skills required to be successful at each level of seniority of a role. Leaders will likely want to make the model consistent across similar HR roles in all parts of the organization and design from the center.

Well-structured performance management can also play a critical role in development and advancement. Based on a transparent set of performance measures for each role, employees can receive qualitative and quantitative feedback on their performance that is directly tied to incentives, such as financial add-ons and public recognition. In addition, the performance management process is a time for individuals to set goals and receive feedback. This process can chart a clear path to the next level if the employee wishes to advance, and managers can establish regular check-ins to ensure people are making progress toward their goals.

These fundamental elements of defining the competencies of each role and potential career progression—and the associated performance management process—may be well established in many organizations. But we have found that due to the distributed nature of universities, many of these elements are often neither consistently applied nor in place for HR professionals.

Structuring HR so it can respond to changing needs with agility

University HR talent pools often work in silos based on a specific college, department, administration, or other unit. These silos tend to be even more separate in higher education settings than in large corporations. Even if HR professionals in similar roles across the university, such as HR business partners across colleges, communicate with one another, they rarely have an opportunity to load balance across roles as spikes of work arise. A large research grant received in one college or a large reorganization in another can tie up critical resources that make it challenging to take care of other day-to-day activities.

One way to address this is by establishing a group of HR professionals (often in entry-level roles) who can move across the organization to support different operations as work ebbs and flows throughout the academic year. For instance, it may be beneficial to add analysts at the start of each semester to onboard all student hires. Then, after the demand for student-hire onboarding has decreased, these analysts could shift to employee relations. This system could allow high-potential talent to gain exposure to different functions within a university, allowing them to determine what is a good long-term match and also accrue a breadth of experience that could prove useful if they eventually step into a leadership role overseeing multiple functions.

For the long term, leaders may need to consider a new organizational structure that can better meet the needs of the organization. A more agile operating model in which HR employees have flexible roles can help organizations adapt more quickly to change and disruptions such as COVID-19. 4 “ An operating model for the next normal: Lessons from agile organizations in the crisis ,” McKinsey, June 25, 2020.

Continually investing in HR services and technology

We’ve found that universities often do not continually improve HR processes in a way that allows them to advance and are typically further behind in this regard than large corporations. While focusing on process improvements is important, achieving a step change in performance will likely require a fundamental shift in the HR operating model.

HR leaders and HR business partners may be able to take on more strategic roles within their organizations if they establish a central sub-HR unit, a shared-services center, or support staff dedicated to operational and transactional work. Transitioning activities to a central unit within a university setting presents unique challenges in process design, approvals, and communication due to the complex network of stakeholders involved—and it does not always go well initially. 5 Sam Gringlas, “In wake of outcry, University to rethink shared service plan,” The Michigan Daily , December 2, 2013. However, when implemented effectively, this transition can lead to high satisfaction in the HR function. 6 “Portfolio-wide customer service assessment,” University of Oregon Office of the Senior Vice President for Finance and Administration, accessed November 15, 2022. Moreover, by reevaluating their roles, HR employees, especially HR professionals and leaders, can reflect on prioritization and delegation in their daily work, including prioritizing hiring new staff, which can help alleviate long-term capacity issues. At the same time, this can allow leaders to focus on being role models for customer service and partnership, strongly and clearly communicating the strategic role of HR across the university.

That said, HR organizations do not need to take a “big bang” approach to improving technologies and processes. In many cases, HR can deploy small teams on a project-by-project basis to understand, design, and implement critical system customizations or processes that are common pain points for organizations. Sometimes refining or automating a process may be quite simple, such as creating a streamlined intake form with a clean handoff to an existing IT system. In other cases, HR may need to create new processes that handle requests differently—for example, bifurcating requests as low or high complexity depending on the oversight needed. Piloting processes and receiving feedback from users are critical, as is developing clear and effective training materials to ensure that all stakeholders understand the requirements, scope, and benefits of the new process.

As higher education institutions seek to adapt to a very different world, the right people could have an impact on how well universities navigate new challenges and continue to create positive student experiences. HR plays a pivotal role in this, but it faces unique challenges. By harnessing HR professionals’ dedication to learning and growth, universities could invest in transforming HR from a function bogged down in compliance and administration to a nimble, empowered partner that advances the institution’s strategic goals.

Bryan Hancock is a partner in McKinsey’s Washington, DC, office, where Ted Rounsaville is a senior expert; Martha Laboissiere is a partner in the Bay Area office, where Dylan Moore is a consultant.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Five trends to watch in the edtech industry

Racial and ethnic equity in US higher education

Setting a new bar for online higher education

• Book a Speaker

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus convallis sem tellus, vitae egestas felis vestibule ut.

Error message details.

Reuse Permissions

Request permission to republish or redistribute SHRM content and materials.

Educational Assistance Policy

[Company name] will reimburse an employee up to a maximum of $[amount] per year for continuing education through an accredited program that either offers growth in an area related to his or her current position or that may lead to promotional opportunities. This education may include college credit courses, continuing education unit courses, seminars and certification tests that are job-related.

An employee must secure a passing grade of "B" or its equivalent or obtain a certification to receive any reimbursement. Expenses must be validated by receipts and a copy of the final grade or certification received.

Eligibility

Full-time, regular employees who have completed six-months of employment are eligible under this policy.

Procedures To receive reimbursement for educational expenses, employees should follow the procedures listed here:

• Prior to enrolling in an educational course, the employee must provide his or her manager with information about the course for which he or she would like to receive reimbursement and discuss the job-relatedness of the continuing education.
• A tuition reimbursement request form should be completed by the employee, and the appropriate signatures obtained.
• A copy of the tuition reimbursement request form must be submitted to HR. The employee will maintain the original until he or she has completed the educational course.
• Once the course is successfully completed, the employee should resubmit the original tuition reimbursement request form with the reimbursement section filled out, including appropriate signatures, as well as receipts and evidence of a passing grade or certification attached.
• The HR department will coordinate the reimbursement with the finance department. 

Any questions or comments related to this policy should be directed to the HR department.

Related Content

Why AI+HI Is Essential to Compliance

HR must always include human intelligence and oversight of AI in decision-making in hiring and firing, a legal expert said at SHRM24. She added that HR can ensure compliance by meeting the strictest AI standards, which will be in Colorado’s upcoming AI law.

A 4-Day Workweek? AI-Fueled Efficiencies Could Make It Happen

The proliferation of artificial intelligence in the workplace, and the ensuing expected increase in productivity and efficiency, could help usher in the four-day workweek, some experts predict.

Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace

​An organization run by AI is not a futuristic concept. Such technology is already a part of many workplaces and will continue to shape the labor market and HR. Here's how employers and employees can successfully manage generative AI and other AI-powered systems.

HR Daily Newsletter

News, trends, analysis and breaking news alerts to help HR professionals do their jobs better each business day.

Success title

Success caption

How to Use — and Ask For — Employer Tuition Reimbursement Benefits

Whether you want to earn a degree or update your skills, your benefits package may be able to help cover the cost of furthering your education.

Mary Sharp Emerson

Helping employees keep their skills current has benefits for employers and employees alike. Organizations that offer tuition reimbursement programs find it easier to hire and retain top talent, and up-skilling can be more cost-effective than hiring new staff. For employees, taking advantage of your employer-sponsored tuition programs is the perfect way to finance your education , build new skills, and add value for your company.

Therefore, the majority of companies today offer tuition reimbursement or coverage to help their employees pursue their educational goals. According to one recent study, as many as 92 percent of companies have some type of educational benefit program.

Learn more about employer tuition reimbursement, how to take advantage of your employer’s program, and steps you can take if your employer does not currently have a tuition reimbursement program. 

What is Employer Tuition Reimbursement?

A tuition reimbursement program enables a company to cover some or all of the costs of an employee’s education, as long as the program of study and related expenses fall within the guidelines of that company’s specific policy.

Tuition reimbursement can be used to fund (or partially fund) an undergraduate or graduate degree program. These benefits may also cover job-related professional development courses or specific skill-building classes, or even educational courses that may not be specifically job-related.

To find out if your company offers education reimbursement, you can talk to your manager or supervisor, ask your HR representative, or check out your employee guides.

Tax Implications of Tuition Reimbursement

Taking advantage of an education assistance program can impact your taxes . 

Federal tax law allows employees to get up to $5,250 in tuition reimbursement tax free from their employer every year. This means that up to that $5,250 cap, you don’t have to declare the tuition reimbursement on your federal income taxes, as long as your company has a written policy and the policy meets all federal tax guidelines.

Under that same federal tax law, tax-free employer-funded education assistance can cover tuition, fees, books, and some supplies and equipment. It cannot cover meals, lodging, and transportation, tools and supplies you keep, or courses involving sports or hobbies (unless work related or a required part of a degree program).

There’s a tax benefit for your employer as well: Your company can take that same amount—up to $5,250 per year, per employee—as a tax deduction.    

In most cases, any tuition assistance you receive from your employer over $5,250 will be included as income in your yearly tax filing. However, if the tuition reimbursement is specifically job related and you can claim the cost as a deductible business expense, reimbursement above $5,250 may be considered a Working Condition Fringe Benefit and therefore not taxable. 

Impact on Financial Aid

If your employer’s tuition assistance isn’t enough to cover the entire cost of your program, you might be able to obtain financial aid to pay the difference. Receiving tuition reimbursement benefits should not prevent you from being approved for loans or other aid. 

However, it may limit or reduce how much financial aid for which you are eligible. When you complete your financial aid applications, you will need to include any employer reimbursement as part of your comprehensive financial statement.  

For most people, that’s probably not a reason to avoid taking advantage of your employer’s educational assistance, especially if the alternative is to take out loans. 

View our financial aid options and policies

Getting Started: Using an Employer-Sponsored Tuition Reimbursement Program

The specifics of each corporation’s tuition reimbursement policy can vary widely, so it’s important to familiarize yourself with the details of your company’s policy before enrolling in a class or program. 

Here are some critical questions to ask regarding your employer’s program: 

Does the course/degree/program need to be job-related?

Some companies may include tuition reimbursement for any coursework, especially if part of a degree program. Others, however, may limit educational assistance to classes or programs that are directly related to your job.

What programs are eligible?  

There may be limits on where you can attend programs, whether geographical or by institution. You may be restricted to certain locations or accredited institutions, so check the fine print. 

Additionally, see if your employer has any cooperative agreements with nearby schools or adult education centers that you might utilize. 

Who needs to approve my request for reimbursement?

You will likely need to get written approval from your manager before you can submit for reimbursement. You may also need to get sign-off from HR.

Need approval from your boss?

Many organizations have a budget for employee career development. Use the template request letter we’ve created to tap into those funds.

Do I need to maintain certain grades?

Some employers will require you to get a certain grade before they will reimburse you, or they may have a sliding scale. For instance, they might give 100 percent reimbursement for an “A,” 90 percent reimbursement for a “B,” and so on. 

How does reimbursement happen?  

Usually, reimbursement is given on a course-by-course basis, and can be handled in one of two ways:

• Your employer may pay the school for the program directly on your behalf,
• Or your employer may require you to pay out of pocket and reimburse you after you complete the coursework.

How long do I have to be employed before I can utilize the reimbursement program?

The answer to this question will vary widely from company to company. Some employers may allow you to start taking classes immediately. Others may require that you be employed by the company for a certain amount of time before claiming benefits. 

It’s also important to know whether you must be a full-time employee to take advantage of tuition reimbursement.

Do I have to commit to staying at the company after I am reimbursed for a course?

Most companies have some requirement that you remain with the company after reimbursement. The requirement can range from weeks to months to even years. 

You should also be sure to check the policy carefully to see if there are any circumstances in which you would need to pay the company back. For instance, if you leave voluntarily or are terminated for cause within the commitment window, you may need to return a certain amount.

See our tuition rates, policies, and options for paying for school

Will coursework impact my ability to fulfill my job requirements?

Be sure that you know exactly what the course will require in terms of workload. Also, make sure that your manager understands how pursuing a professional development course or degree program may impact your ability to fulfill your job requirements. 

Will you be able to complete all the necessary coursework outside of working hours or will you need to decrease your weekly hours to have time to do the work? Will you need to take time off to attend lectures or classes or are the program requirements flexible? 

Be clear with your employer in advance so there are no surprises or misunderstandings once the course begins.

What are the necessary deadlines?

Communicate clearly with your HR department about what paperwork you need to complete (and get signed, if necessary) and when it must be done. 

Your employer probably has some type of tuition reimbursement approval form that you need to fill out and have signed by your manager several weeks, or maybe even months, before the program starts.

After you finish the program, you may need to provide some form of documentation from the school or program showing that you completed the course and the grade you earned. You may need to do this even if your employer paid for the program on your behalf.

What if My Employer Doesn’t Have a Tuition Reimbursement Program? 

Just because your employer doesn’t have an existing tuition reimbursement policy doesn’t mean you can’t explore it as a potential option. It could be that no one has ever asked for one. 

The key to making a strong case for tuition reimbursement lies in being specific. Avoid general statements and lay out a business case for how your training will benefit the organization. 

Come into the discussion prepared to give your manager details such as exactly what class you want to take, where and when the class is offered, and how much it will cost (or how much reimbursement you want).

Be ready to show your employer that helping you pursue your educational goals can have substantial benefits for the organization. 

Remind them that having a tuition reimbursement program can help a company:

• Retain and promote top talent
• Improve employee satisfaction and loyalty
• Earn a reputation as a good place to work 
• Build stronger teams across all operations
• Boost innovation and productivity

And most importantly, be specific with your manager about how the course or program will strengthen skills that provide real value. 

As you prepare for this discussion, here are a few other points you may want to consider:

• Be realistic about whether your employer can afford educational assistance. Some businesses—especially small organizations that may be operating with only minimal profits—may struggle to find the necessary cash for a tuition reimbursement program.
• Be prepared to start small. Instead of jumping right into an entire degree program, for example, start with just one professional development program or work-related course. This will give your employer a chance to see the benefits in real time, without making a major financial commitment.
• Include with your proposal a draft policy for your employer’s review. To be eligible for tax deduction, your employer’s policy must be written. By drafting a potential policy on behalf of your employer, you are both easing their workload and demonstrating the seriousness of your proposal.

Going back to school while working requires resourcefulness. And being resourceful means using every benefit available to you. If your company is willing and able, let them help you take that next step. 

Browse graduate and undergraduate programs

About the Author

Digital Content Producer

Emerson is a Digital Content Producer at Harvard DCE. She is a graduate of Brandeis University and Yale University and started her career as an international affairs analyst. She is an avid triathlete and has completed three Ironman triathlons, as well as the Boston Marathon.

Tools and Strategies for Succeeding as a Distance Student

We explore the benefits and challenges of studying mostly online - and what it takes to succeed at a distance.

Harvard Division of Continuing Education

The Division of Continuing Education (DCE) at Harvard University is dedicated to bringing rigorous academics and innovative teaching capabilities to those seeking to improve their lives through education. We make Harvard education accessible to lifelong learners from high school to retirement.

An official website of the United States government.

Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Misclassification
• Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
• Pump at Work
• Maternal Health
• Retaliation
• Government Contracts
• Immigration
• Child Labor
• Agricultural Employment
• Subminimum Wage
• Employment of Workers With Disabilities
• Lie Detector Tests
• Davis Bacon Prevailing Wage Survey
• WORKER RIGHTS
• Resources For Employers
• Regulatory Library
• Interpretive Guidance
• Industry-Specific Resources
• Compliance Assistance
• elaws Advisors
• Fact Sheets
• New and Small Businesses Resources
• Presentations
• External User Portal (EUP)
• Compliance Assistance Toolkits
• New and Small Business Resources
• Publications By Language
• FLSA Compliance Videos
• Know Your Rights Video Series
• Employer.gov
• DOL Enforcement Database
• Workers Owed Wages
• Order Publications
• Laws and Regulations
• Field Handbook
• Administrator Interpretations, Opinion and Ruling Letters
• Field Bulletins
• State Minimum Wage Laws
• State Labor Law Topics
• State Labor Offices
• Resources for State and Local Governments
• NEWS RELEASES

Fact Sheet #17S: Higher Education Institutions and Overtime Pay Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Revised August 2024

This fact sheet provides information on the exemption from minimum wage and overtime pay provided by Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA as defined by Regulations, 29 CFR part 541 , and discusses the applicability of such exemptions to employees in jobs that are common in higher education institutions.

The FLSA requires that most employees in the United States be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime pay at not less than time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek.

Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay for employees employed as bona fide executive , administrative , professional and outside sales employees. Section 13(a)(1) and Section 13(a)(17) also include an exemption from minimum wage and overtime for certain employees in computer-related occupations.

Generally, in order for an exemption to apply, an employee's specific job duties and salary must meet the requirements of the Department's regulations, which require:

• The employee must be paid on a salary basis that is not subject to reduction based on the quality or quantity of work (the " salary basis test "), rather than, for example, on an hourly basis;
• The employee must receive a salary at a rate not less than the standard salary level required by 29 CFR 541.600 and listed at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/overtime/salary-levels (the " salary level test "); and
• The employee's primary duty must involve the kind of work associated with the exempt status sought, such as executive, administrative, or professional work (the " duties test ").

Additional information concerning these exemptions is available in Fact Sheets 17A-G. See https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets .

Exemptions for Common Higher Education Jobs

A teacher is exempt from minimum wage and overtime protections if their primary duty is teaching, tutoring, instructing, or lecturing to impart knowledge, and if they are performing that duty as an employee of an educational establishment. See 29 CFR 541.303 . Educational establishments include elementary school systems, secondary school systems, institutions of higher education, and other educational institutions. See 29 CFR 541.204(b) . If a bona fide teacher meets these requirements, the salary level and salary basis tests do not apply. See 29 CFR 541.303(d) , 541.600(e) .

Given these requirements, professors, instructors, and adjunct professors typically meet the requirements for this exemption. A faculty member who teaches online or remotely also may qualify for this exemption. The regulations do not restrict where bona fide teaching may take place, to whom the knowledge can be imparted, or how many hours a teacher must work per week to qualify for the exemption. The exemption would therefore ordinarily apply, for example, to a part-time faculty member of an educational establishment whose primary duty is to provide instruction through online courses to remote non-credit learners. The exemption could likewise apply, for example, to an agricultural extension agent who is employed by an educational establishment to travel and provide instruction to farmers, if the agent's primary duty is teaching, instructing, or lecturing to impart knowledge. Additionally, teachers of skilled and semi-skilled trades and occupations frequently meet the requirements for exemption. To determine a teacher's primary duty, the relevant inquiry in all cases is the teacher's actual job duties. Job titles or full/part-time status alone do not determine exempt status.

A teacher does not become nonexempt merely because they spend a considerable amount of time in extracurricular activities (such as coaching athletic teams or supervising student clubs). The teacher is exempt from minimum wage and overtime protections provided the teacher's primary duty is teaching.

Athletic coaches employed by higher education institutions may meet the requirements for exemption. For example, they may provide instruction to student-athletes in how to perform their sport. However, a coach will not meet the requirements for the exemption if their primary duties are recruiting students to play sports or visiting high schools and athletic camps to conduct student interviews. The amount of time the coach spends instructing student-athletes in a team sport is relevant, but not the exclusive factor, in determining the coach's exemption status.

Professional Employees

The FLSA includes exemptions from minimum wage and overtime protections for several types of exempt professional employees—such as learned professionals, creative professionals, teachers, and employees practicing law or medicine. In higher education, employees eligible for the professional exemption are often either teachers (as discussed above) or learned professionals (as described below). To qualify for the learned professional employee exemption, the employer must ensure all of the following requirements are met:

• The employee's primary duty must be the performance of work requiring advanced knowledge;
• The advanced knowledge must be in a field of science or learning; and
• The advanced knowledge must be customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction.

See 29 CFR 541.301 . Unless the employee is a teacher or practicing law or medicine, they must also satisfy the above-referenced salary basis and salary level tests to be exempt as a learned professional.

In higher education, examples of non-teacher learned professionals that generally may meet the duties requirements include certified public accountants, psychologists, certified athletic trainers, and librarians. Postdoctoral fellows, who conduct research at a higher education institution after completing their doctoral studies, likewise generally meet the duties requirements of the learned professional exemption, and they may additionally qualify for exemption as teachers if teaching is their primary duty. Of course, an employee's qualification for the exemption depends on their actual job duties and education. Job titles alone are not sufficient for determining whether an employee satisfies the duties test.

Administrative Employees

Various employees at higher educational institutions may qualify as exempt administrative employees. To qualify for the administrative employee exemption, the employer must ensure all of the following requirements are met:

• The employee's compensation must satisfy the above-referenced salary basis and salary level tests;
• The employee's primary duty must be the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer's customers; and
• The employee's primary duty must include the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

See 29 CFR 541.200 . Such administrative employees in higher education might include, for example, admissions counselors or student financial aid officers. An employee's qualification for the exemption depends on their actual job duties; job titles alone are not sufficient for determining whether an employee satisfies the duties test.

Notably, there are specific regulatory provisions for certain administrative employees—known as "academic administrative employees"—whose primary duty is performing administrative functions directly related to academic instruction or training in an educational establishment. To be exempt as an academic administrative professional, such employees can either meet the standard salary level requirement OR receive a salary which at least equal to the entrance salary for teachers in the same educational establishment where they are employed. See 29 CFR 541.204 . Employees who work in higher education but whose work does not relate to the educational field (such as work in general business operations) do not meet the requirements to be considered exempt as academic administrative employees, but such employees are exempt if they pass the standard criteria for the executive, administrative, or professional exemptions. See 29 CFR 541.204(c) .

In higher education institutions, exempt academic administrative personnel generally include department heads, intervention specialists who are available to respond to student academic issues, and other employees with similar responsibilities. Exempt administrative personnel would likewise generally include academic counselors who administer school testing programs, assist students with academic problems, and advise students concerning degree requirements. Again, whether an employee satisfies the duties test for these exemptions depends on the employee's actual job duties, not just the employee's job title.

Executive Employees

To qualify for the executive employee exemption, the employer must ensure all of the following requirements are met:

• The employee must receive compensation that satisfies the above-referenced salary basis and salary level tests;
• The employee's primary duty must be managing the enterprise or a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof;
• The employee must customarily and regularly direct the work of at least two or more other full-time employees or their equivalent (for example, one full-time and two half-time employees); and
• The employee must have the authority to hire or fire other employees, or in the alternative, the employee's suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion, or any other change of status of other employees must be given particular weight.

See 29 CFR 541.100 . Various positions in higher education institutions might qualify for the executive exemption, including deans, department heads, directors, and any other manager or supervisor whose job duties and compensation satisfy the above criteria.

Salary Requirements for Part-Time and Part-Year Staff

The standard salary level is not prorated for part-time employees. However, exempt employees need not be paid for any workweek in which they perform no work. See 29 CFR 541.602(a)(1) . Therefore, an exempt employee who works for a school 10 months out of the year only needs to receive the required salary level during the 10-month work period. See 29 CFR 541.602(a)(1) . The standard salary level is a weekly earnings threshold, not an annual earnings threshold.

Additionally, employers may prorate over a full year the salary of an otherwise exempt employee who has a duty period of less than one year. Accordingly, a school may employ a nurse on a 10-month basis and pay the nurse the standard salary level only in the weeks in which the nurse works. Alternatively, the school may spread the nurse's salary payments over 12 months rather than 10 even though each individual payment would be less than the standard salary level.

Student-Employees

As a general matter, most students who work for a college or university are non-exempt workers and must be paid not less than the minimum wage and paid time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

However, the following are examples of students who may not be protected by the minimum wage and overtime requirements:

• Graduate Teaching Assistants. Graduate teaching assistants whose primary duty is teaching are exempt. Because they qualify for exemption as teachers, they are not subject to the salary basis and salary level tests.
• Research Assistants. Generally, an educational relationship exists when a graduate or undergraduate student performs research under a faculty member's supervision while obtaining a degree. Under these circumstances, the Department would not assert that an employment relationship exists with either the school or any grantor funding the student's research. This is true even though the student may receive a stipend for performing the research.
• Student Residential Assistants. Students enrolled in bona fide educational programs who are residential assistants and receive reduced room or board charges or tuition credits are not generally considered employees under the FLSA. They therefore are not entitled to minimum wages and overtime under the FLSA.

An employment relationship will generally exist when a student receives compensation and their duties are not part of an overall education program. For example, students who work at food service counters, sell programs or usher at events, or wash dishes in dining halls and anticipate some compensation (for example, money or meals) are generally considered employees entitled to minimum wage and overtime compensation.

Compensatory Time at Public Universities

Public universities or colleges that qualify as a "public agency" under the FLSA may compensate nonexempt employees with compensatory time off (or "comp time") in lieu of overtime pay. A college or university is a public agency under the FLSA if it is a political subdivision of a State. When determining whether a college or university is a "political subdivision," the Department considers whether (1) the State directly created the entity, or (2) individuals administering the entity are responsible to public officials or the general electorate.

If the public university or college qualifies as a public agency, nonexempt employees generally may not accrue more than 240 hours of comp time. However, employees engaged to work in a public safety activity, an emergency response activity, or a seasonal activity may accrue as much as 480 hours of comp time. See 29 U.S.C. 207(o)(3)(A). Private higher education institutions may not pay employees comp time in lieu of overtime pay.

Where to Obtain Additional Information

For additional information, visit our Wage and Hour Division Website: http://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd and/or call our toll-free information and helpline, available 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in your time zone, 1-866-4USWAGE (1-866-487-9243). If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

This publication is for general information and is not to be considered in the same light as official statements of position contained in the regulations.

The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

• Search Close search
• Find a journal
• Search calls for papers
• Journal Suggester
• Open access publishing

We’re here to help

Find guidance on Author Services

Open access

Employability: a core role of higher education?

• Cite this article
• https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2023.2253649

Introduction

Origins and meaning, application and practice, issues and critique, disclosure statement.

• Full Article
• Figures & data
• Reprints & Permissions
• View PDF PDF View EPUB EPUB

The topic of employability has been much discussed in higher education policy and research contexts in recent years, as higher education has been re-positioned as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. This article aims to review and synthesise the various arguments that have been made in favour of, or against, the adoption of employability as a core purpose or value of higher education. The article makes use of the techniques of systematic review. It discusses the origins and meaning of the term employability, its application and practice, and the issues and critiques that it has raised.

• Employability
• higher education
• higher education research
• systematic review

The topic of employability has been much discussed in higher education policy and research contexts in recent years. Building on a centuries long debate about the developmental and vocational purposes of higher education, and in the contemporary context of the massification of many higher education systems across the world, employability stresses the idea that higher education graduates should be able to make immediate and productive inputs to the economy. Higher education is thus effectively re-positioned as a means to an end (worthwhile employment) rather than an end in itself (the development of intellectually well-rounded individuals).

Employability as a core, or perhaps the core, purpose of higher education has been adopted by national governments (e.g. in the UK, the Office for Students has produced a Graduate Employability and Skills Guide for students) and international bodies, and implemented by many higher education institutions. However, and partly because of its enthusiastic adoption by many governments and institutions, it has also been the subject of considerable criticism by those who work in and/or research higher education.

This article aims to review and synthesise the various arguments that have been made in favour of, or against, the adoption of employability as a core purpose or value of higher education. In doing so it seeks to address the underlying, fundamental question of what higher education is really for.

Methodologically, the article makes use of the techniques of systematic review (Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey Citation 2011 ; Tight Citation 2020 ; Torgerson Citation 2003 ). Databases (Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science) were searched using keywords to identify potentially relevant articles and reports that had been published on the topic. Those identified were then downloaded and examined, and retained for further analysis if they proved to be relevant. The reference lists in these articles and reports were checked for other potentially relevant sources to follow up.

The article proceeds by discussing the origins and meaning of the term employability. Its application and practice are then reviewed, and the issues and critiques that it has raised are identified. This then leads on to some conclusions.

Context and competing concepts

Two initial and key points to be made about the adoption of employability in higher education are that: (i) its usage has to be seen in its historical context, and (ii) there are other competing concepts that seek, or have sought, to address much the same issues.

First, historically, there has always been debate about the purposes of higher education. For example, in the English context, Newman ( Citation 1976 /1852) and his ideas about the university as a communal, residential space, a kind of finishing school for young gentlemen, are still widely referred to. In Germany, Humboldt is the key reference point, with his stress on teaching through research and Bildung or all-round education (Hofstetter Citation 2001 ; Pritchard Citation 1990 ). And, in the United States, Kerr ( Citation 2001 /1963), and his idea of the multiversity serving a whole range of demands and communities, cannot be ignored.

With the massification of higher education, initially in the USA and Canada in the post-war period, and then in the last few decades in many countries in Europe and the Asia/Pacific region, the debate has continued and become more complex (Teichler Citation 2015 ; Tight Citation 2019 ). Those served by higher education are now a much more heterogeneous group, with varied demands and expectations.

Second, employability is far from being the only concept in town. There are many, more or less synonymous, ideas around (e.g. enterprise, entrepreneurialism, graduate attributes, key skills, transferable skills, 21 st century skills (Tight Citation 2021 )), and these seem to come, spread and disappear like fashions. Indeed, the regular appearance, and reappearance, of such ideas may be seen as a continuing assault on higher education, its institutions and employees. Seen in this context, employability is either one of the more recent and appealing constructs, or the latest and most pervasive assault.

Defining employability

What, then, does employability mean? Unsurprisingly, as with many ideas that have been taken up and widely applied, there are a range of different views, and these have changed and developed over time. Glover, Law and Youngman ( Citation 2002 ) distinguish between employability and the older, and now largely superseded, notion of graduateness, identifying: ‘graduateness as a state after the completion of a course, and employability as an assessment of the economic worth of a student at that time’ (p. 293).

the nature of employability has changed over the past century. Today, graduates are more likely to be required to rely on their own initiative and abilities to manage themselves into employment in what is now a highly competitive workforce, rather than gain employment because they can and want to work, as appears to have been the case in the early 1900s. (p. 162)

that assumes a direct link between higher education and the labour market [that] increasingly underpins these expectations. The tacit skills, knowledge, and attitudes formerly developed through work experience are now expected to be an integral part of higher education programmes and curricula, to provide the ‘soft’, ‘transverse’, ‘life’, or ‘high’ skills—as they are variously termed by different sectors. (p. 673)

The increasing competitiveness, globalization and internationalization of job markets have resulted in unique demands from employers in terms of skills and competencies expected from graduates. The focus has now shifted from degrees and certificates serving as a valid measurement of graduate employability to specific combinations of discipline-specific as well as extra-curricular activities, attributes and competencies. (Mishra and Braun Citation 2021 , 91)

Employability is a complex, contested concept which has tended to be considered in terms of a dominant discourse of skills … employability needs to be thought of more holistically, as ongoing, life-long, situated learning, whilst acknowledging that the contested language of skills and the need to demonstrate competency through examples is embedded in employers’ recruitment processes. Therefore the ability to articulate what a graduate can offer to employers, framed in terms of skills and expressed in narratives which provide convincing examples, is important in establishing potential employability. (Blaquière, Nolan, and Wray Citation 2019 , 15)

Qualities and kinds of employability

The notion of contingent employability has been proposed to indicate that economic, social and personal factors have a decisive effect on employability. Graduates’ employability depends on human capital, skills, skill and cultural matching, social background and stereotypes, personal images, and labour market conditions. Some of these factors are common to entrepreneurship, but the personal traits, especially the ability to take risk, are viewed herein as being more influential. All these factors reduce HE’s [higher education’s] role in developing employability, limiting it almost to the provision of educational opportunities and skill acquisition. Policymakers should acknowledge that the provision of skills is just one of many solutions and HE cannot be blamed for the variation in the employability of graduates. (p. 558)

In this view, the higher education institution, and the graduate, can only do so much, and much else still rests on the employer.

graduate employability is understood as the capacity of a graduate to act as an agent within the workplace in ways that contribute to the maintenance and elaboration of collectives. It is argued that were higher education to treat collectives as an integral aspect of learning, then workplaces could be aligned more directly towards values that matter to society. (p. 535)

Bridgstock and Tippett ( Citation 2019 ) similarly explore what they term a ‘connectedness learning’ approach. After all, working in groups or teams is increasingly emphasised in both higher education and the workplace.

Other researchers have identified different kinds of employability. Fakunle and Higson ( Citation 2021 ), for example, distinguish between outcomes, process and conceptual approaches to employability. The outcomes approach is the dominant conceptualisation, which ‘focuses on the development of individual characteristics, work-related factors, and quantitative measurement of employability using data on employment’ (p. 527). The process approach focuses on the employability initiatives adopted within the higher education institution, while the conceptual approach relates to the underlying theories applied, such as human capital, positional conflict and critical realism.

Holmes ( Citation 2013 ) identifies three elements of employability: possession, position and process. The first of these, possession, is again the dominant conceptualisation, encompassing the skills, competencies, attitudes, etc. that the graduate possesses. The second element relates to social positioning, suggesting that graduates may only be able to do so much to move beyond their background. Holmes prefers the processual approach, which sees the graduate as engaged in an identity project as they move from higher education into work, something which higher educational institutions can help with.

Findings support the process view of graduate employability, developed through engaging in CSM [career self-management], in particular environment exploration, networking and guidance seeking. There is also some support for a possession view where educational credentials predict employment quality and perceived employability. Theoretically, the study highlights the importance of proactive career behaviours as well as the constraining role of educational credentials for some during university-to-work transitions. (p. 1275)

Rather than seeing educational credentials as a qualification for employment, to which more generic skills and competencies may be added to signal employability, this argument presents them as a possible constraint. If so, then the traditional reasons for attending and graduating from university or college are cast into doubt.

universities striving to enhance graduates’ employability need to focus not just on employability skills, but on supporting the development of students’ interests. Conceptualising interest as a variable that develops, we found that students who were more interested in their subject also tended to want to pursue that disciplinary interest in their careers and tended to be more decided in their career plans. Decidedness is a key factor identified in successful employment outcomes. (p. 880)

While the great majority of undergraduates nowadays are following courses that are designed to lead them into specific vocations or professions (e.g. in business, engineering, medicine, nursing, social work or teaching), a substantial minority are enrolled in discipline-based programmes that are not so closely linked. Decidedness may not be so easily attained or delivered for students in the latter group.

Stakeholders

students perceive their academic qualifications as having a declining role in shaping their employment outcomes in what is perceived to be a congested and competitive graduate labour market. While academic credentials are still seen as a significant dimension of their employability, students increasingly see the need to add value to them in order to gain an advantage in the labour market. (2008, p. 49)

Particular groups of students have also garnered attention in this context, including international (Fakunle Citation 2021 ; Huang and Turner Citation 2018 ) and mature students (Lavender Citation 2020 ).

Others have noted how views on employability vary between disciplines and nations. Thus, Chadha and Toner ( Citation 2017 ) note that ‘in the UK, the broad discourse is centred upon government policies and targeted preparation for employment while in the USA it is centred upon the institutional vision and social inclusion agenda’ (p. 1). This reflects, in part, the different structures of these two higher education systems, with government more directly involved in the UK and a much larger private sector in the USA.

Overall findings

Research and writing on employability in higher education is a significant and fast-growing activity. For example, a search carried out using Scopus on 14/3/23 identified 2731 articles with the words ‘employability’, ‘higher’ and ‘education’ in their titles, abstracts or keywords, which may be taken as suggesting some interest in the topic; and 193 articles with these three words in their titles, which may be taken as indicating a particular interest in the topic. A search on the same day using the words ‘employability’ and ‘university’ identified 3115 and 230 articles respectively.

Most of the articles identified are relatively recent in date. Thus, for the first of the searches, 2482 (91%) of the 2731 articles had been published since 2010, with 1000 (37%) since 2020. There are, though, some earlier studies (e.g. Johnes, Taylor, and Ferguson Citation 1987 ; Taylor Citation 1986 ), but nothing much more than 40 years old.

Unsurprisingly, the main English-speaking nations account for the majority of the (English language) articles identified. Thus, for the first of the searches mentioned, the United Kingdom alone accounted for 780 (29%) of all the articles identified, while the four English-speaking nations of the UK, Australia, the USA and Canada together accounted for nearly half, 1336 (49%) of the articles. However, first authorship was dispersed over 110 different countries, with authors based in Spain (e.g. Santos-Jaen, Iglesias-Sanchez, and Jambrino-Maldonado Citation 2022 ), Malaysia (e.g. Ma’dan, Ismail, and Daud Citation 2020 ; Turner, Amirnuddin, and Singh Citation 2019 ), India (e.g. Borah, Malik, and Massini Citation 2021 ) and Portugal (e.g. Eurico, da Silva, and Do Valle Citation 2015 ; Monteiro et al. Citation 2022 ) each contributing over 100 articles.

The interest in employability in higher education was, though, truly global. Examples of articles produced by authors based in Cambodia (Chea and Lo Citation 2022 ), Chile (Espinoza et al. Citation 2020 ), Czechia (Krajnakova, Pilinkiene, and Bulko Citation 2020 ), Ethiopia (Fenta et al. Citation 2019 ), Finland (Räty et al. Citation 2020 ), Ghana (Aboagye and Puoza Citation 2021 ; Damoah, Peprah, and Brefo Citation 2021 ; Ofosuhene Citation 2022 ), Greece (Panagiotakopoulos Citation 2012 ), Hong Kong (Lam and Tang Citation 2021 ), Indonesia (Noperman et al. Citation 2020 ), Iran (Pouratashi Citation 2019 ), Italy (Petruzziello et al. Citation 2022 ; Schettino, Marino, and Capone Citation 2022 ), Japan (Sato et al. Citation 2021 ), Korea (Kim, Kim, and Tzokas Citation 2022 ), Lebanon (Nauffal and Skulte-Ouaiss Citation 2018 ), Nigeria (Igwe, Lock, and Rugara Citation 2022 ; Nwajiuba et al. Citation 2020 ; Okolie et al. Citation 2020 ), The Philippines (Pamittan et al. Citation 2022 ), Poland (Grotkowska, Wincenciak, and Gajderowicz Citation 2015 ), Romania (Frunzaru et al. Citation 2018 ), Slovakia (Krajnakova, Pilinkiene, and Bulko Citation 2020 ; Lisa, Hennelova, and Newman Citation 2019 ), South Africa (Aliu and Aigbavboa Citation 2021 ; Kruss Citation 2004 ), Sri Lanka (Wickramasinghe and Perera Citation 2010 ), Taiwan (Hou et al. Citation 2021 , Lu Citation 2021 ), Tanzania (Ishengoma and Vaaland Citation 2016 ; Mgaiwa Citation 2021 ), Togo (Atitsogbe et al. Citation 2019 ), Tunisia (Khelifi Citation 2022 ), Turkey (Ergün and Şeşen Citation 2021 ), Vietnam (Nghia, Giang, and Quyen Citation 2019 ; Tran Citation 2015 ), Yugoslavia and its successor states (Bacevic Citation 2014 ) were all identified. This includes examples from all continents.

Some research on the topic focused on particular kinds of provision or institutions, such as distance learning (Abrantes et al. Citation 2022 ; Delaney and Farren Citation 2016 ), research-intensive (Baker and Henson Citation 2010 ; Ciriaci and Muscio Citation 2014 ) and teaching-focused (Borah, Malik, and Massini Citation 2021 ) universities and colleges. Some research also examined the particular experience of graduates with disabilities (Portillo-Navarro, Lagos-Rodríguez, and Meseguer-Santamaría Citation 2022 ; Vincent Citation 2020 ).

There were also examples of studies focusing on a varied range of disciplines, including the built environment (Aliu and Aigbavboa Citation 2021 ), classics (Barrow et al. Citation 2010 ), education (Alvarez-Hevia and Naylor Citation 2019 ), information management (Cox, Al Daoud, and Rudd Citation 2013 ), law (Russell Citation 2011 ; Turner, Amirnuddin, and Singh Citation 2019 ), music (Bennett Citation 2016 ), politics (Lee, Foster, and Snaith Citation 2016 ) and sport (Lu Citation 2021 ; Sato et al. Citation 2021 ), indicating the importance of employability across the curriculum.

Existing systematic reviews

There have been a number of systematic reviews of aspects of research into employability in higher education.

The employability agenda offers huge opportunities for HEPs [higher education providers], academics and students. Employability offers HEPs the opportunity to help individuals to realise their potential, to enhance their, skills, attitudes, attributes and knowledge, to become successful workers and citizens, and through this helps to increase the political legitimacy of higher education. (p. 8)

The debate about gaps between the employability competences developed in higher education and employers’ needs, and specificities associated with competence development represent the majority of the studies in the corpus of analysis. Our results suggest that higher education institutions are concerned with how to enhance the development of competences for graduate employability. (p. 16)

Other systematic reviews have been more focused. Sokhanvar, Salehi and Sokhanvar ( Citation 2021 ) examined research into the use of authentic assessment as a means of developing employability. Targeting the 2010–2019 decade, they identified 26 relevant studies. García-Álvarez et al ( Citation 2022 ) focused on transversal competencies, using Scopus and the Web of Science to identify 52 relevant articles published in the period 2008–2018. This allowed them to group 41 transversal competencies into 5 dimensions, and to conclude that ‘employers attributed more importance to the competencies in the dimensions of job-related basic skills, socio-relational skills, and self-management skills’ (p. 1). Morina and Biagiotti ( Citation 2022 ) focused on graduates with disabilities, finding 18 relevant articles.

Healy, Hammer and McIlveen ( Citation 2022 ) take a slightly different approach, in applying citation analysis to analyse 4068 articles focused on graduate employability and career development. They demonstrate that, as is not unusual in research, these two related fields have relatively little to do with each other but argue that ‘purposeful exchange between the two fields will enrich both and, when applied to practice, could inform an evidence-based, integrative pedagogy of careers and employability learning in higher education’ (p. 799).

which employability skills?

how to develop employability?

how to measure/assess employability?

what is lost in focusing on employability?

These questions illustrate, amongst other things, how much variability there is in thinking about employability in higher education.

Which employability skills?

To start with, a key issue underlying the employability debate is that there is no general agreement on which skills employability encompasses, or on which of the identified skills are the most important. It depends in part on who you ask (i.e. which stakeholder?) but also on who is asking. Thus, Abbas and Sagsan ( Citation 2020 ), in a study of Chinese employers, conclude that ‘managers in China consider “skills” as the most important dimension for employability in Chinese industrial organisations and “reliability” is the highly demanded subsequent factor’ (p. 449). Reliability seems a very low-level factor to emphasise, however, suggesting that overall employability skills levels may be fairly low.

the acquired employability skills of young graduates are entrepreneurship, professional development, work with others, self-management, communication and problem solving … higher education institutions should work closely with industry stakeholders to get employers engaged with the work-integrating learning (WIL) programs and subsequently equip young graduates for better employability opportunities … employability skills of communication, problem solving and self-management would be improved … entrepreneurship and problem-solving skills could further be developed for young graduating students working in SME [small and medium-sized enterprises] organizations during WIL. (p. 852)

Many other authors also offer lists of employability skills, but they vary a good deal in both terminology and what is included. It would be impractical for any higher education institution or department to seek to develop all of the skills separately identified in its students.

How to develop employability?

most companies are weakly linked to HEIs [higher education institutions] in terms of graduate recruitment … our findings indicate that internships are the most used mechanism … our results show that the degree of satisfaction of companies with graduates is high, both in general perception and in the competencies evaluated. (p. 997)

The weak link between companies and higher education institutions is surprising given the stress placed on the latter developing employability skills, but the finding that companies are highly satisfied with graduates and their existing competencies suggests that this stress is unnecessary.

According to the careers services, there is a (daunting) gap between HE [higher education] and employment that needs to be bridged in order to bring HE students closer to the real-world. It could be claimed that the gap is a social construction created by dominant groups, such as employers and governments … Employers state that they need ‘ready-to-work’ graduates. Interestingly, instead of filling this gap themselves by providing training to the new members of their teams, HEIs [higher education institutions] are expected to take this responsibility, train students and provide employable and ready-to-work graduates … In general, there seems to be a confusion between educating and training HE students in the UK. It also seems that universities have accepted the responsibility for both, but proudly advertise their expertise in the second. (p. 281)

Despite such a clear-sighted but contrary view, most of the published literature offers guidance on how employability skills might best be developed by universities and colleges. Given the evident issues with expanding collaboration between higher education institutions and employers, it is not surprising that a range of different approaches are suggested. These include most obviously work experience (Hellyer and Lee Citation 2014 ; Muldoon Citation 2009 ) and engagement in extra-curricular activities (Hordósy and Clark Citation 2018 ; Thompson et al. Citation 2013 ), both conventional activities which help to enhance one’s curriculum vitae.

The increasing emphasis on student employability shifted the focus from increasing students’ disciplinary knowledge to providing them the opportunities to develop practical skills that are valued in the field of paid employment. On a meso level, this led to the increasing adoption of group assignments … as the means to provide students the opportunity to develop team skills. On a microlevel, alumni interviews illustrate that despite well-known challenges, group assessments provided a forum for developing team skills, an opportunity which was appreciated by the interviewees, albeit begrudgingly. (Kalfa and Taksa Citation 2017 , 697)

Higher education institutions and their employees continue, therefore, to develop their students’ employability skills through diverse means.

How to measure/assess employability?

Our findings suggest that structured work experience has clear positive effects on the ability of graduates, firstly, to find employment within six months of graduation and, secondly, to secure employment in graduate-level jobs. The latter job quality measure is also positively and significantly associated with employer involvement in degree course design and delivery. (p. 23)

The significance placed on students gaining ‘graduate-level jobs’ does, however, draw attention to the impossibility of satisfying all such expectations, as ‘the size and structure of the graduate labour market means increasing graduates’ employability will not necessarily lead to enhanced employment opportunities as the number of graduates is not necessarily closely aligned to the number of graduate jobs’ (Artess, Hooley, and Mellors-Bourne Citation 2017 , 5).

There is also something rather circular about judging the usefulness of employability initiatives through the subsequent employment of the students involved. The latter might, after all, have happened anyway, and it tells us little about how useful the employability initiative was.

What is lost in focusing on employability?

However, perhaps the most important question to pose in considering the employability agenda in higher education is what do we lose in focusing on it? After all, any student’s higher education experience is necessarily constrained in practice by the amount of time and other resources that they, and their departments or institutions, have available. The higher education curriculum is effectively a ‘zero sum game’; there is only so much that can be fitted into it, and, if you add employability initiatives, something else will have to be removed to accommodate them.

What gets lost in focusing on employability, then, is mostly the discipline or subject being studied, or at least the scope and depth of it that can be studied: ‘while theories of life-long or life-wide learning position employability as an outcome of a holistic curriculum embracing both discipline and employability, stakeholders perceive learning for employability as a threat to disciplinary learning’ (Speight, Lackovic, and Cooker Citation 2013 , 112). The ‘stakeholders’ being referred to here are primarily academic and administrative university employees, but also students.

McCowan ( Citation 2015 ) makes much the same point in contrasting the intrinsic (i.e. disciplinary) value of higher education with its instrumental value (e.g. employability, but also all of those other qualities and skills that higher education may develop): ‘the employability “agenda” should not be promoted to the extent that it undermines the core function of university in fostering understanding … the instrumental value of universities should exist alongside and emerging from its intrinsic value, rather than replacing it’ (p. 281).

it is argued that the marketisation, commercialisation and commodification of higher education, with the resulting emphasis on economic value through the employability of graduates, has created unintended consequences in the sector. To insert employability initiatives, something has to give in the module structure so that everything can be fitted in. That ‘something’ is the sacrifice of wisdom within the deeper knowledge of a subject. (p. 51)

Traditionally, universities regarded graduate employment as an aspect of institutions’ relationship with the labour market, and one where they enjoyed a significant degree of discretion. Now, employability is a performative function of universities, shaped and directed by the state, which is seeking to supplant labour markets. (Boden and Nedeva Citation 2010 , 37)

In these terms, employability is ‘part of a political agenda that wants to redefine what counts as the core environment for universities and to strengthen the influence of employers and labour market needs on higher education’ (Hartmann and Komljenovic Citation 2021 , 723). This agenda and influence is driven by the increasingly competitive environment in which higher education institutions find themselves: ‘the higher education market – not the labour market – is the key driver for universities to engage in employability and skills initiatives’ (Durazzi Citation 2021 , 386).

The dominant employability discourse argues that skills acquisition brings meritocracy to graduate employment. Students and universities are buying into a neo-liberal ideology of being competitive to secure employment and remain employable. Often, this ‘buy-in’ is reluctant … The neo-liberal ideology claims that disadvantaged groups can ‘upskill’ to a better life by developing their employability to meet employers’ needs. Employability is viewed as an individual initiative, and the individual is at fault if he or she cannot secure a job. (Higdon Citation 2016 , 191)

In the process, old patterns of preference, supported by existing contacts and networks (or ‘social capital’), are being re-emphasised. Higher education may no longer cater just for the elite, but for the mass of the population, but widened participation has not, as yet, led to a society where social justice and equity prevail.

This examination of the research literature on employability in higher education has placed the current discussion in the context of longer-term debates on the purposes and values of higher education. The increased emphasis on employability initiatives stresses the vocational purposes of higher education, viewing it as little more than final preparation for a lifetime of productive work.

While it would be naïve to argue, in contrast, that higher education’s primary role is the development of the individual thinker within a disciplinary perspective, a more balanced approach is surely both possible and desirable. It is the case that the majority of higher education programmes are preparing students for specific or generic vocational or professional roles. Yet, these programmes, and the higher education experience as a whole, also aim to do a lot more, and this aim should not be lost in the contemporary focus on graduate employability.

there is no general agreement on which employability skills are most important;

there is no compelling evidence that employability initiatives actually work, beyond what higher education already does; and

many employers remain happy with the quality of the graduates they employ or are unwilling to engage with higher education in employability initiatives.

In this context, more emphasis might be given instead to researching the usefulness of a more conventional approach to providing higher education.

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

• Abbas, J., and M. Sagsan. 2020. “Identification of Key Employability Attributes and Evaluation of University Graduates’ Performance.” Higher Education, Skills & Work-Based Learning 10 ( 3 ): 449–466. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-06-2019-0075.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Abelha, M., S. Fernandes, D. Mesquita, F. Seabra, and A. Ferreira-Oliveira. 2020. “Graduate Employability and Competence Development in Higher Education.” Sustainability 12 ( 5900 ): 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155900.   Google Scholar
• Aboagye, B., and J. Puoza. 2021. “Study on Employability of Mechanical Engineering Graduates from Sunyani Technical University of Ghana.” Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability 12 ( 2 ): 185–205. https://doi.org/10.21153/jtlge2021vol12no2art1002.   Google Scholar
• Abrantes, P., A. Silva, B. Backstrom, C. Neves, I. Fale, M. Jacquinet, M. Ramos, O. Magano, and S. Henriques. 2022. “Transversal Competences and Employability: The Impacts of Distance Learning University According to Graduates’ Follow-Up.” Education Sciences 12 ( 2 ): 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020065.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Aliu, J., and C. Aigbavboa. 2021. “Structural Determinants of Graduate Employability.” Journal of Engineering, Design & Technology 19 ( 5 ): 1080–1100. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-05-2020-0189.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Álvarez-González, P., M. López-Miguens, and G. Caballero. 2017. “Perceived Employability in University Students.” Career Development International 22 ( 3 ): 280–299. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-08-2016-0135.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Alvarez-Hevia, D., and S. Naylor. 2019. “Conceptualising Routes to Employability in Higher Education: The Case of Education Studies.” Journal of Education & Work 32 ( 4 ): 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2019.1649376.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Arranz, N., M. Arroyabe, V. Sena, C. Arranz, and J. Fernandez de Arroyabe. 2022. “University-Enterprise Collaboration for the Employability of Higher Education Graduates.” Studies in Higher Education 47 ( 5 ): 990–999. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2055323.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Artess, J., T. Hooley, and R. Mellors-Bourne. 2017. Employability . York, UK: Higher Education Academy.   Google Scholar
• Atitsogbe, K., N. Mama, L. Sovet, P. Pari, and J. Rossier. 2019. “Perceived Employability and Entrepreneurial Intentions Across University Students and Job Seekers in Togo.” Frontiers in Psychology 10 ( 180 ): 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00180.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Bacevic, J. 2014. “(Education For) Work Sets You Free.” European Journal of Higher Education 4 ( 3 ): 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2014.916534.   Google Scholar
• Baker, G., and D. Henson. 2010. “Promoting Employability Skills Development in a Research-Intensive University.” Education + Training 52 ( 1 ): 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911011017681.   Google Scholar
• Barkas, L., and P.-A. Armstrong. 2022. “The Price of Knowledge and the Wisdom of Innocence.” Industry and Higher Education 36 ( 1 ): 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/09504222211016293.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Barrow, R., C. Behr, S. Deacy, F. McHardy, and K. Tempest. 2010. “Embedding Employability into a Classics Curriculum.” Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 9 ( 3 ): 339–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022209350294.   Google Scholar
• Bennett, D. 2016. “Developing Employability in Higher Education Music.” Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 15 ( 3–4 ): 386–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022216647388.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Blaquière, G. D., J. Nolan, and K. Wray. 2019. “Joining Up the Dots.” Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability 10 ( 2 ): 15–35. https://doi.org/10.21153/jtlge2019vol10no2art699.   Google Scholar
• Boden, R., and M. Nedeva. 2010. “Employing Discourse.” Journal of Education Policy 25 ( 1 ): 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930903349489.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Bonnard, C. 2020. “What Employability for Higher Education Students?” Journal of Education & Work 33 ( 5–6 ): 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2020.1842866.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Borah, D., K. Malik, and S. Massini. 2021. “Teaching-Focused University-Industry Collaborations.” Research Policy 50 ( 104172 ): 20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104172.   Google Scholar
• Bridgstock, R., and N. Tippett, eds. 2019. Higher Education and the Future of Graduate Employability . Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788972611.   Google Scholar
• Bui, H., H. Nguyen, and D. Cole, eds. 2019. Innovate Higher Education to Enhance Graduate Employability . London: Routledge.   Google Scholar
• Caballero, G., P. Álvarez-González, and M. López-Miguens. 2020. “How to Promote the Employability Capital of University Students? Developing and Validating Scales.” Studies in Higher Education 45 ( 12 ): 2634–2652. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1807494.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Caballero, G., X. Vázquez, and M. Quintás. 2015. “Improving Employability Through Stakeholders in European Higher Education.” Long-Range Planning 48 ( 6 ): 398–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2015.09.005.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Cassidy, S. 2006. “Developing Employability Skills.” Education + Training 48 ( 7 ): 508–517. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910610705890.   Google Scholar
• Chadha, D., and J. Toner. 2017. “Focusing in on Employability: Using Content Analysis to Explore the Employability Discourse in UK and USA Universities.” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 14 ( 1 ): 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0071-0.   Google Scholar
• Chea, S., and W. Lo. 2022. “International Connectivity and Employability in Cambodian Higher Education: A Case Study of Developing Employability Skills in English Language Education.” Educational Research & Evaluation 27 ( 3–4 ): 335–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2022.2041875.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Ciriaci, D., and A. Muscio. 2014. “University Choice, Research Quality and Graduates’ Employability.” European Educational Research Journal 13 ( 2 ): 199–219. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2014.13.2.199.   Google Scholar
• Cox, A., M. Al Daoud, and S. Rudd. 2013. “Information Management Graduates’ Accounts of Their Employability.” Education for Information 30 ( 1–2 ): 41–61. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-130929.   Google Scholar
• Damoah, O., A. Peprah, and K. Brefo. 2021. “Does Higher Education Equip Graduate Students with the Employability Skills Employers Require? The Perceptions of Employers in Ghana.” Journal of Further and Higher Education 45 ( 10 ): 1311–1324. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1860204.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Delaney, L., and M. Farren. 2016. “Self’ Left Behind?” Open Learning 31 ( 3 ): 194–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2016.1208553.   Google Scholar
• Durazzi, N. 2021. “Opening universities’ Doors for Business? Marketization, the Search for Differentiation and Employability in England.” Journal of Social Policy 50 ( 2 ): 386–405. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279420000276.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Ergün, M., and H. Şeşen. 2021 . “A Comprehensive Study on University Students’ Perceived Employability.” SAGE Open , July-September. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211036105.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Espinoza, O., L. Gonzalez, N. McGinn, L. Sandoval, and D. Castillo. 2020. “Should Universities Train Teachers for Employability or for Effectiveness?” Teaching and Teacher Education 88 ( 102960 ): 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102960.   Google Scholar
• Eurico, S., J. da Silva, and P. Do Valle. 2015. “A Model of Graduates’ Satisfaction and Loyalty in Tourism Higher Education.” Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education 16 :30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2014.07.002.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Fakunle, O. 2021. “International Students’ Perspectives on Developing Employability During Study Abroad.” Higher Education Quarterly 75 ( 4 ): 575–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12308.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Fakunle, O., and H. Higson. 2021. “Interrogating Theoretical and Empirical Approaches to Employability in Different Global Regions.” Higher Education Quarterly 75 ( 4 ): 525–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12345.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Fenta, H., Z. Asnakew, P. Debele, S. Nigatu, and A. Muhaba. 2019. “Analysis of Supply Side Factors Influencing Employability of New Graduates: A Tracer Study of Bahir Dar University Graduates.” Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability 10 ( 2 ): 67–85. https://doi.org/10.21153/jtlge2019vol10no2art801.   Google Scholar
• Fotiadou, M. 2020. “Denaturalising the Discourse of Competition in the Graduate Job Market and the Notion of Employability.” Critical Discourse Studies 17 ( 3 ): 260–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2018.1546606.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Frunzaru, V., E. Vătămănescu, P. Gazzola, and E. Bolisani. 2018. “Challenges to Higher Education in the Knowledge Economy.” Knowledge Management Research and Practice 16 ( 3 ): 388–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2018.1493368.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• García-Álvarez, J., A. Vázquez-Rodríguez, A. Quiroga-Carrillo, and D. Priegue Caamaño. 2022. “Transversal Competencies for Employability in University Graduates.” Education Sciences 12 ( 204 ): 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030204.   Google Scholar
• Glover, D., S. Law, and A. Youngman. 2002. “Graduateness and Employability.” Research in Post-Compulsory Education 7 ( 3 ): 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596740200200132.   Google Scholar
• Grotkowska, G., L. Wincenciak, and T. Gajderowicz. 2015. “Ivory Tower or Market-Oriented Enterprise?” Higher Education Research and Development 34 ( 5 ): 869–882. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1011090.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Hartmann, E., and J. Komljenovic. 2021. “The Employability Dispositif, or the Rearticulation of the Relationship Between Universities and Their Environment.” Journal of Education Policy 36 ( 5 ): 708–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2020.1725983.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Healy, M., S. Hammer, and P. McIlveen. 2022. “Mapping Graduate Employability and Career Development in Higher Education Research.” Studies in Higher Education 47 ( 4 ): 799–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1804851.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Hellyer, R., and D. Lee. 2014. “The Role of Work Experience in the Future Employability of Higher Education Graduates.” Higher Education Quarterly 68 ( 3 ): 348–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12055.   Google Scholar
• Higdon, R. 2016. “Employability: The Missing Voice: How Student and Graduate Views Could Be Used to Develop Future Higher Education Policy and Inform Curricula.” Power & Education 8 ( 2 ): 176–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757743816653151.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Hofstetter, M. 2001. The Romantic Idea of a University . Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230510739.   Google Scholar
• Holmes, L. 2013. “Competing Perspectives on Graduate Employability.” Studies in Higher Education 38 ( 4 ): 538–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.587140.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Hordósy, R., and T. Clark. 2018. “Beyond the Compulsory.” Research in Post-Compulsory Education 23 ( 3 ): 414–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2018.1490094.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Hou, A., C. Hill, D. Justiniano, C. Yang, and Q. Gong. 2021. “Relationship Between ‘Employability’ and ‘Higher Education’ from Global Ranker and Accreditor’s Perspective.” Journal of Education & Work 34 ( 3 ): 292–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2021.1922619.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Huang, R., and R. Turner. 2018. “International Experience, Universities Support and Graduate Employability – Perceptions of Chinese International Students Studying in UK Universities.” Journal of Education & Work 31 ( 2 ): 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2018.1436751.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Igwe, P., D. Lock, and D. Rugara. 2022. “What Factors Determine the Development of Employability Skills in Nigerian Higher Education?” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 59 ( 3 ): 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1850319.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Ishengoma, E., and T. Vaaland. 2016. “Can University-Industry Linkages Stimulate Student Employability?” Education + Training 58 ( 1 ): 18–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-11-2014-0137.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Jackson, D., and M. Tomlinson. 2022. “The Relative Importance of Work Experience, Extra-Curricular and University-Based Activities on Student Employability.” Higher Education Research and Development 41 ( 4 ): 1119–1135. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1901663.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Jesson, J., L. Matheson, and F. Lacey. 2011. Doing Your Literature Review . London: Sage.   Google Scholar
• Johnes, G., J. Taylor, and G. Ferguson. 1987. “The Employability of New Graduates.” Applied Economics 19 ( 5 ): 695–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036848700000033.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Kahn, P., and M. Lundgren-Resenterra. 2021. “Employability as a Capacity for Agency in the Workplace.” Higher Education Quarterly 75 ( 4 ): 535–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12300.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Kalfa, S., and L. Taksa. 2017. “Employability, Managerialism and Performativity in Higher Education.” Higher Education 74 ( 4 ): 687–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0072-2.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Kerr, C. 2001. The Uses of the University . first published 1963. 5th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.   Google Scholar
• Khelifi, S. 2022. “Employability Reforms in Tunisian Higher Education.” The Journal of North African Studies 27 ( 4 ): 663–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629387.2020.1858810.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Kim, Y.-A., K.-A. Kim, and N. Tzokas. 2022. “Entrepreneurial Universities and the Effect of the Types of Vocational Education and Internships on Graduates’ Employability.” Studies in Higher Education 47 ( 5 ): 1000–1009. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2055324.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Krajnakova, E., V. Pilinkiene, and P. Bulko. 2020. “Determinants of Economic Development and Employability of Higher Education Institutions Graduates.” Engineering Economics 31 ( 2 ): 211–220. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.31.2.24751.   Google Scholar
• Kruss, G. 2004. “Employment and Employability.” Journal of Education Policy 19 ( 6 ): 673–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093042000300454.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Lam, B., and H.-H. Tang. 2021. “Making Sense of ‘Graduate Employability’ in Hong Kong.” Journal of Education & Work 34 ( 1 ): 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2020.1858229.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Lavender, K. 2020. “Mature Students’ Experiences of Undertaking Higher Education in English Vocational Institutions.” International Journal of Training Research 18 ( 2 ): 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2020.1830836.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Lee, D., E. Foster, and H. Snaith. 2016. “Implementing the Employability Agenda.” Politics 36 ( 1 ): 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.12061.   Google Scholar
• Lisa, E., K. Hennelova, and D. Newman. 2019. “Comparison Between Employers’ and Students’ Expectations in Respect of Employability Skills of University Graduates.” International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning 20 (1): 71–82.   Google Scholar
• Lu, H.-F. 2021. “Enhancing University Student Employability Through Practical Experiential Learning in the Sport Industry.” Journal of Hospitality, Sport, Leisure and Tourism Education 28 ( 100301 ): 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100301.   Google Scholar
• Ma’dan, M., M. Ismail, and S. Daud. 2020. “Strategies to Enhance Graduate Employability.” Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction 17 ( 2 ): 137–165. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2020.17.2.5.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Mason, G., G. Williams, and S. Cranmer. 2009. “Employability Skills Initiatives in Higher Education.” Education Economics 17 ( 1 ): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645290802028315.   Google Scholar
• McCowan, T. 2015. “Should Universities Promote Employability?” Theory & Research in Education 13 ( 3 ): 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878515598060.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Mgaiwa, S. 2021. “Fostering Graduate Employability.” SAGE Open April-June: 14. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211006709.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Mishra, S., and E. Braun. 2021. “The Changing Role of Higher Education.” International Perspectives on Higher Education Research 14 (1):87–99.   Google Scholar
• Monteiro, S., L. Almeida, C. Gomes, and J. Sinval. 2022. “Employability Profiles of Higher Education Graduates.” Studies in Higher Education 47 ( 3 ): 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1761785.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Morina, A., and G. Biagiotti. 2022. “Inclusion at University, Transition to Employment and Employability of Graduates with Disabilities.” International Journal of Educational Development 93 ( 102647 ): 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102647.   Google Scholar
• Morley, D., edited by. 2018. Enhancing Employability in Higher Education Through Work Based Learning . Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75166-5.   Google Scholar
• Muldoon, R. 2009. “Recognizing the Enhancement of Graduate Attributes and Employability Through Part-Time Work While at University.” Active Learning in Higher Education 10 ( 3 ): 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787409343189.   Google Scholar
• Nauffal, D., and J. Skulte-Ouaiss. 2018. “Quality Higher Education Drives Employability in the Middle East.” Education + Training 60 ( 9 ): 1057–1069. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-2017-0072.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Newman, J. 1976. The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated . Oxford: Clarendon Press. Edited by I Ker (originally published in 1852). https://doi.org/10.1093/oseo/instance.00190481.   Google Scholar
• Ng, P., J. Chan, T. Wut, M. Lo, and I. Szeto. 2021. “What Makes Better Career Opportunities for Young Graduates? Examining Acquired Employability Skills in Higher Education Institutions.” Education + Training 63 ( 6 ): 852–871. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-08-2020-0231.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Nghia, T., H. Giang, and V. Quyen. 2019. “At-Home International Education in Vietnamese Universities: Impact on graduates’ Employability and Career Prospects.” Higher Education 78 ( 5 ): 817–834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00372-w.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Noperman, F., S. Arsyad, E. Dalifa, and E. Purwandari. 2020. “Designing Inquiry-Based Expertise Sharing to Enhance Graduate Employability in Higher Education Institutions.” Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management 8 ( 1 ): 18–38. https://doi.org/10.22452/mojem/vol8no1.2.   Google Scholar
• Nwajiuba, C., P. Igwe, A. Akinsola-Obatolu, A. Ituma, and M. Binuomote. 2020. “What Can Be Done to Improve Higher Education Quality and Graduate Employability in Nigeria?” Industry and Higher Education 34 ( 5 ): 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422219901102.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Ofosuhene, D. 2022. “Employability of Distance Education Graduates of a Public University in Ghana.” Industry and Higher Education 37 ( 2 ): 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/09504222221115963.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Okay-Somerville, B., and D. Scholarios. 2017. “Position, Possession or Process? Understanding Objective and Subjective Employability During University-To-Work Transitions.” Studies in Higher Education 42 ( 7 ): 1275–1291. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1091813.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Okolie, U., P. Igwe, H. Nwosu, B. Eneje, and S. Mlanga. 2020. “Enhancing Graduate Employability.” Policy Futures in Education 18 ( 2 ): 294–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210319864824.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Pamittan, S., C. Caranguian, A. Andres, J. Saquing, R. Vecaldo, A. Tamayao, and P. Canay. 2022. “Correlates of Employability Among the Bachelor of Technical Teacher Education Graduates of a Philippine Public University.” International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research 21 ( 4 ): 168–185. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.4.10.   Google Scholar
• Panagiotakopoulos, A. 2012. “Employability Skills Development in Greek Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).” Higher Education, Skills & Work-Based Learning 2 ( 2 ): 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1108/20423891211224621.   Google Scholar
• Pereira, E., M. Vilas-Boas, and C. Rebelo. 2020. “University Curricula and Employability.” Industry and Higher Education 34 ( 5 ): 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422220901676.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Petruzziello, G., M. Mariani, D. Guglielmi, B. van der Heijden, J. de Jong, and R. Chiesa. 2022. “The Role of Teaching Staff in Fostering Perceived Employability of University Students.” Studies in Higher Education 48 ( 1 ): 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2105830.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Portillo-Navarro, M., G. Lagos-Rodríguez, and M.-L. Meseguer-Santamaría. 2022. “Employability of University Graduates with Disabilities in Spain.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19 ( 3 ): 14. 1463. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031463.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Pouratashi, M. 2019. “Higher Education and Activities to Improve Students’ Employability Skills.” Journal of Education for Business 94 ( 7 ): 433–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2018.1548421.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Pritchard, R. 1990. The End of Elitism? New York: Berg.   Google Scholar
• Quinlan, K., and K. Renninger. 2022. “Rethinking Employability.” Higher Education 84 ( 4 ): 863–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00804-6.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Räty, H., U. Hytti, K. Kasanen, K. Komulainen, P. Siivonen, and I. Kozlinska. 2020. “Perceived Employability and Ability Self Among Finnish University Students.” European Journal of Psychology of Education 35 ( 4 ): 975–993. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00451-7.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Russell, J. 2011. “Enhancing Employability for LLB Law Graduates – Initiatives with ILEX and Clinic at London South Bank University.” The Law Teacher 45 ( 3 ): 348–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2011.622464.   Google Scholar
• Santos-Jaen, J., P. Iglesias-Sanchez, and C. Jambrino-Maldonado. 2022. “The Role of Gender and Connections Between Entrepreneurship and Employability in Higher Education.” The International Journal of Management Education 20 ( 100708 ): 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100708.   Google Scholar
• Sato, S., T.-A. Kang, E. Daigo, H. Matsuoka, and M. Harada. 2021. “Graduate Employability and Higher Education’s Contributions to Human Resource Development in Sport Business Before and After Covid-19.” Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education 28 ( 100306 ): 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100306.   Google Scholar
• Schettino, G., L. Marino, and V. Capone. 2022. “The Impact of University-Related Variables on Students’ Perceived Employability and Mental Well-Being: An Italian Longitudinal Study.” Sustainability 14 ( 5 ): 2671, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052671.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Small, L., K. Shacklock, and T. Marchant. 2018. “Employability: A Contemporary Review for Higher Education Stakeholders.” Journal of Vocational Education and Training 70 ( 1 ): 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2017.1394355.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Sokhanvar, Z., K. Salehi, and F. Sokhanvar. 2021. “Advantages of Authentic Assessment for Improving the Learning Experience and Employability Skills of Higher Education Students.” Studies in Educational Evaluation 70 ( 101030 ): 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101030.   Google Scholar
• Speight, S., N. Lackovic, and L. Cooker. 2013. “The Contested Curriculum.” Tertiary Education and Management 19 ( 2 ): 112–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2012.756058.   Google Scholar
• Suleman, F. 2021. “Revisiting the Concept of Employability Through Economic Theories.” Higher Education Quarterly 75 ( 4 ): 548–561. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12320.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Taylor, J. 1986. “The Employability of Graduates.” Studies in Higher Education 11 ( 1 ): 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075078612331378431.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Teichler, U. 2015. “Higher Education and the World of Work.” In Mass Higher Education Development in East Asia , edited by J. Shin, G. Postiglione, and F. Huang, 269–288. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12673-9_16.   Google Scholar
• Thompson, L., G. Clark, M. Walker, and J. Whyatt. 2013. “It’s Just Like an Extra String to Your Bow.” Active Learning in Higher Education 14 ( 2 ): 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787413481129.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Tight, M. 2019. “Mass Higher Education and Massification.” Higher Education Policy 32 ( 1 ): 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-017-0075-3.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Tight, M. 2020. Syntheses of Higher Education Research . London: Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350128767.   Google Scholar
• Tight, M. 2021. “Twenty-First Century Skills.” European Journal of Higher Education 11 ( 2 ): 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2020.1835517.   Google Scholar
• Tomlinson, M. 2008. “The Degree is Not Enough.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 29 ( 1 ): 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690701737457.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Torgerson, C. 2003. Systematic Reviews . London: Continuum.   Google Scholar
• Tran, T. 2015. “Is Graduate Employability the ‘Whole-Of-Higher-Education-Issue?” Journal of Education & Work 28 ( 3 ): 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2014.900167.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Turner, J., P. Amirnuddin, and H. Singh. 2019. “University Legal Learning Spaces Effectiveness in Developing Employability Skills of Future Law Graduates.” Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction 16 ( 1 ): 49–79. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2019.16.1.3.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Vincent, J. 2020. “Employability for UK University Students and Graduates on the Autism Spectrum.” Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 22 ( 1 ): 12–24. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.656.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Wickramasinghe, V., and L. Perera. 2010. “Graduates’, University Lecturers’ and Employers’ Perceptions Towards Employability Skills.” Education + Training 52 ( 3 ): 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911011037355.   Google Scholar
• Yorke, M. 2005. “Formative Assessment in Higher Education.” Tertiary Education and Management 11 ( 3 ): 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-005-5110-z.   Google Scholar
• Back to Top

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations. Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.

• People also read
• Recommended articles

To cite this article:

Download citation, your download is now in progress and you may close this window.

• Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you
• Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location
• Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results
• Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research

Login or register to access this feature

Register now or learn more

popular searches

• Request Info

Employee Disciplinary Action Policy

Columbia College expects all employees to be aware of and to follow applicable policies and rules to help ensure the well-being of students, faculty, staff, and visitors and to support productive and efficient College operations.   In addition to College-wide policies and rules, there may be additional policies and rules specific to a College department and division.  The College expects all of its employees in the performance of their job duties to comply with all institutional requirements as well as the requirements of federal, state and local laws, external regulatory entities and accreditors.

This policy sets forth the process for addressing and providing an opportunity to correct single and repeat instances of failure to comply with applicable policies and rules and/or failure to meet specific workplace expectations for behavior and conduct.  Failure to comply with policies and rules and unacceptable behavior and conduct may be addressed pursuant to this policy and/or under the   Employee Performance Management Policy   (which is largely aimed at addressing job performance related issues) depending the nature of the specific circumstances of each situation. 

This policy applies to all College employees.

There may be occasions where employee behavior violates a policy or rule or otherwise falls below the level of acceptable conduct the College reasonably expects from its employees.  In these instances, the College utilizes a system of progressive discipline designed to modify and offer an opportunity to correct the unacceptable behavior.  However, there may be some instances where a higher level of discipline, or even termination of employment, may result based on the severity and circumstances of a situation.

Examples of Conduct Covered by this Policy  

Any type of behavior or conduct that impedes the efficient operation of the College, reflects adversely on the College, is contrary to the College’s policies or rules, or falls below the level of acceptable conduct expected by the College in its discretion, is prohibited.  The College expects employees to exercise sound judgment and discretion while performing their job duties.  Below are examples of conduct covered by this policy that may result in discipline (this is a non-exhaustive list as it is impossible to contemplate every conceivable action or scenario that may result in discipline):

• unexcused absenteeism or nonattendance
• conduct that violates the College’s policies, rules or standards of conduct
• conduct that violates federal, state or local laws, or applicable rules, regulations or guidance of external entities applicable to College operations
• misuse of fiscal resources or unlawful taking of College property
• unauthorized disclosure of confidential information

Progressive Discipline Process 

It is the College’s belief that a majority of issues are able to be adequately addressed at the informal stage by a supervisor having a conversation and discussing the concerns with an employee.  However, in the event an informal conversation is unsuccessful in resolving the concerns or if an informal conversation is inappropriate, progressive discipline consistent with this policy should follow.

Progressive discipline assists employees by being clear and precise about problems and the consequences if the same or other problems or misconduct occur.  The College applies discipline in a fair and consistent manner.  

In most instances, supervisors are responsible for initiating the progressive discipline process and play a critical role in administering discipline in a fair and consistent manner.  The supervisor must have a full understanding of the facts and circumstances before assessing appropriate discipline. The supervisor should discuss each disciplinary situation in advance with the Human Resources Department to determine the appropriate level of disciplinary action.  The seriousness of the offense and the employee's disciplinary and performance history will be considered when determining the level of discipline to be applied. 

It is the College’s hope that a majority of situations will likely be able to be resolved through an informal conversation or discussion between the supervisor and the employee.  However, progressive discipline is available if informal conversations are unsuccessful or inappropriate given the nature of the situation.

Step 1 - Verbal Warning 

The purpose of a verbal warning is to clarify policies, rules and expectations. The impact of the incident or violation should also be taken into consideration as should ensuring that prior similar occurrences were treated similarly.

Prior to issuing a verbal warning, supervisors are responsible for conducting a fair and objective assessment of the situation.  The assessment may be as simple as confirming an unexcused late arrival or early departure through a time clock or confirming an employee made an unauthorized purchase.  As a general matter at this step in the process, the supervisor should review and obtain available information; identify the specific policy, rule or expectation that was violated; review how the employee was made aware of the policy, rule or expectation that was violated; and have a conversation with the employee about the situation to hear their explanation and determine if any extenuating or mitigating circumstances exist.

After the supervisor has taken the above steps and confirmed with the Human Resources Department that the situation warrants a verbal warning, the supervisor should meet with the employee and deliver the verbal warning.  The supervisor should then document for their records that the conversation occurred, what was said, and, if appropriate, send a follow-up email to the employee summarizing the meeting and the situation, keeping in mind the significance of the impact of the occurrence.

Step 2 - Written Warning  

If the conduct addressed by a verbal warning is repeated or if new violations or problems occur, the employee may be issued a written warning.  However, it is also possible that a single incident may warrant a written warning based on the seriousness or severity of the situation.  

In each instance, the first step in the written warning process if for the supervisor to contact and discuss the situation with the Human Resources Department. 

Prior to issuing a written warning, the Human Resources Department will typically assist with conducting an investigation and assessment of the situation, which generally includes obtaining and reviewing all relevant information; identifying the specific policy, rule or expectation that was violated; reviewing how the employee was made aware of the policy, rule or expectation that was violated; talking with possible witnesses; and having a meeting with the employee about the situation to hear their explanation and determine if any extenuating or mitigating circumstances exist prior to making a disciplinary decision.  Some situations may warrant a more complex investigation to be undertaken, which shall be conducted in coordination with the Human Resources Department (and other institutional office(s), as needed).  

Supervisors should not conduct their own investigation or issue a written warning without first consulting with the Human Resources Department.  The Human Resources Department maintains the most up-to-date version of the formal written warning template, in part, to help ensure consistency with discipline College-wide. 

If a determination is made that a formal written warning is appropriate, the supervisor shall work with the Human Resources Department to prepare a written warning, which generally includes a description of the unacceptable conduct, the policy, rule or expectation violated, and an outline of future expectations.

All written warnings need to be approved by the Human Resources Department before they are issued to an employee.  A copy of the written warning shall be maintained by the Human Resources Department.

Step 3 - Final Written Warning  

If the conduct addressed in the written warning is repeated or if new violations or problems occur, discipline may progress to a final written warning.  However, a single incident may be so severe as to merit an immediate final written warning. 

Supervisors shall contact the Human Resources Department if they believe a situation may warrant a final written warning.  A similar investigation/assessment process as set forth in the written warning section above will be followed.  In some instances, a suspension from work, with or without pay, may accompany a final written warning.

If a determination is made that a final written warning is appropriate, the supervisor shall work with the Human Resources Department to prepare the final written warning, which generally includes a description of the unacceptable conduct, the policy, rule or expectation violated, and an outline of future expectations.

All final written warnings need to be approved by the Human Resources Department before they are issued to an employee.  A copy of the final written warning shall be maintained by the Human Resources Department.

Step 4 - Termination of Employment 

Employment may be terminated if progressive discipline has been exhausted and problems persist or based on the severity of a single incident. 

Misconduct that involves dishonesty, a violation of the law, significant risks to College operations or those that endanger the safety or wellbeing of oneself or others is grounds for immediate termination of employment. However, the facts and circumstances of each situation will determine what action, up to and including termination of employment, is appropriate.  Decisions to terminate employment shall be made in consultation with Human Resources and will generally follow the assessment/investigation process described above.

Examples of misconduct that may warrant termination include, but are not limited to: violations of College policy or rules (such as nondiscrimination, anti-harassment, non-retaliation policy and drugs and alcohol policy), violence or threats of violence in the workplace, serious neglect of job duties, insubordination, dishonesty, falsification of records, breach of confidentiality, criminal activity, violations of laws, rules or regulations applicable to the College.

Situations may arise where an employee’s conduct and performance falls under both the Employee Disciplinary Action Policy and Employee Performance Management Policy. In these situations, the totality of the circumstances will be assessed when determining appropriate action.

because a future built by you is a future built for you.

Too many people have been made to feel that higher education isn’t a place for them— that it is someone else’s dream. But we change all that. With individualized attention and ongoing support, we help you write a new story for the future where you play the starring role.

• Excellence Awards
• Our Partners
• Search Jobs

Employee Handbooks: Benefits and Pitfalls for Employers in Higher Education

Posted November 5, 2019

By Emily P. Crowley and Courtney A. Simmons

Handbooks provide clear expectations for an institution and its employees, as well as a centralized, uniform source of information about employment policies and procedures. This eliminates confusion and reduces conflicts, while supporting consistent enforcement and healthy workplace morale.

Another crucial function of employee handbooks is promoting legal compliance and minimizing risk. Employers are required by state and federal law to provide employees with policy statements on issues such as equal employment opportunity and wage and hour matters. While no amount of judicious drafting can eliminate risk, a well-drafted handbook can reduce the risk of legal claims and liability.

It can be tempting for an institution to implement an off-the-shelf employee handbook, but to do so is a mistake. A handbook only accomplishes its purpose if it is tailored to the needs of the institution and regularly reviewed to ensure compliance with ever-changing employment laws and consistency with the institution’s practices.

In higher education, it is appropriate to have separate handbooks for different employee subsets. Alternatively, institutions may draft a general handbook applicable to all employees along with supplemental handbooks or addenda for various employee subsets.

As an example, institutions should strongly consider maintaining separate or supplemental handbooks for faculty and academic staff and for non-academic staff. Faculty and academic staff are responsible for handling issues such as academic freedom, research integrity, and creation and protection of intellectual property, which are not applicable to non-academic staff. They are also likely to have long- or short-term employment agreements with an institution, while non-academic staff are likely at-will employees or union members who are subject to the terms contained in respective collective bargaining agreements.

Institutions should also consider maintaining a separate or supplemental handbook for student employees, both undergraduate and graduate, as they often require policies addressing their dual roles within their institution. These policies may cover topics such as minimum credit hours required for employment eligibility, tuition remissions, or the Federal Work-Study program.

Notably, employees who are unionized and whose employment relationships are governed by a collective-bargaining agreement require different handbooks to maintain consistency with these agreements. While human resources professionals might find it daunting to adequately provide for several employee classes, high-quality and customized handbooks are crucial to managing risk. Regardless of how an institution divides employee subsets, it should ensure that every employee, including short-term employees, receives a handbook that addresses their circumstances.

Reducing the risk of legal problems

One important concern associated with employee handbooks is that an at-will employee may claim the handbook is a contract, arguably limiting the institution’s ability to terminate the employee or create other contractual obligations. For at-will employees such as administrative staff, include a bold-faced statement on the first page of the handbook or supplement stating the employees in that subset are at-will and the handbook creates no contractual obligations. Handbooks for at-will employees should avoid language that suggests employment is guaranteed, or that employees are subject to dismissal only for reasonable or just cause, as these terms may carry legal implications and could limit an institution’s discretion over its termination decisions. An institution should request that every at-will employee sign a separate statement acknowledging the at-will nature of the employment relationship and that the handbook does not constitute a contract. Finally, handbooks should remain separate from non-competition agreements, confidentiality agreements or anything intended to be an enforceable contract.

As a general rule, handbooks for all employee subsets should be reviewed regularly to ensure legal compliance. However, for employees who are subject to an employment agreement, institutions should be aware that handbook changes may alter the agreement or be ineffective should they conflict with it, depending on the terms of the agreement. Conflicts will typically arise in the context of disciplinary or termination procedures, where an employment agreement may be interpreted to provide an employee greater rights and job protections than provided for in the handbook. It is advisable, in most cases, to specify in the handbook that the terms of an individual contract will govern.

Finally, referring to the handbook regularly as a source of information and guidance for employees will promote compliance with its policies and reduce misunderstandings that may affect workplace morale or even lead to legal action. This is especially true for international and student employees, who may be unfamiliar with typical employment policies and concepts, such as what constitutes prohibited discrimination, appropriate social media use in the workplace or required payroll deductions. For international employees, the handbook may not be written in their primary language, which could cause confusion or inadvertent non-compliance. Emphasize in the handbook and upon hire that any employee with questions or concerns about the handbook’s policies should not hesitate to talk to their supervisor or human resources staff. In some circumstances, handbooks should be translated into multiple languages.

Higher education institutions have much to gain by adopting and maintaining a high-quality employee handbook. When designed properly, an effective policy handbook can protect the institution, support a productive workplace culture, save administrative time and ease concerns of employees by creating clear expectations.

Emily P. Crowley is an employment and business litigation attorney at the Boston-based law firm of Davis Malm. She advises and represents employers in a wide range of employment law matters, including employment agreements, discrimination and harassment, wage and hour claims, and wrongful termination. Courtney A. Simmons is a litigation attorney at Davis Malm, focusing on commercial litigation matters. She also regularly works with the firm’s employment law team.

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

• Name (required)
• Mail (required) (will not be published)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Stay connected to NEBHE

Sign up for our weekly NEJHE NewsBlast and our other email newsletters

Click on the image to view this week’s NEJHE NewsBlast

Jan. 4, 2023

• News & Resources

Employee Retention in Higher Ed Remains a Challenge

Colleges and universities across the country are still in the midst of a talent retention crisis. According to a research brief from the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR), "in the 2022-23 academic year, voluntary turnover for higher ed staff was the highest it has been since CUPA-HR started tracking it in 2017-18."

CUPA-HR's 2022 pilot survey on employee retention confirmed that retention was a serious problem in higher education and shed light on the reasons: being overworked, getting underpaid, and failing to receive the remote work opportunities they wanted.

The CUPA-HR 2023 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey, which garnered insight from more than 4,780 higher ed employees from higher ed institutions across the country, found that challenges still remain. More than half (56%) of respondents are at least somewhat likely to seek other employment in the next 12 months. The most acute retention issues were among student affairs professionals, with administration being a close second.

According to the report, age, gender, and race/ethnicity all seem to have correlations with the likelihood of seeking other employment. Men, people of color, and younger employees are more likely to leave their current positions. On the bright side, not all employees are looking to leave the higher ed industry as a whole. Seven in 10 are looking for positions at another college or university, while more than four in 10 are looking to make a move within their current institution.

The most commonly cited reason for seeking new employment was a salary increase (86% of employees), but the next most common was remote work opportunities (44%). Post-pandemic, remote work arrangements have become commonplace for many industries, but higher education is lagging behind. "Although more than two-thirds (68%) of employees strongly agree or agree that most of their job duties could be completed remotely, current work arrangements are most likely to be completely or mostly on-site (66%)," the research brief reads.

The survey results also underscore a disconnect between the work employees are doing and the recognition and other incentives they receive. When it comes to verbal recognition for good work, only 59% of employees said they receive it regularly. Additionally, only 53% said they received a pay increase within the last year, while promotions and bonuses "are even less common."

Not surprisingly, job satisfaction was the strongest predictor of retention. The report shows that as job satisfaction increases, the likelihood of seeking other employment decreases. CUPA-HR recommends that managers have regular discussions with their employees about factors that affect job satisfaction. "Implementing programs, practices, training, and policies that address these basic job satisfaction tenets will go the furthest in improving your retention efforts," says the research brief. Other recommendations include continuing to reduce the overwork caused by the pandemic, providing regular and meaningful pay increases, providing more flexible work arrangements, ensuring employee safety and their confidence that leadership will act ethically and responsibly, improving your institution's parental benefits, and supporting your supervisors in providing all of the above.

For more in-depth findings related to employee retention, reference CUPA-HR's research brief for the 2023 survey .

Disclaimer: HigherEdJobs encourages free discourse and expression of issues while striving for accurate presentation to our audience. A guest opinion serves as an avenue to address and explore important topics, for authors to impart their expertise to our higher education audience and to challenge readers to consider points of view that could be outside of their comfort zone. The viewpoints, beliefs, or opinions expressed in the above piece are those of the author(s) and don't imply endorsement by HigherEdJobs.

Related Topics:

• Higher Education Trends and Policy
• Workplace Issues

Tell us what you think!

Thank you for your feedback.

About the Author

Leah Jackson

Leah Jackson is the Assistant Director of Editorial Strategy and Writer at HigherEdJobs. Prior to joining HigherEdJobs, she served as a managing editor for a variety o...

Email this article to a friend!

Republish this article for free

We want to make it easier for you to share knowledge and creativity, and encourage you to reuse our articles under a Creative Commons license.

You are free to republish this article both online and in print. We ask that you follow some simple guidelines .

Please do not edit the piece, ensure that you attribute the author, their institution, and mention that the article was originally published on HigherEdJobs.

This article is republished from HigherEdJobs ® under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

Stay Updated!

Sign up for the Insider Update , our newsletter for higher ed professionals.

• For Volunteers
• For Corporates
• Knowledge Center
• Research Center

Learning and professional development.

Conferences, virtual events, special programs, calendar of events, research center data, signature workforce surveys, special surveys, data on demand.

We help you find the most recent news and resources related to public policy issues.

New developments, ongoing efforts, about cupa-hr membership, manage your membership, make connections, get involved, higher ed hr awards.

Search CUPA-HR.

• Entire Site

The CUPA-HR 2022 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey: Initial Results

By jacqueline bichsel, melissa fuesting, jennifer schneider, and diana tubbs  |  july 2022, introduction.

The CUPA-HR Higher Education Employee Retention Survey was piloted in May 2022. 1 The data collection period for the survey was May 2 to May 20, 2022. The survey was created to better understand the proportion of the higher ed workforce that is at risk for leaving their current jobs, why these employees are considering leaving, and what higher ed institutions can implement to increase retention and improve the higher ed workplace. The survey was targeted to all higher ed employees who are not faculty — administrators, professionals, and non-exempt staff. 2 We thank the following professional organizations who partnered with CUPA-HR in distributing this survey to their members: AACRAO, ACHA, ACPA, ACUHO-I, ACUI, CHEMA, EDUCAUSE, NACUBO, NASFAA, NCCI. We thank the members of those organizations who distributed this survey to employees at their institutions and the employees who took the time to provide responses to this survey.

The survey asked questions in the following areas:

• Likelihood of looking for other employment opportunities in the near future
• Reasons for looking for other employment
• Remote work policies and opportunities
• Work performed beyond normal hours and duties
• Satisfaction with benefits
• Well-being and satisfaction with job environment
• Challenges for supervisors
• Demographic questions on gender, race/ethnicity, and age
• Characteristics of the employee’s position

This report focuses on the broad, initial results obtained for most of these questions. Descriptive analyses provide an overview of what proportion of the higher ed workforce is at risk for leaving, why they’re considering leaving employment, and with which policies, work arrangements, and benefits employees are satisfied or dissatisfied. Differences by institution classification, affiliation, and employee department/area are discussed where these differences are notable. 3 Future reports will take deeper dives into the challenges faced by supervisors; the relative importance of the various survey factors in predicting which employees are at most risk of leaving; and differences in responses by gender, race/ethnicity, and age.

Respondents

Data from 3,815 higher ed employees were analyzed for this report. 4 Although 3,926 people completed the survey, 111 responses were excluded for one or more of the following reasons: their institution could not be identified or classified, their department or work area could not be classified, or they could not identify whether they were full-time or part-time. More than three fourths (77%) of the sample were female, and 80% were White (Figure 1). 5 Reported for those responding to the questions asking for self-identification of gender (97% of the sample) and race/ethnicity (96% of the sample). A “nonbinary” category was included in the gender item of the survey, although the number of employees responding as nonbinary ( n = 43) could not be meaningfully depicted in this intersectional graphic. More than half (57%) were supervisors, with an average of 3.76 staff reporting to them. Nearly all (98%) respondents were full-time employees.

Figure 1. Gender and Race/Ethnicity of Respondents

Respondents worked in a variety of departments/areas (Figure 2). The department with the greatest representation in the survey was human resources (31%), followed by student affairs (21%). 6 Departments/areas with n < 100 (representing < 3% of survey respondents) are not included in comparative analyses of departments/areas in this report.

Figure 2. Respondent Departments/Areas

Respondents represented 949 institutions, as illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1. Institution Classification and Affiliation

Likelihood of Looking for Other Employment Opportunities in the Near Future

The first question of the Employee Retention Survey asked, “What is the likelihood that you will be looking for other employment opportunities within the next 12 months?” Figure 3 shows the distribution of responses to this question. Approximately 35% of higher ed employees are likely or very likely to look for new employment opportunities in the next year, and an additional 22% are somewhat likely to look for new employment in the next year. 7 Analyses of this data found no notable differences in results due to institution classification, institution affiliation, or employee department/area. The proportion of higher ed employees at risk of leaving has increased since 2021, where only 24% reported that they were either likely or very likely to look for new employment opportunities, and an additional 19% were somewhat likely. 8 Bichsel, J., Fuesting, M., & McCormack, M. (2021, November).  Providing Remote Work Opportunities Will Aid Your Retention Efforts . CUPA-HR. These results indicate that higher ed institutions are at risk of losing half of their current employees in the next year. In addition, the problem of retention appears to be getting worse rather than better.

Figure 3. Likelihood of Looking for Other Employment Within the Next 12 Months

Figure 4 shows the types of organizations in which employees would look for new opportunities. 9 Participants who reported they were either very likely, likely, or somewhat likely to look for new work opportunities in the next year were asked to complete survey questions about where they would look for work ( n = 2,183). Response options allowed participants to select all that applied. Approximately two-thirds (68%) would look for employment at another higher ed institution, and 43% of higher ed employees would look for new employment within their current institution. However, employees are not averse to seeking employment outside of higher ed: half (51%) would seek opportunities at non-profit organizations and nearly two-thirds (64%) would look for opportunities at a private for-profit company. Given the distribution of responses, results show no discernible difference between employees’ preferences for staying in or leaving higher education. The good news is that most employees remain open to job opportunities within higher education, which indicates that efforts to retain these employees can be fruitful. 10 Analyses of this data found no notable differences in results due to institution classification, institution affiliation, or employee department/area.

Figure 4. Where Employees Plan on Looking for Other Employment Opportunities

Figure 5 shows the reasons why higher ed employees are looking for other employment. 11 Participants who reported they were either very likely, likely, or somewhat likely to look for new work opportunities in the next year were asked to complete survey questions about the reasons why they would look for new work opportunities ( n = 2,183). Response options allowed participants to select all that applied. More than three-fourths (76%) are seeking new employment because they want an increase in pay. Close to half (43%) desire remote work opportunities, nearly one-third (32%) want more flexible work schedules, and 30% of employees are seeking a promotion or more work responsibilities. 12 Analyses of this data found no notable differences in results due to institution classification, institution affiliation, or employee department/area.

Remote Work: What Exists, What Employees Want, What Is Possible

The Employee Retention Survey included three items on remote work:

• Whether most job duties can be done remotely (responses range from strongly agree to strongly disagree)
• Actual current work arrangement (completely on-site, mostly on-site, partially on-site and partially remote, mostly remote, completely remote)
• Ideal work arrangement (completely on-site, mostly on-site, partially on-site and partially remote, mostly remote, completely remote)

Nearly three-fourths (71%) of respondents overall stated they agree or strongly agree that most of the duties of their job can be done remotely, and agreement with this statement varied somewhat predictably by job area (Figure 6). For example, 83% of human resources employees agreed that most of their duties could be done remotely, compared to only 23% of food service/dining employees.

Employees’ agreement with whether most of their duties can be done remotely does not align with their actual work arrangements. Only 14% of respondents overall have mostly or completely remote work arrangements, 23% have a hybrid arrangement with some remote and some on-site work, and 63% work completely or mostly on-site (Figure 6). Fiscal/business affairs is the area with the most employees working mostly or completely remote (25%), and, predictably, food service/dining employees are the least likely to work mostly or completely remote (1%). Noteworthy as well are departments that have a high percentage of employees stating most of their duties can be done remotely with a much lower percentage of employees working completely or mostly remote. For example, 83% of financial aid employees state that most of their duties can be done remotely, yet only 11% of them have mainly remote work arrangements, and two-thirds are working mostly or completely on-site.

When comparing current and ideal work arrangements, a number of patterns stand out. First, the most desirable work arrangement for employees overall appears to be a hybrid one, having some days where they work on-site and some days where they work remotely. There are a few exceptions to this. More fiscal/business affairs employees prefer a completely or mostly remote work arrangement, and employees in health/wellness/counseling, food service/dining, and housing/residential services prefer a completely or mostly on-site work arrangement. These exceptions are best understood when viewing the alignment between preferred work arrangements and the percentage of employees who agree that most of their duties can be done remotely.

For many departments/areas, there is a clear misalignment between actual work arrangements and preferred work arrangements. For example, only about one-third (35%) of enrollment management employees prefer to work completely or mostly on-site, but two-thirds (66%) actually do. Previous research shows that such misalignment between actual and ideal work arrangements predicts an employee’s likelihood of looking for other work in the near future. 13 Bichsel, J., Fuesting, M., & McCormack, M. (2021, November). Providing Remote Work Opportunities Will Aid Your Retention Efforts . CUPA-HR.

Figure 6. Current and Preferred Work Arrangements (Interactive Graphic)

Beyond Full-Time: Many Higher Ed Employees Are Burning the Candle at Both Ends

Approximately two-thirds (67%) of full-time higher ed employees work more hours each week than what is considered full-time (Figure 7). 14 Data in Figure 7 was obtained by calculating the difference between the number of hours each participant typically works per week and the number of hours their institution considers full-time. Notably, 10% of employees work 16 hours or more of additional hours per week. Only 1% of employees typically work less than is expected of full-time workers at their institution.

Figure 7. Distribution of Weekly Additional Hours Worked

Higher ed employees find it necessary to work additional hours to complete their current job duties. More than half (58%) of employees agreed that their job duties require additional hours, and only one-quarter (26%) disagreed that their job duties required additional hours. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of higher ed employees agreed that they absorbed additional responsibilities of other staff who left since the onset of the pandemic, and nearly three-fourths (73%) agree that they have taken on additional responsibilities that emerged due to the pandemic. Higher ed employees today have fewer hands to share a heavier load. 15 Analyses of this data found no notable differences in results due to institution classification, institution affiliation, or employee department/area.

Satisfaction With the Higher Ed Work Environment

The Employee Retention Survey contained 14 items related to work environment and job satisfaction. Employees were asked to rate the extent to which they agree with statements such as “I feel a sense of belonging at work.” Figure 8 displays the percentage of respondents agreeing with each statement. 16 Questions used a five-point Likert scale of agreement (Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree). Overall, nearly two-thirds (62%) of higher ed employees agree with the general statement that they are satisfied with their job. Approximately the same percentage (66%) would recommend their department as a place to work, and a slightly smaller percentage (60%) would recommend their institution. However, more than one-fifth (22%) of higher education employees are not satisfied with their jobs. Therefore, it is worth noting which aspects of their work environment receive more or less satisfaction.

Higher ed employees overwhelmingly agree (81%) they have a good relationship with their supervisor, which research shows is positively associated with job satisfaction for both in-person and remote employees. 17 Stringer, L. (2006). The Link Between the Quality of the Supervisor–Employee Relationship and the Level of the Employee’s Job Satisfaction.  Public Organization Review, 6,  125-142. doi: 10.1007/s11115-006-0005-0 , 18 Golden, T. D. & Veiga, J. F. (2008). The Impact of Superior–Subordinate Relationships on the Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Performance of Virtual Workers. The Leadership Quarterly, 19 (1), 77-88. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.009  Further, more than three-fourths (77%) feel their work has purpose. In addition, approximately two-thirds of employees agree they are valued by others at work (67%), feel they can bring up problems and tough issues at work (65%), and feel a sense of belonging (64%).

There are four notable areas of discontent. Nearly half (46%) of higher ed employees disagree they have opportunities for advancement and a similar percentage disagree they are paid fairly (45%). Thirty-nine percent disagree that the institution is invested in their career development and one-fourth (24%) disagree that they are recognized for their contributions.

Figure 8. Satisfaction With the Higher Ed Work Environment

When comparing these results by institution classification, higher ed employees in baccalaureate institutions perceive their work environment most favorably (highest agreement to 10 of the 14 items), whereas those in associate’s institutions perceive their work environment least favorably (lowest agreement to 10 of the 14 items). Likewise, those in private institutions (independent and religious) had more positive responses (highest agreement to 13 of the 14 items) than those in public institutions.

Employee job satisfaction varies by department/area as well. Higher ed employees working in Human Resources and Food Service/Dining are most satisfied with their job (71% and 68% agreement respectively), whereas only 55% of those in Financial Aid and in Academic Affairs agreed they were satisfied with their job. Employees in Human Resources, along with Food Service/Dining and Enrollment Management, are also the most likely to recommend their department as a good place to work (72%, 69%, and 67% respectively); however, only 54% of Financial Aid employees recommend their department as a good place to work.

Satisfaction With Benefits

When it comes to employee satisfaction with benefits, there’s a clear distinction between satisfaction with benefits that have remained fairly constant in terms of their importance over the past few years and benefits that became more salient over the course of the pandemic. For the most part, there is high satisfaction with the following: retirement benefits, amount of paid time off, health insurance, work-related equipment, and tuition reimbursement (Figure 9). More than two-thirds of higher ed employees report being satisfied or very satisfied with these benefits.

However, benefits that have become more salient since the pandemic — childcare discounts or subsidies, remote work policies, schedule flexibility, and parental leave policies — received the highest levels of dissatisfaction. This is noteworthy when one considers the research showing that women were disproportionately burdened with unpaid childcare, eldercare, and other home responsibilities during the years of the pandemic, resulting in promotion, pay, and morale gaps that continue. 19 Miller, C. C. (2021, May 17). The Pandemic Created a Child-Care Crisis. Mothers Bore the Burden. The New York Times .

There are some notable differences in satisfaction with benefits based on institution type. Although 81% of employees overall reported they were either satisfied or very satisfied with their retirement benefits, only 68% of public institution employees reported this level of satisfaction with retirement benefits. Similarly, only 62% of employees at public institutions reported satisfaction with their health insurance, compared to 75% overall.

Those who work at doctoral institutions report higher levels of satisfaction with their institution’s remote work policies (46% of doctoral institution employees are satisfied, compared with 35% of associate’s, 36% of baccalaureate, and 32% of master’s institution employees). Similarly, higher levels of satisfaction with parental leave policies are reported at doctoral institutions (46%) than at associate’s (33%), baccalaureate (41%), or master’s (35%) institutions. In regard to childcare discounts/subsidies, only 9% of associate’s institution employees reported they were satisfied or very satisfied. Private religious institutions reported the greatest level of satisfaction with childcare discounts/subsidies (24%); however, this is still a very low level of satisfaction.

Figure 9. Satisfaction With Benefits

Conclusions

This initial report from the CUPA-HR Higher Education Employee Retention Survey provides data supporting the following broad conclusions about the higher ed workforce.

Higher ed employees are looking for other jobs, mostly because they desire a pay increase. More than half (57%) of the higher ed workforce is at least somewhat likely to look for other employment opportunities in the next 12 months. The most common reason for seeking other employment (provided by three-fourths of those likely to look for another job) is an increase in pay. Other reasons are that they desire more remote work opportunities, a more flexible schedule, and a promotion or more responsibility.

Higher ed institutions are not providing the remote work opportunities that employees want. Nearly three-fourths (71%) of employees report that most of their duties can be performed remotely, and 69% would prefer to have at least at least a partially remote work arrangement, yet 63% are working mostly or completely on-site.

Higher ed employees are working longer and harder than ever. Two-thirds (67%) of full-time staff typically work more hours each week than what is considered full-time. Nearly two-thirds (63%) have taken on additional responsibilities of other staff who have recently left, and nearly three-fourths (73%) have taken on additional responsibilities as a direct result of the pandemic.

Higher ed employees have clear areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Employees are generally satisfied with most traditional benefits, and 81% have a good relationship with their supervisor. Approximately two-thirds report being satisfied with their job and would recommend their department and their institution as a good place to work. Three-fourths feel their work has purpose, and two-thirds feel valued, feel like they can bring up problems, and feel a sense of belonging. However, there are several areas in which a great deal of dissatisfaction exists:

• Investment in career development
• Opportunities for advancement
• Recognition for contributions
• Parental leave policies
• Childcare discounts or subsidies
• Remote work policies
• Schedule flexibility

Recommendations

The results of the Employee Retention Survey suggest that higher ed in general is facing a crisis in retaining its talent. The results also suggest some targeted recommendations that could help mitigate this crisis.

Provide salary increases wherever possible. Many higher ed employees do not feel they’re being paid fairly, and a higher salary is by far the primary reason they look for other employment opportunities. An obvious solution would be to budget for salary increases. Higher ed institutions overall provided little or no pay increases at the height of the pandemic and pay increases since that time have not kept pace with inflation. 20 CUPA-HR. (2022). Annual Pay Increases by Position Type [Interactive graphic]. Implementing targeted equity increases wherever possible may be one of the most effective ways of addressing problems with retention. However, many higher ed institutions are coping with both short- and long-term budget issues that prevent large-scale pay increases. Fortunately, the results from the survey indicate other solutions that may improve retention without breaking budgets.

Offer more in the way of remote work options and flexible schedules. Employees who can work remotely now expect to be provided with opportunities to work remotely. The results from this and previous research suggest that a misalignment between employees’ preference for remote work arrangements and their actual work arrangements relates to their likelihood of looking for other employment opportunities. 21 Bichsel et al., 2021. Results from these surveys also suggest that huge shifts in work arrangements are not necessary. Providing even small accommodations — such as one day a week when an employee can work from home — can go a long way in improving employee satisfaction. 22 Ibid.

There are also other options for providing flexibility in schedules that can improve retention. Reducing the number of hours in a work week (e.g., changing the conception of full-time work from 40 hours to 36) or allowing employees to work a half-day on Fridays are just two examples of this. Asking employees what they want or need in terms of schedule flexibility would provide you with localized data that will help you target these efforts.

Results from this survey, as well as anecdotal examples from CUPA-HR members, suggest that many institutional leaders are not shifting from a culture of exclusively on-campus work to a culture of increased flexibility. The data make it increasingly clear that these leaders will need to weigh the importance of retaining talent with the importance of requiring all employees to complete all, or the majority, of their work on-site.

Be mindful of employee workload and expectations around working hours. Two-thirds of higher ed employees are working more hours than what is considered to be full-time; some are working many more. This can be attributed to the fact that employees are absorbing the responsibilities of staff who have left and additional responsibilities that emerged over the course of the pandemic. Supervisors should consider strategies to reduce employee workload. Working long hours is a key predictor of employees’ work stress, mental health, and general occupational health. 23 Wong, K., Chan, A. H. S., & Ngan, S. C. (2019). The Effect of Long Working Hours and Overtime on Occupational Health: A Meta-Analysis of Evidence From 1998 to 2018. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 16 , 2102-2124. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16122102 In addition, leaders concerned about retention must consider the message sent when the employees who stay receive higher workloads for their loyalty. An increase in workload without an accompanying increase in pay — particularly when this condition is sustained — is a recipe for an employee who will be open to considering a new position elsewhere.

Look for new ways to recognize employees for their achievements, invest in their career development, and offer opportunities for advancement. One quarter of the respondents on the Employee Retention Survey do not feel their institution recognizes them for their contributions; nearly 40% do not feel their institution invests in their career development; and close to half do not believe they’re offered opportunities for advancement. Supervisors sometimes confuse equality with fairness and may unduly prioritize treating all their staff equally over the importance of recognizing individual contributions and the need for individualized programs of development and flexibility. 24 Phillips, A. (2020, September). How to Ensure Your Employees Are Treated Equally and Fairly . The HR Tech Weekly. Workplace cultures that emphasize the importance of treating all employees the same risk losing top talent who need individualized recognition, development, and opportunities to advance in order to thrive. 25 Lowisz, S. (2022, February). Why HR Should Not Treat Everyone the Same . Forbes .

Enhance your institution’s parental leave policies and childcare discounts or subsidies. Women have always been disproportionately burdened by dependent care responsibilities, and this condition was exacerbated over the course of the pandemic, leading many more women than men to leave the U.S. workforce. 26 Fields, S. (2022, February). Child Care Disruptions Have Been Driving More Women Than Men to Quit Their Jobs . Marketplace. The provision and enhancement of benefits that would mitigate this burden and address these gaps might help improve retention rates for women in the higher ed workforce.

Find ways to communicate and promote the things you’re doing right. Do you provide benefits that exceed those provided by your regional and local competitors? Do you have remote work options or other flexible work arrangements that are attractive to current employees and potential applicants for open positions? Do you provide excellent opportunities for career development and advancement? Are you providing employees with pay that exceeds the market median? Do you have recent climate survey results that are stellar? You may already be promoting the things your institution is doing right when you develop job descriptions or postings designed to attract applicants . How often, though, are you communicating these assets to your current staff ? Keeping the benefits of working at your institution salient for the employees who currently work for you increases the chance that these benefits will be top of mind if and when they consider other employment opportunities.

About the Authors: Jacqueline Bichsel, Ph.D., is director of research at CUPA-HR. Melissa Fuesting, Ph.D., is a senior survey researcher at CUPA-HR. Jennifer Schneider, Ph.D., is a survey researcher at CUPA-HR. Diana Tubbs, Ph.D., is a survey researcher at CUPA-HR.

Graphics were created by Kate Roesch, data visualization developer at CUPA-HR.

Citation for This Report: Bichsel, Jacqueline; Fuesting, Melissa; Schneider, Jennifer; & Tubbs, Diana. (2022, July). The CUPA-HR 2022 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey: Initial Results . CUPA-HR. https://www.cupahr.org/surveys/research-briefs/higher-ed-employee-retention-survey-findings-july-2022

Privacy Preference Center

Consent management.

This website uses cookies to understand your use of our website and to give you a better experience. By continuing to use our site or by closing this banner without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies. To find out more about our use of cookies and how to change your settings, please go to our Privacy Policy .

• Higher Education Today
• American Council On Education
• Carnegie Classifications
• Race and Ethnicity In Higher Education

Navigating Higher Education Employee Retention Challenges: Insights from the 2023 CUPA-HR Survey

October 23, 2023

Title:  The CUPA-HR 2023 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey

Authors:  Jacqueline Bichsel, Melissa Fuesting, Diana Tubbs, and Jennifer Schneider

Source:  College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR)

CUPA-HR has released the latest version of an annual report that provides insight into employee retention in the field of higher education. The report delves into various factors influencing employee retention, including, but not limited to , the likelihood of seeking alternative job opportunities soon, remote work policies, satisfaction with benefits, well-being, and job environment satisfaction.

The 2023 survey captured insights from nearly 4,800 higher education administrators, professionals, and non-exempt staff. Forty percent of those surveyed were supervisors.

Key findings from the survey include:

• Over half (56 percent) of employees were likely to seek new employment within the next twelve months, with 33 percent highly likely to do so.
• Sixty-eight percent of employees agreed most of their job duties could be done remotely.
• Two-thirds of respondents reported their current work arrangements are mostly or completely on-site, with only 11 percent being mostly or completely remote, and 24 percent hybrid.
• Half of higher education employees reported working additional hours beyond full-time expectations, with those working in human resources reporting the highest rate (60 percent) of working extra hours.
• Thirty-five percent of supervisors found maintaining staff morale particularly challenging.
• General job satisfaction was at 58 percent, down from 62 percent in 2022.
• Specific areas of satisfaction included good relationships with supervisors (80 percent) and finding purpose in their work (79 percent).

To retain employees at higher education institutions, CUPA-HR recommends that institutions:

• Prioritize improving basic job satisfaction elements
• Address overwork issues and prevent current employees from bearing the retention crisis burden
• Offer regular and meaningful pay increases
• Implement flexible work arrangements
• Ensure employee safety and ethical leadership
• Enhance parental benefits
• Support supervisors and the role they play in retention efforts

To explore findings and methodological information about the report and survey, click here .

—Alexandria M. Falzarano

If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us .

Keep Reading

Higher Education for the Nation’s Future

ACE President Ted Mitchell introduces the Council’s new Strategic Framework, which will underpin the organization for the next three years and help chart a successful course for the future of higher education.

Higher Education Has Changed. Will the Higher Education Act?

The perennial joke about any reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) is that it’s like a Russian novel: It’s long, it’s boring, and by the end, everyone winds up dead. But as yet another HEA reauthorization rolls around, it’s a good bet that many of us will think there’s a fair amount of truth in that old chestnut, writes ACE Senior Vice President Terry Hartle.

A Path Forward for Faculty in Higher Education

The American higher education system, despite its challenges, remains the envy of the world. But to meet the needs of future students and maintain its vaunted status, U.S. colleges and universities must address a few important dynamics. The TIAA Institute’s Stephanie Bell-Rose looks at the path forward.