Today’s Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) operate in an increasingly competitive landscape (Garcia-Rodriguez & Gutiérrez-Taño, 2021). Factors such as deregulation, globalization of educational markets, and rising student mobility are contributing to intensified competition among HEIs worldwide. Notably, traditional HEIs from established educational-supplier countries are facing challenges from new rivals, including institutions in Asia and South America that cater to fee-paying international students (Manzoor et al., 2021). Furthermore, different types of HEIs – varying in structural conditions – compete within the same international marketplace for higher education (e.g. Elken & Rosdal, 2017). This competition is particularly evident when comparing public and private universities.

The changing market dynamics coincide with the adoption of new public management practices in public HEIs. Developed in the 1980s, new public management offers an alternative framework for more efficient governance of public organizations (e.g., Broucker et al., 2016). This movement is observed in a number of countries. Particularly in Europe, these shifts reflect broader public sector reforms (de Boer et al., 2007). Notably, funding priorities within Higher Education Institutions are transitioning away from public sources toward non-public funding.

This transformation can be seen, as Wedlin (2008) suggests, as a result of university marketization. HEIs therefore face growing demands for external accountability. Consequently, monitoring practices – originally developed for corporate management – are increasingly developing in higher education environments (e.g., Engwall, 2008; Kethüda, 2023).

A pivotal construct for assessing HEI outcomes is reputation. Reputation serves as a signal of educational and scientific quality, influencing university evaluation and prospective student selection (Hemsley-Brown, 2012; Munisamy et al., 2014). From an institutional economics perspective, reputation’s signaling quality arises because educational and scientific quality cannot be fully evaluated until experienced (Suomi et al., 2014). Following the argument of Plewa et al. (2016), it is precisely this quality that makes reputation a key concept in HEI management in competitive situations.

When applied to HEIs, a good reputation can be interpreted as a long-term expression of the performance and the perceptions of an HEI by its many stakeholders. A good reputation will be related to instilling trust (e.g., Dass et al., 2021), accessing financial support more easily, attracting a higher number of top-quality students, or being of interest for the best researchers, teachers, and administration experts. Studies from a corporate reputation context (e.g., Eberl & Schwaiger, 2005; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; Sabate & Puente, 2003) have revealed a correlation between reputation and financial success, discussing the positive impact of reputation on diverse business goals. Consequently, reputation is appreciated as an intangible asset of organizations, the importance of which is even increasing in business valuation (Brønn, 2008; BrandFinance, 2019).

In today’s marketized landscape, professional monitoring is crucial for managing and marketing HEIs. However, adequate and accepted reputation measures are a prerequisite for effective monitoring. Despite being extensively studied in corporate research, measuring the reputation of HEIs still remains underexplored: while many studies discuss the various facets of reputation measurement for corporations (e.g., Alcaide-Pulido & Gutiérrez-Villar, 2017; Chun, 2005; Walker, 2010), deplorably little research has focused on the question of how reputation in HEI contexts should be measured and monitored.

II. Capturing reputation in HEI contexts – the lack of a feasible approach

The following sections outline three possible explanations for the logjam in research progress on measuring HEI reputation, which results in a lack of established reputation monitoring systems in HEIs. Figure 1 provides a summary of the argument.

IIa. The reputation construct is not clear, either in terms of its definition or in terms of its its dimensionality

The concept of reputation, extensively examined in business contexts, has been approached from diverse perspectives (e.g., Fombrun & van Riel, 2003; Chun, 2005). In one approach, rooted in Fombrun’s (1996) seminal work, reputation is often defined as the collective perception of an organization held by its stakeholders, shaped by their interactions and received communications (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; Walker, 2010). Alternatively, reputation may be conceptualized as stakeholders’ assessments of the organization’s ability to meet expectations (e.g., Fombrun & van Riel, 2003), as the collective beliefs about an organization’s identity and prominence (Rao, 1994), or as a set of beliefs encompassing the organization’s capacities, intentions, history, and mission (Carpenter, 2010). Bromley (1993, 2002) and Grunig and Hung (2002) emphasize reputation as shared beliefs among social groups, while Deephouse (1997, 2000) underscores its relation to media visibility and favorability. Gotsi and Wilson (2001) define reputation as stakeholders’ overall evaluation of a company over time, informed by direct experiences or other forms of communication, which is rather similar to Grunig and Hung’s (2002) approach. Note that while reputation and image are intertwined, they represent distinct theoretical constructs (Alcaide-Pulido & Gutiérrez-Villar, 2017; Manzoor et al., 2021).

The discourse surrounding reputation, both intricate and fundamental, has engendered debates about its dimensional structure (which need to be seen as intertwined with the challenges of defining and measuring reputation). Prominent contributions and viewpoints can be compiled as follows:

• Lange et al. (2011) sum up studies and essays which conceptualize reputation in a uni-dimensional way, resulting in three dominant directions: Reputation consisting of familiarity with the organization, reputation consisting of beliefs about what to expect from the organization in the future, and reputation consisting of impressions about the organization’s favorability.
• Examining the application of organizational reputation to public administration, Carpenter (2010) distinguishes four dimensions. The performative dimension is related to stakeholders’ perceptions and evaluation of whether an organization delivers outputs that comply with its mission and activities (also Chapleo et al., 2011). In a way, this dimension refers to aspects of effectiveness and efficiency. The procedural dimension deals with the appropriateness of an organization’s procedural and legal requirements in its decision making. The technical dimension, in turn, draws attention to the knowledge and competencies within the organization which are necessary to handle complex tasks and changing environments. Finally, the moral dimension of reputation refers to the stakeholders’ perceptions of whether an organization is honest, humane, even emotionally appealing (Carpenter & Krause, 2012). These dimensions also reflect evaluations of whether an organization protects the interests of stakeholders and members. As these various authors point out, reputation should not be seen one-dimensional; however one consequence of a multi-dimensional construct is the complicating issue that striving to boost one dimension implies that another dimension will most likely suffer: trade-offs are inherent. Consequently, organizations will strive to prioritize certain forms of reputation, e.g., the performative reputation, over others. To further add to the complication, different parts of the organization may favor and support different dimensions of reputation.
• Fombrun and colleagues have developed a reputation definition for a marketing context, using a more specific operationalization (Fombrun, 1996; Fombrun et al., 2000; Fombrun & van Riel, 2003). Their work, in turn, has served as one basis for the approach proposed by Eisenegger and Imhof (2009). They crafted a three-dimensional reputation approach by combining the reputation concept of Eberl and Schwaiger (2005) (who distinguished cognitive and affective reputations) with a normative dimension. The derived framework includes a functional, a social and an expressive dimension. The functional reputation refers to success and competence of the actor that can be expressed through key figures or ratings (Eisenegger & Imhof, 2009). On top of this, a successful organization needs to adhere to the norms and values of society; this denotes the social reputation. While the first two dimensions focus more on the outside world, the individual world of the actor itself becomes the object of the expressive dimension. In other words, the emotional attractiveness, authenticity, or uniqueness of the organization is reflected in this third dimension. According to Eisenegger (2004, 2005, 2009), the three-dimensional reputation concept should have universal applicability and should be relevant to all types of organizations.
• Agarwal et al. (2015) propose as many as six dimensions – basing reputation on stakeholders’ perceptions of quality level, vision, workplace, responsibility, financial performance, and emotional appeal.
• The discussion about the dimensionality of reputation, on the one hand, and the debate about inherent trade-offs between them as advanced by Carpenter (2010) and Carpenter and Krause (2012), on the other, both lend support to the idea of different sub-types of reputation as we have presented in Morschheuser and Redler (2015). Building on the notion of scientific organizations as multi-sectional organizations, we have argued that scientific organizations’ reputations should be understood as being composed of four sub-reputations: reputation of administration (stakeholders’ perceptions about administrative performance), reputation of research (stakeholders’ perceptions about research performance), reputation of transfer (stakeholders’ perceptions about transfer performance) and reputation of teaching (stakeholders’ perceptions about teaching performance).

In summary, various conceptualizations of the reputation construct have been discussed, all of them having their origins in the study of business. Nevertheless, no consistent understanding of the dimensional structure of this phenomenon has yet emerged from this research.

IIb. There are many unresolved discussions regarding the appropriate measurement methods to apply to HEI reputation

The preceding discussion highlights that reputation is linked to a number of factors, which therefore presents challenges for its measurement and monitoring. One challenge lies in accurately measuring each factor, while another involves linking them to indicators of the overarching construct. A review of the literature on appropriate quantitative measurement design reveals several ambiguities and trade-offs, likely reflecting more general disputes. These ambiguities cause significant headaches for reputation managers, who struggle to design appropriate reputation management tools. Such ambiguities often lead to initiatives going round in circles. The main ambiguities are as follows: Subjective vs. objective measures: There is a debate about whether to use measures based on “objective” data or ones based on “subjective” data (e.g., Siefke, 1998). The first approach relies on intersubjectively verifiable measures and assumes that reputation can be measured using neutral third parties or objective and external indicators that are not subject to distorted perceptions. Examples include the use of figures and performance indicators or observational data. In contrast, methods based on subjective data accept intersubjectively different perceptions and apply measures that can capture these. Scale-based measures, incident-based procedures or problem-based assessments are examples of this type of approach.

Formative vs. reflective measurement: The formative vs. reflective measurement controversy concerns how the factors within reputation are combined and whether they are a cause or a result of the construct under investigation. Helm (2005, p. 96) points out that “most researchers assume a reflective relationship, meaning that the observed latent variable is assumed to be a construct of all its indicators.” According to this reflective perspective, the observable factors change as the latent variable changes (e.g. reputation) – they “reflect“ the latent variable (an “eliciting variable,” Rossiter, 2002). Formative measurement takes a different perspective. In a formative view, the factors cause the latent variable, they “form” it (a “formed variable,” Rossiter, 2002; Diamantopoulos et al., 2008). While Agarwal et al. (2015, p. 448) conceptualize (corporate) reputation as a reflective construct, the many indices or rankings are expressions of the formative approach. As Helm (2005) reminds us, these are “classic examples of formative construct conceptualisation” and, as is well known, they are often used to express reputation. A more recent overview of the reflective-formative debate can be found in Fleuren et al. (2018).

Measures for first-order vs. second-order constructs: Agarwal et al. (2015) discuss, among other things, whether reputation is a first-order or a second-order construct. While a first-order construct has observable variables as indicators, a second-order structure implies that the original construct (here: reputation) is an unobservable (latent) variable and has other latent variables as indicators. There seems to be theoretical grounds and empirical evidence for considering reputation as a second-order construct based on individual measurement dimensions (Agarwal et al., 2015). Similar paths, but for different objects of reputation, are outlined in papers by Dong et al. (2019) and Walsh and Beatty (2007). Although coming from different contexts, papers by Danneels (2016) and Potter (1991), for example, provide a deeper insight into the specifics of measuring first- or second-order constructs.

Single-item vs. multi-item measures: Theoretical considerations have also focused on whether a construct (such as reputation) should be measured by a single-item or multi-item measure. While single-item scales use only one item (question or indicator) to capture a construct, multi-item measures use a variety of items to assess the empirical situation of a construct. Today, the use of multi-item scales seems to be the standard in academic research. However, the conventional wisdom (in marketing research) has been challenged by Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007), referring to ideas of the C-OAR-SE procedure proposed by Rossiter (2002). In general, single-item measurement is discussed because of several advantages (see Sarstedt & Wilczynski, 2009, or Bowling, 2005, for an overview), such as higher response rates, simplicity, increased flexibility, or lower costs. However, as Sarstedt and Wilczynski (2009) point out, the arguments in favor of single item measures apply only to reflective measures, as classical psychometric performance criteria are not applicable to formative constructs. On the other hand, there are convincing arguments in favor of multi-item measures (e.g. Sarstedt & Wilczynski, 2009, for a review), such as increased reliability, higher construct validity or better predictive validity (e.g. Diamantopoulos et al., 2012). For the higher education context, Svensson (2008) examines the measures underlying scientific journal rankings and finds that these rankings are largely based on single-item measures (e.g., expert perceptions or citations) and therefore fail to provide estimates of psychometric quality such as reliability or validity. Consequently, he recommends the use of broader approaches based on multi-item measures.

In summary, notable sub-questions of the overall measurement problems are still left unanswered by measurement and scaling theory; rather, the discussion points to several forks in the road that need to be taken if a solution for measuring HEI reputation is to be derived. This is another reason why ideas about what might provide a sound solution for measuring HEI reputation have not yet been established.

IIc. Traditional reputation measurement is poorly tailored to the distinctive nature of HEIs

Many authors understand HEIs as any institutions involved in higher education, which includes all educational institutions authorized to provide two to three years of post-secondary education (e.g. World Conference on Higher Education, 1998; McCaffrey, 2019). When discussing educational strategies, Pucciarelli and Kaplan (2016) highlight that universities (as HEIs) have three basic missions: teaching, research and public service, which have always been in conflict. HEIs can take many forms, for example they can be public vs. private, non-profit vs. for-profit, specialized in particular disciplines vs. very broad, focused on research vs. teaching vs. both. HEIs produce teaching, research and transfer outputs. In Morschheuser and Redler (2015), we have discussed HEIs as a subtype of Scientific Organizations, which we define as tetra-sectional social systems that act in a goal-oriented way, produce knowledge or know-how, use and defend scientific methods, share their insights and ways of research with the public for the purpose of discussion, quality control and stimulation of further research, and are embedded in a complex network of stakeholders.

It is important to note that HEIs differ from corporate organizations in a number of significant ways. For instance, the literature has identified certain unique characteristics of HEIs:

• Telem (1981, p. 581) emphasizes that HEIs are large organizations that deal with thousands of students across various academic levels and programs. HEIs have hundreds of faculty members and administrative staff, numerous buildings, significant financial turnover, and a variety of research programs. This description highlights the size of the organization and the various stakeholders involved, as well as the complexity that characterizes HEIs, including the notion of multiple interrelated subsystems. Barnett (2015) illustrates that HEIs face super-complexity on several levels. Therefore, it is not surprising that HEIs are often described as one of the most complex organizational forms (Austin & Jones, 2015). Cohen et al. (1972) and Cohen & March (1974) have described HEI as “organized anarchy,” a term also acknowledged by Perkins (1973). For instance, no one holds absolute authority in a typical HEI.
• A related idea is that of HEIs as “loosely coupled systems” (Weick, 1976, p. 1).
• HEIs have a normative character, and Birnbaum (1988) emphasizes the typical roles of referent and expert power. According to Birnbaum, HEIs are unique organizations because they have little specialization of work but much specialization of expertise, a comparatively flat hierarchy, and a less visible role performance.
• Birnbaum (1988) and Perkins (1973) both argue that accountability for cause and effect is low in HEIs.
• HEIs have been described as tetra-sectional, integrating four distinct organizations into one. This concept is supported by research from Barnett (2003) and Kerr (1972), who both propose the idea of an internally fragmented “multiversity.”

These arguments support the conclusion that HEIs cannot easily be compared to business organizations. Furthermore, there are issues with the market-related assumptions that have been implied in corporate reputation research. While firms operate within a market system, HEIs do not. Firms interact with a market that consists of suppliers and demand as the main actors. The interaction of supply and demand creates efficient solutions for all parties involved, resulting in the creation of value (Sheth & Uslay, 2007).

The discussion of reputation in the context of HEIs has so far left certain aspects insufficiently considered – such as measuring and monitoring issues. Additionally, the current theory on reputation in HEIs is not specific and instead refers to reputation as it originated from business research (as we have noted, the conceptualizations of reputation outlined above are largely from business backgrounds). Returning to the key authors who have worked on defining reputation, such as Fombrun (1996), Fombrun and Shanley (1990), Walker (2010), or Fombrun and van Riel (2003), it is clear that their focus is on enterprises. As research has not yet addressed whether the concept of reputation and its related measurement solutions can be adequately applied to HEIs, or what adaptations may be necessary, this remains an important area for future investigation.

III. The current landscape: a scarcity of research on measuring HEI reputation

As a kind of interim summary of the above discussion, we can state that it appears that the issue of measuring HEI reputation has not yet gained much attention. Only a limited number of tailored research contributions can be identified that examine HEI reputation at all.

Theus (1993), for instance, explores how university reputations develop and fade; moreover, she investigates attributes of reputation. Conard and Conard (2000) conducted a study with high school seniors to investigate the factors that contribute to a college’s reputation, including academic quality, career preparation, ethos, and exclusivity. Suomi’s (2014) findings emphasize the multidimensionality of the reputation construct in HEI backgrounds. The relationship between reputation and student loyalty has been investigated by various scholars, including Nguyen and Leblanc (2001) and Garcia-Rodriguez and Gutiérrez-Taño (2021). Their studies have found that reputation has a positive effect on loyalty. Ressler and Abratt (2009) propose a framework for managing and testing university reputation. Vidaver-Cohen (2007) previously introduced a reputation model for higher education institutions, applying findings from reputation research to business schools. In certain academic papers, the perception of HEI reputation is often associated with branding concepts, including constructs such as university brands (Dass et al., 2021; Khoshtaria et al., 2020). Examples of this can be found in Chapleo (2004) and Balmer and Liao (2007).

IV. Conclusions and call to action

As we have sought to show in this paper, professional monitoring is crucial for managing the reputation of HEIs in today’s marketized landscape. However, to manage reputation effectively, it is necessary to measure it adequately. Nevertheless, as we have outlined above, there are serious problems with finding an acceptable and feasible way of measuring reputation that accounts for the specifics of HEIs.

Three main reasons have been highlighted to explain this situation: (a) that notable sub-questions of the overall measurement problems are still left unanswered, (b) that there are several, sometimes incommensurate, (construct-related) demands that need to be met for the same measurement task, and (c) that the generic challenges become further exacerbated when it comes to adapting these views more specifically to HEI reputation measurement and monitoring.

To resolve the resulting impasse and help facilitate discussion, several options might be worth considering (for a more detailed view see Redler & Morschheuser, 2024). One option could be to advance both basic HEI theory and reputation theory. This stream could include a thorough evaluation of what reputation means in the context of HEI, acknowledging that the objective of reputation needs to play a more prominent role in monitoring issues. When considering HEIs, it is important to determine which characteristics are relevant and how they can be measured accurately.

Another approach might be to concentrate on practical solutions. To maintain traditional perspectives in reputation research and to make them valuable, it is necessary to be more direct and to assess the usefulness of proposed measurement guidelines in actual HEI management. This involves researchers stepping outside of their own narrow definitions and considering alternative perspectives on what constitutes appropriate measurement. Rather than producing more findings that add another small piece to the silo-based construction of reality, researchers need to devote time and resources to research that contributes to knowledge that has an impact on the reality of (HEI) managers. To do so, researchers may benefit from engaging with managers to analyze their views, understand their needs and behaviors, and use these insights to inform research strategies. Acceptance of more pragmatic solutions for measuring HEI reputation may be an outcome of engaging with the practical views of HEI managers. It should be noted that these solutions may not meet all requirements for optimal measurement from a theoretical perspective.

An alternative approach could be to focus on constructs that have a more widely accepted definition and valid measures, such as brand equity (Khoshtaria et al., 2020) or image (Alcaide-Pulido & Gutiérrez-Villar, 2017), rather than relying on the reputation approach.

Finally, it may be worthwhile to explore the use of a scorecard to assess the reputation of an HEI. This approach shows potential, but it is crucial to first identify the HEI’s needs before determining the measurement dimensions, as suggested by Suomi (2014) or Nicolescu (2009). It may also be necessary to discard current constructs and their operationalizations and consider both qualitative and quantitative perspectives. Overall, there are valid reasons to use scorecard concepts as a starting point for new initiatives, particularly the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) developed by Kaplan and Norton (1996). As the originators of the scorecard view point out, “measurement was as fundamental to managers as it was for scientists” (Kaplan, 2009, p. 1253). The scorecard lens has an important advantage in that it approaches construct and measurement issues in a more integrative way.

References

Agarwal, J., Osiyevskyy, O., & Feldman, P.M. (2015). Corporate reputation measurement: Alternative factor structures, nomological validity, and organizational outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(2), 485–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2232-6

Alcaide-Pulido, P., Alves, H., & Gutiérrez-Villar, B. (2017). Development of a model to analyze HEI image: a case based on a private and a public university. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 27(2), 162–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08841241.2017.1388330

Austin, I., & Jones, G. A. (2015). Governance of higher education: Global perspectives, theories, and practices. Routledge.

Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G., & Riley, G. L. (1978). Policy making and effective leadership: A national study of academic management. Jossey-Bass.

Balmer, J. M. T., & Liao, M. (2007). Student corporate brand identification: An exploratory case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 12(4), 356–375. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280710832515 Barnett, R. (2003). Beyond all reason. Living with ideology in the university. SRHE and Open University Press.

Barnett, R. (2015). Understanding the university: Institution, idea, possibilities. Routledge.

Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175 Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Bowling A. (2005). Just one question: If one question works, why ask several? Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 59(5), 342–345. https://doi.org/ 10.1136/jech.2004.021204 BrandFinance (Ed.) (2019). Global intangible finance tracker (GIFT) – An annual review of the worlds intangible value. Brand Finance.

Bromley, D. B. (1993). Reputation, image and impression management. John Wiley & Sons.

Bromley, D. B. (2002). An examination of issues that complicate the concept of reputation in business studies. International Studies of Management & Organization, 32(3), 65–81. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40397542 Broucker, B., De Wit, K., & Leisyte, L. (2016). Higher education reform: A systematic comparison of ten countries from a new public management perspective. In R. Prichard, A. Pausitis, & J. Williams (Eds.), Positioning Higher Education Institutions (pp. 19–40). Brill.

Brønn, P. S. (2008). Intangible assets and communication. In A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public relations research (pp. 281–291). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Carpenter, D. (2010). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton University Press.

Carpenter, D. P., & Krause, G. A. (2012). Reputation and public administration. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02506.x Chapleo, C. (2004). Interpretation and implementation of reputation/brand management by UK university leaders. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 5(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ijea.2140201

Chapleo, C., Carrillo Durán, M. V., & Castillo Díaz, A. (2011). Do UK universities communicate their brands effectively through their websites? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 21(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241. 2011.569589 Chun, R. (2005). Corporate reputation: Meaning and measurement. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00109.x

Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1974). Leadership and ambiguity: The American College President. McGraw-Hill.

Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392088

Conard, M. J., & Conard, M. A. (2000). An analysis of academic reputation as perceived by consumers of higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 9(4), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v09n04_05

Dass, S., Popli, S., Sarkar, A., Sarkar, J. G., & Vinay, M. (2021). Empirically examining the psychological mechanism of a loved and trusted business school brand. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 31(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2020.1742846

Danneels, E. (2016). Survey measures of first-and second-order competences. Strategic Management Journal, 37(10), 2174–2188. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2428

de Boer, H., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2007). On the way towards new public management? The governance of university systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In D. Jansen (Ed.), New forms of governance in research organizations (pp. 137–152). Springer.

Deephouse, D. L. (1997). Part IV – How Do Reputations Affect Corporate Performance?: The effect of financial and media reputations on performance. Corporate Reputation Review, 1, 68–72. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr. 1540019

Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600602

Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. P. (2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1203–1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.009

Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P., & Kaiser, S. (2012). Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 434–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3

Dong, Y., Sun, S., Xia, C., & Perc, M. (2019). Second-order reputation promotes cooperation in the spatial prisoner’s dilemma game. IEEE Access, 7, 82532–82540. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2922200

Eberl, M., & Schwaiger, M. (2005). Corporate reputation: Disentangling the effects on financial performance. European Journal of Marketing, 39(7–8), 838–854. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560510601798

Eisenegger, M. (2004): Reputationskonstitution in der Mediengesellschaft. In K. Imhof, R. Blum, H. Bonfadelli, & O. Jarren (Eds.), Mediengesellschaft. Strukturen, Merkmale, Entwicklungsdynamiken (pp. 262–292). Springer.

Eisenegger, M. (2005). Reputation in der Mediengesellschaft – Konstitution, issues monitoring, issues management. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Eisenegger, M. (2009). Trust and reputation in the age of globalisation. In J. Klewes & R. Wreschniok (Eds). Reputation capital, (pp. 11–22). Springer.

Eisenegger, M., & Imhof, K. (2009). Funktionale, soziale und expressive Reputation – Grundzüge einer Reputationstheorie. In U. Röttger (Ed.), Theorien der Public Relations, (pp. 243–264). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Elken, M., & Rosdal, T. (2017). Professional higher education institutions as organizational actors. Tertiary Education and Management, 23, 376–387.

Engwall, L. (2008). The university: A multinational corporation? In L. Engwall & D. Weaire (Eds.), The university in the market, (pp. 9–21). Portland Press.

Fleuren, B. P., van Amelsvoort, L. G., Zijlstra, F. R., de Grip, A., & Kant, I. (2018). Handling the reflective-formative measurement conundrum: A practical illustration based on sustainable employability. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 103, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.07.007

Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation. Realizing value from the corporate image. Harvard Business School Press.

Fombrun, C. J., & Shanley M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academic Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258. https://doi.org/10.2307/256324 Fombrun, C. J., & van Riel, C. (2003). Fame & fortune. How successful companies build winning reputations. Pearson.

Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., & Sever, J. M. (2000). The reputation quotient SM: A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. Journal of Brand Management, 7(4), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2000.10

García-Rodríguez, F. J., & Gutiérrez-Taño, D. (2021). Loyalty to higher education institutions and the relationship with reputation: an integrated model with multi-stakeholder approach. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2021.1975185

Gotsi, M., & Wilson, A.M. (2001). Corporate reputation: Seeking a definition. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 13563280110381189

Grunig, J., & Hung, C. (2002, March 8-10). The effect of relationships on reputation and reputation on relationships: a cognitive, behavioral study [Paper Presentation]. PRSA Educator’s Academy 5th Annual International Interdisciplinary Public Relations Research Conference, Miami.

Helm, S. (2005). Designing a formative measure for corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(2), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540242

Hemsley-Brown, J. (2012). The best education in the world: Reality, repetition or cliché? International students’ reasons for choosing an English university. Studies in Higher Education, 37(8), 1005–1022. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079. 2011.562286

Kaplan, R. S. (2009). Conceptual foundations of the balanced scorecard. In C. S. Chapman, A. G. Hopwood & M. D. Shields (Eds.), Handbooks of management accounting research (Vol. 3, pp. 1253–1269). Elsevier.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy Into Action. Harvard Business School Press.

Kerr, C. (1972). The uses of the university. Cambridge.

Kethüda, Ö. (2023). Positioning strategies and rankings in the HE: congruence and contradictions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 33(1), 97–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2021.1892899

Khoshtaria, T., Datuashvili, D., & Matin, A. (2020). The impact of brand equity dimensions on university reputation: an empirical study of Georgian higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 30(2), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2020.1725955

Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. (2011). Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of Management, 37(1), 153–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310390963

Manzoor, S. R., Ho, J. S. Y., & Al Mahmud, A. (2021). Revisiting the ‘university image model’ for higher education institutions’ sustainability. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 31(2), 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08841241.2020.1781736 McCaffery, P. (2019). The higher education manager’s handbook effective leadership and management in universities and colleges. Routledge.

Morschheuser, P., & Redler, J. (2015). Reputation management for scientific organisations — Framework development and exemplification. Journal of Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations (MINIB), 18(4), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.14611/minib.18.04.2015.08

Munisamy, S., Jafaar, N. I. M., & Nagaraj, S. (2014). Does reputation matter? Case study of undergraduate choice at a premier university. Asia-Pacific Education Research, 23(3), 451–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0120-y

Nicolescu, L. (2009). Applying marketing to higher education: Scope and limits. Management & Marketing, 4(2), 35–44.

Nguyen, N., & Leblanc, G. (2001). Corporate image and corporate reputation in customers’ retention decisions in services. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 8(4), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6989(00)00029-1

Perkins, J. A. (1973). The university as an organization. McGraw-Hill.

Plewa, C., Ho, J., Conduit, J., & Karpen, I. O. (2016). Reputation in higher education: A fuzzy set analysis of resource configurations. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3087–3095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.024

Potter, W. J. (1991). The relationships between first-and second-order measures of cultivation. Human Communication Research, 18(1), 92–113. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1991.tb00530.x

Pucciarelli, F., & Kaplan, A. (2016). Competition and strategy in higher education: Managing complexity and uncertainty. Business Horizons, 59(3), 311–320.

Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895–1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150904

Redler, J., & Morschheuser, P. (2024). Somehow bogged down: why current discussions on measuring HEI reputation go round in circles, and possible ways out. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1–25. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/08841241.2024.2305637

Ressler, J., & Abratt, R. (2009). Assessing the impact of university reputation on stakeholder intentions. Journal of General Management, 35(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/030630700903500104

Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 305–335. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0167-8116(02)00097-6

Sabate, J. M. de la Fuente, & Puente, E. de Quevedo (2003). Empirical analysis of the relationship between corporate reputation and financial performance: A survey of the literature. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(2), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540197

Sarstedt, M., & Wilczynski, P. (2009). More for less? A comparison of single-item and multi-item measures. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 69(2), 211–227. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281306739_More_for_Less_A_Comparison_of_Single-item_and_Multi-item_Measures

Sheth, J. N., & Uslay, C. (2007). Implications of the revised definition of marketing: from exchange to value creation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26(2), 302–307.

Siefke, A. (1998). Zufriedenheit mit Dienstleistungen: ein phasenorientierter Ansatz zur Operationalisierung und Erklärung der Kundenzufriedenheit im Verkehrsbereich auf empirischer Basis. Peter Lang.

Suomi, K. (2014). Exploring the dimensions of brand reputation in higher education – A case study of a Finnish master’s degree programme. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(6), 646–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1360080X.2014.957893

Suomi, K., Kuoppakangas, P., Hytti, U., Hampden-Turner, C., & Kangaslahti, J. (2014). Focusing on dilemmas challenging reputation management in higher education. Journal of Educational Management, 28(4), 261–478. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/IJEM-04-2013-0046

Svensson, G. (2008). Scholarly journal ranking(s) in marketing: Single-or multi-item measures? Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 26(4), 340–352. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/02634500810879250

Telem, M. (1981). The institution of higher education – A functional perspective. Higher Education, 10(5), 581–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01676903

Theus, K. T. (1993). Academic reputations: The process of formation and decay. Public Relations Review, 19(3), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111 (93)90047-G

Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2007). Reputation beyond the rankings: A conceptual framework for business school research. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(4), 278–304. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550055

Walker, K. (2010). A systematic review of the corporate reputation literature: Definition, measurement, and theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 12(4), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2009.26

Walsh, G., & Beatty, S. E. (2007). Customer-based corporate reputation of a service firm: Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 127–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0015-7

Wedlin, L. (2008). University marketization: The process and its limits. The University in the Market, 84, 143–153.

Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875

World Conference on Higher Education (1998). World declaration on higher education for the twenty-first century: Vision and action. Retrieved August 21, 2022, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000141952

One of the important issues related to higher education is how the role of universities in the modern world is to be understood. An essential task of higher education institutions is to prepare specialists with competences that correspond well to employer expectations. The challenge facing the educational system, however, is to curate their curricula so as to teach competencies that not only meet current market demands, but will also remain relevant in a future marked by uncertainty. This is because ongoing socio-economic transformations induced by the fourth industrial revolution – where digitalization, automation, and globalization play the dominating role – in tandem with the diversity of values, cultures, and customs, demand a reevaluation of the competences necessary for both present and future employees. It is therefore imperative for both Polish and foreign universities to aim for better alignment between their curricula and the competency requirements of businesses and institutions.

The mismatch between competences taught by universities and the needs of employers translates into difficulties in finding suitable candidates for employment – approximately 33% of companies in Poland, for instance, report disparities between the desired competences and those possessed by job candidates. This issue is particularly emphasized in the services sector (where one in two companies is affected), as well as in medium-sized (44%) and large (33%) enterprises (Gi Group Holding Polska, 2023). Furthermore, research findings (Dąbkowska et al., 2022) indicate that this mismatch serves as a barrier to the growth of one in every three companies.

Universities and other institutions providing vocational education services face challenges in addressing the demands of the labor market. This is particularly evident from the perspective of state-owned institutions, following traditional education models, which require more time to effectively develop and implement new or modified programs that respond to evolving labor market needs . This sluggishness, sometimes further compounded by the bureaucratic hurdles inherent in state educational institutions, often opens up opportunities for alternative education providers, such as e-learning platforms, to fill the gap with flexible and widely accessible training options catered to specific market needs. The changing dynamics pose a threat to the long-standing supremacy of universities in credentialing highly qualified professionals, prompting a reimagining of the corporate education landscape. Beyond their rigid program-development procedures, other factors also deserve mention, such as inadequate state funding for higher education, the pauperization of the academic environment, and constraints in adopting new technologies, all of which determine the functioning of universities in shaping useful competences.

The objective of this article is to diagnose the current and future requirements of the labor market regarding employee competences, including those of graduates from business universities. Based on an analysis of secondary and primary data, we strive to infer the desired directions for competence development within universities. Given the relatively limited engagement of the latter sources, this article is of an exploratory nature, providing a general overview of anticipated labor market needs in the near future. Nevertheless, we believe that these insights will prove useful in designing and adapting business education programs facilitating the acquisition of valuable competences by students. Universities offering such competences will strengthen their competitive position, while businesses will be able to more successfully execute their strategies.

Nature and Types of Competences

The meaning of the term “competence” has evolved over time. Initially, it referred to a narrow concept – the formal authority to handle specific matters on behalf of an organization and to make decisions within a defined scope. This understanding later expanded to encompass the range of powers, duties, and responsibilities assigned to an employee’s organizational position. In 1973, McClelland associated competence with education. Boyatzis, regarded by many researchers as the pioneer of integrating the concept of competence into the field of human resource management (Sidor-Rządkowska, 2008), defined it in 1982 as “the potential existing in man, leading to such behavior that contributes to meeting the requirements of a given workplace within the parameters of the organization’s environment, which in turn provides the desired results” (Oleksyn, 2006). In the 1980s, the notion of competence was linked with the professional realm, particularly with human resources development, while in the 1990s, it came to be associated with the learning paradigm. A report to the National Institute of Education in the United States defines competence as “a fundamental characteristic of an individual that results in effective and/or excellent performance at work”.

Competence is perceived as a general ability, rooted in knowledge, experience, values, and inclinations, that a person has developed as a result of involvement in educational practices (Hutmacher, 1997). Competence cannot be reduced to knowledge based on facts or routine; being competent is not always equivalent to having knowledge or cultural awareness. In the broadest sense, competence is understood as encompassing knowledge, skills, attitudes and values, whereas in a more pragmatic understanding, as the indispensable prerequisites for meeting complex requirements, making decisions or performing work.

In the 21^st century, the understanding of the concept of “competence” increasingly emphasizes independence and responsibility in the performance of tasks by employees, conscious engagement in work, and the associated accountability for its execution, in line with mutually agreed standards . When reviewing different approaches to this concept, it should be borne in mind that competences and their scope are in each case relevant to specific individuals working within a specific enterprise. Hence, we should acknowledge Wawrzyniak’s view that “an approach to managing the human factor within an organization based solely on formal qualifications and experience measured by seniority is not sufficient at the current stage of organizational development. The particular significance (of this factor) for the organization is associated with competences, understood as the knowledge, skills, motivation, attitudes, and behavior of employees.” These narrower and broader approaches to the concept of competence do not fully resolve the challenge of defining the term, but instead indicate the existence of varying aspects of the subject in question.

In this article we embrace a comprehensive interpretation of competences, following Le Boterf in defining it as the individual’s capacity to execute tasks by mobilizing appropriate resources (skills, knowledge, know-how, behaviors, and attitudes) among those previously acquired through education or prior experiences (Lamri, 2019). Furthermore, we assume that competences yield outcomes consistent with the strategic intentions of the company.

The existing literature on the subject presents various categorizations of competences, with authors dividing them up according to the characteristics they possess and functions they perform (Oleksyn, 2006; Moczydłowska, 2008; Rostkowski, 2002). Competences are commonly categorized into four main types: professional competences (primarily relating to job- related knowledge and skills), methodological competences (problem-solving and decision-making skills), social competences (cooperative and communicative skills), and personal competencies (social values, motivations, and attitudes). Lamari (2021), in turn, introduces a somewhat different categorization of competences into technical, behavioral and motivational, cognitive and civic competences, with the latter pertaining to the world and the position of the individual.

Another type of classification scheme differentiates between key competences and specific competences. According to Oleksyn (2006), key competences hold significance for the company, the job and the individual employee, as from the organization’s point of view they represent what the organization excels at, and considering the job they are crucial for performing tasks and duties within a job role. The key competences possessed by employees relate to the employees themselves, encompassing their distinguishing traits. Specific competences, on the other hand, pertain to employees’ features that are indispensable and characteristic for a particular position.

Sidor-Rządkowska (2008), in turn, argues that of the numerous potential classifications, it is most useful from the perspective of company practice to divide competences into company-related (corporate) competences that are common to employees of a given company, professional (vocational) competences that are closely related to the type of work performed, and social competences that are related to the need to establish and maintain contacts with other people.

The increasingly prevalent dichotomy between hard vs soft skills is perhaps the most straightforward classification of competences, adopted across various industries, regardless of their specific nature. Hard skills relate to specific theoretical knowledge and the ability to apply various methods, techniques, tools, procedures, or processes, usually stemming from the acquired education. Soft skills, on the other hand, mainly encompass interpersonal skills, individual predispositions, behavior, and the manner of cooperation with others (Oleksyn, 2011).

The overview provided here of various competence classifications captures only a fraction of the discourse within the academic literature, representing the viewpoints of select scholars. The field is abundant with diverse frameworks and typologies of competences, each offering unique insights and categorizations. For the purposes of this study, competences will be categorized into three distinct groups: social, cognitive, digital, and technical competences (as distinguished by Włoch & Śledziewska, 2023). However, it is important to bear in mind certain inherent limitations of this approach.

Research Methodology

We began our study using the desk research method. In order to explore the research topics from diverse perspectives, this initial phase involved a thorough analysis of existing data, focusing on reviewing the latest available publications, reports, data and other secondary sources. This enabled us to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the future labor market and the anticipated competences expected of employees within it. Desk research may provide important guidance to educational institutions, helping them adapt to the evolving professional landscape.

In the initial stage of the analysis, a total of 47 sources were gathered, comprising 34 Polish-language and 13 English-language materials. Prior to reviewing the secondary data, three research questions were formulated to support the process of analyzing the collected materials, ensuring their relevance to achieving the research objectives:

1. What criteria should be used to evaluate sources of information relevant to the labor market?
2. What are the main changes and trends that are expected in the coming years in terms of employees’ professional competences?
3. According to existing research and reports on the labor market, what are the key competences of the future?

Materials were selected based on their recency (published by 2017), reliability (including a clear description of the methodology for obtaining information, and the credibility and integrity of the author/institution), and relevance. In the selection stage, having analyzed the content of the materials in terms of information regarding requirements or expectations of the competences of future employees, we selected 16 items for the final analysis, including 11 in Polish and 5 in English. The selected reports were characterized by different research approaches, socio-demographic profiles, and time horizons. All of them, however, identified common areas of competence for employees of the future, perceived from different perspectives. Key pieces of information on expected competences were inventoried from these sources and compiled in Table 1 and Figure 1.

This preparatory work laid the groundwork for conducting our empirical primary research, aiming to gather opinions on future labor market competences, particularly from university graduates at the onset of their careers. Given the exploratory nature of the study, semi-structured individual interviews were used, allowing for a high degree of flexibility in question selection and scenario adaptation depending on the course of the conversation. This method facilitated the inclusion of additional questions, not provided for in the scenario, thereby allowing for deeper topic engagement (Mościchowska & Rogoś-Turek, 2019). Two perspectives were adopted for labor market competence analysis: a general perspective, which pertains to the entire economy at both national and European levels, and a sectoral perspective, which arises from the respondent’s industry of employment. A five-year horizon for assessing the labor market was adopted: the evaluation was requested for both the present and the perspective of the next five years. Based on this desk research study, competences were categorized into three main groups: cognitive, social, and technical-technological. These categories were then subjected to a detailed assessment over the two designated periods.

In the initial part of the interview, closed questions were posed to determine which specific questions should be asked next. Conversely, open questions were employed to elicit longer statements, thereby laying the foundation for drawing several insightful conclusions from this study. We inquired about which categories of competences are currently relevant and will be crucial in the future, what competences are lacking among university graduates, which ones will be needed on the labor market, and how business practices could shape the direction of competences taught at universities.

A total of eleven in-depth interviews were conducted, with the selection of participants aimed at capturing a broad spectrum of viewpoints. A detailed description of the research sample is given in the table provided in the Annex to this paper. To ensure inclusivity, all interviews were conducted remotely, either online or by phone, utilizing available automatic transcription methods (MsTeams, Microsoft Word, Zoom), with prior consent obtained from respondents. Interviews were conducted over a five-week period, typically lasting about an hour, scheduled in advance in order to minimize potential disruptions.

We individually familiarized ourselves with all transcripts of the interviews and independently outlined preliminary results. Subsequently, we discussed our findings collectively and formulated a list of synthesized conclusions.

Analysis of Research Results

The analysis of secondary data reveals several key challenge areas in the labor market concerning the expected competences and skills of future employees, particularly in an era characterized by dynamic social, economic and business-related changes. The source materials repeatedly emphasized the importance of cognitive and social competences. Practically all of the analyzed sources emphasized the importance of creative thinking (innovative thinking, unconventional thinking, innovation). The ability to solve problems, including complex problems, emerged as an equally important competence, linked with the frequently mentioned ability to make decisions and take responsibility for them. The vast majority of the reports highlighted the importance of interpersonal competences related to communication and negotiation, and teamwork, across various settings including stationary, virtual, and intercultural teams. Furthermore, dynamic changes in the work environment require the employees to be flexible, able to adapt quickly, and to learn continuously, as emphasized in many of the analyzed materials. Data from the analyzed reports showed that in a world dominated by technology, technical skills, alongside those related to the digital domain, are becoming increasingly essential.

Overall, the review of data in the initial stage of the study, employing the desk research method, clearly indicates that expectations regarding the competences of future employees revolve around the integration of diverse skills, encompassing interpersonal, cognitive, technical and digital abilities. Likewise, flexibility and readiness for continuous development can be key factors in securing a foothold in the future labor market. These findings are summarized in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

The analysis of selected sources facilitated precise planning and execution of the study in the form of semi-structured individual interviews. Consequently, the second stage of the research aimed to clarify the future needs of the labor market for employees and graduates of higher education institutions.

Responses from the respondents regarding the competences to be crucial for the economy in the next five years were quite similar to the conclusions drawn from the analysis of the reports. The respondents underlined the significance of all competences essential for the development of enterprises:

Respondents indicated that the modern labor market is looking for and strongly appreciates, in particular, technical and technological competences, which result from the need to adopt modern technologies in enterprises:

However, it is worth noting an opposing viewpoint, which, given the rapid, not entirely predictable evolution of artificial intelligence, may prove to be valid:

Respondents also pointed out that not every potential employee should possess expert-level technical and technological competences, because in business, it is possible to pursue different career paths with different requirements:

Analytical, critical and creative thinking skills were indicated among the cognitive skills that the labor market will demand in the next five years. The ability to search for and evaluate the quality of data, as well as the correct and independent interpretation of data were emphasized. Such opinions are not surprising, because already in 2020 the World Economic Forum recognized the ability to solve complex problems, critical thinking and creativity as the three most important competences of the future. However, as the respondents admit, graduates lack autonomy in solving problems:

Respondents also noted the importance of responsibility for decisions made, although in regard to young employees who are at the early stages of their careers, they indicated that their expectations as employers are not excessive:

The respondents noticed that the increased expectations of employers toward the competence to assume responsibility may generate risks in the form of higher financial expectations:

The opinions repeatedly referenced the pace of market development and the changes taking place, which were linked by the respondents to the growing demand for interdisciplinary competences from various domains. Dealing with current, complex problems requires broad knowledge, hence the need for more diverse education that combines, on the one hand, technological and engineering knowledge, and on the other hand, economic, psychological, and social expertise:

The modern market generates many opportunities, but also threats that can be predicted and mitigated. According to the respondents, graduates have limited competence to plan and perceive themselves, their careers in the context of an enterprise where certain processes occur. In their opinions, respondents expressed the need for competences of anticipation and a holistic approach to the implementation of tasks:

The respondents approached the skill of risk perception and assessment with caution, indicating that it is an important competence that will continue to be desired in the future, but it must not slow down decision-making processes or translate into the conservatism of a company that fails to capitalize on the emerging opportunities. The competence to anticipate in the world of turmoil and black swans constitutes a considerable value:

The topic of customer orientation and the ability to identify the client’s needs emerged in the interviews. Some respondents saw the value of this competence in the context of the market and quite advanced marketing skills (the needs of an external customer), while others identified it with empathy towards colleagues. According to the participants, monitoring the evolving customer needs, which is the essence of marketing skills, is currently at a high level and no changes in this respect should be expected. Several participants indicated the need to elevate the skills of empathic, attentive approach to internal clients. Cooperation with other employees must be based on openness and responsibility, while the lack of the ability to empathize with colleagues at work diminishes the effectiveness:

Both now and in the future, social skills will be important; the ability to communicate in virtual and multicultural teams, which was acquired intensively during the pandemic, was particularly appreciated among them. Basic competences such as diligence, reliability, listening, and mindfulness were also emphasized. The opinions presented suggest that the accelerated pace of technological progress does not entail the obsolescence of traditional (non-technical) competences:

Respondents also pointed to ethics as an important trait of an employee, the significance of which will continue to grow. However, the opinions were rather normative, that is, they indicated how things should be. Attempting to analyze the genuine needs within this area of competence resulted in the rather gloomy conclusion that there are dual ethical standards: the first being the “employee’s conduct towards the market,” where unethical behavior may be tolerated if it benefits the company, and the second being the “employee’s conduct towards the company,” where any instances of unethical behavior are penalized. Respondents noted that there was no “commitment to duration” among young employees (Moczydłowska, 2021):

Respondents also shared their insights in the context of personal development, self-management and lifelong learning. The collected opinions highlight the importance of these skills, which still do not receive sufficient attention during education or in the workplace:

In addition to those mentioned so far, the competences sought in the future include skills related to presenting and implementing environmentally and socially friendly solutions. Currently, the market interest in such skills is still moderate, but according to the respondents, it is important that such skills be taught at universities. The trend of sustainable development and the circular economy will require new competences based on knowledge of the economic, social and environmental conditions of the market, skills of sustainable project management and a creative attitude towards social innovation. One of the most critical challenges facing businesses is the ESG business area. Increasing competition for “green talent” is evident – 74% of global employers are currently or planning to actively recruit candidates with “green skills” (ManpowerGroup 2023). The respondents expect that future graduates will be able to create solutions with environmental and social impact. However, they do not advocate for adding new subjects to the curricula, but rather see the necessity of enriching the educated competences with this new context:

Deficiencies in the competences of university graduates relate primarily to project management, the ability to identify processes in business project management. The respondents indicate that graduates are able to perform partial analyzes but have a limited ability to think holistically. In this context, some have called for the enrichment of education in engineering fields with economic content and for the supplementation of economic disciplines with knowledge from other areas of science. Due to the shortage of certain specialists on the market, respondents advocate for greater openness of universities in terms of offered courses and for enriching curricula with content taught by practitioners:

What is more, the conducted interviews reveal a rather specific outline of the competences of future graduates required by the labor market. The respondents expect further acceleration of market change, which will require flexible adaptation to changing situations and continuous improvement of skills. The new employees will enter the labor market knowing they cannot stop learning, the end of their university studies is simultaneously the beginning of their learning in other forms and training systems. Expectations regarding technical and technological competence will increase. It is anticipated that technologies will advance to the extent that not only knowledge of their use will be required, but also practical application skills in implementing advanced business solutions that will increase employees’ efficiency will be needed. The opinions of the respondents indicated the desire to acquire specific technological skills, but in a different form than as a few months of postgraduate studies. The respondents’ statements emphasized the need to include the aspect of sustainable development in future competences. The transition to a circular economy will result in a greater demand for the knowledge and skills to cope with such a transformation.

Conclusions

Our study, based on both desk research and in-depth interviews, has yielded a valuable compilation of competences of tomorrow, the thorough analysis of which can offer crucial guidance for educational institutions, in particular business universities, aiding them to adapt to the evolving professional landscape. Table 2 lists the most frequently indicated job competences, considering a 5-year perspective, based on both the desk research and in-depth interviews.

Our findings indicate that key competences for the future constitute a complex and multidimensional set, encompassing both soft and hard (technological) areas. Key competences will include the ability to adapt to change, flexibility, and openness to new challenges. Both lists point to the conviction that employees of the future must be versatile, having not only technical abilities but also interpersonal skills and being characterized by an ethical attitude. Consensus on the role and importance of lifelong learning and intrinsic motivation is evident in the results of both desk research and in-depth interviews. Similarly, critical thinking is crucial in both compilations. Juxtaposition of the results highlights the importance of creativity, innovative thinking and problem-solving skills in a dynamic business environment. Interpersonal competences, such as effective communication, negotiation, and collaboration are important in stationary work and increasingly significant while working in virtual and cross-cultural teams, which was especially emphasized in the interviews. In the face of emerging technologies, the research shows the importance of digital skills, managing new technologies and flexible approach to change in the digital environment. The results also demonstrate the need to focus on key competences that will be sought in the future on the labor market:

• solving complex problems, including those related to sustainable development
• enhanced analytical skills
• responsibility for the decisions made.

Effective cultivation of these skills requires adjustment of curricula and close collaboration between practitioners and universities.
Education systems struggle to respond to the new needs of the labor market. There are many factors that prevent rapid reactions from the higher education institutions in terms of shaping the competences of their graduates. The main external barriers to innovation in education programs are the lack of cooperation between academia and business practice and the mismatch between the pace of technological evolution and changes in educational institutions. The opinions of our respondents indicate a great need for cooperation between universities and practice in the field of designing curricula, conducting classes, practical trainings and internships. Active cooperation with business representatives and employers should be a priority. Universities should actively cooperate with representatives of employers, invite and engage them in designing educational programs, and what is more, adapt the content to real market needs. A lack of dialog between universities and businesses will lead to an increase in the gap between competences and labor market needs, which in turn will affect the growth of educational tourism and the search for valued competences abroad (educational tourism). From the perspective of the university, possible problems with the evaluation of the didactic process carried out in cooperation with practitioners cannot be overlooked in this context.

The opinions of practitioners reinforce the ongoing discussion on the role of economic universities in shaping the competences of the graduates as future employees/managers or researchers. The high quality of education at modern universities is an stimulus for and guarantee of growth and economic development of the country. The key issue, however, is the utility of knowledge and competences developed in the course of education, as they are the passport to the labor market. Most of the respondents favor greater instrumentalization of education, pragmatism of competences, which stands in opposition to legislative changes in Poland and the system of financing higher education in recent years. The results of the research indicate that universities should be more focused on the competences of future managers, not academics.

Education programs (majors and specialties) should be designed in a flexible manner, allowing rapid adaptation to new trends, technologies or actual needs of the industry. Therefore, it becomes necessary to systematically monitor trends and innovations in particular industries in order to adapt the content of the curricula to the expectations of employers on an ongoing basis. The introduction of modern technologies and innovative teaching methods – i.e., e-learning platforms, simulations or virtual reality – can significantly enrich the learning process and may be crucial in preparing the employees of the future.

The main internal obstacles associated with organization and people are rigid, long-term, and burdened with bureaucracy operations related to designing curricula, unprepared staff, and lack of motivation among students and staff members themselves. Therefore, it is important to launch plans to overcome these obstacles and promote innovation at universities , including the implementation of modern teaching methods – such as Problem Base Learning or tutoring – which are more effective in imparting skills of design thinking.

The education sector needs to undergo a large-scale transformation process to meet the demands of a turbulent market and reduce the threat of climate change. Nowadays, the role of competences in shaping sustainable development and social cohesion as well as in the circular economy is being emphasized more and more strongly. It is therefore worth considering which competences are most important from the perspective of sustainable development and actions to prevent climate change, and how to teach the design and implementation of social innovations.

Promoting a culture of continuous learning and self-development should become an integral part of educational programs so that future graduates are prepared to keep up with dynamic changes in industries and sectors. What is more, the need for lifelong learning points to the necessity to develop an educational offer for graduates – courses, training (apart from MBA, postgraduate studies) – of varying degrees of intensity and subject matter. The long period between completing university studies and the University of the Third Age still remains to be effectively harnessed.

References

1.Bakhshi, H., Downing, J., Osborne, M., & Schneider, P. (2017). The Future of Skills: Employment in 2030. London: Pearson and Nesta.
2.Dębkowska, K., Glińska, E., Kononiuk, A., Pokojska, J., Poteralska, B., Szydło, J., & Rollnik-Sadowska, E. (2022). Foresight kompetencji przyszłości [Foresight of competences of the future]. Working Paper. No. 1, Warszawa: Polski Instytut Ekonomiczny.
3.Dębkowska, K., Kłosiewicz-Górecka, U., Szymańska, A., Ważniewski, P., & Zybertowicz, K. (2022). Kompetencje pracowników dziś i jutro [Employee competences today and tomorrow]. Warszawa: Polski Instytut Ekonomiczny.
4.Dickerson, A., Rossi, G., Bocock, L., Hilary, J., & Simcock, D. (2023). An analysis of the demand for skills in the labour market in 2035. Working Paper 3. Slough: NFER.
5.Gi Group Holding Polska (2023) Barometr Rynku Pracy 2023 [2023 Labor Market Barometer]. Edycja 17. https://www.gigroupholding.com/polska/insights/barometr-rynku-pracy-2023/
6.Hutmacher, W. (1997). Key Competencies in Europe. European Journal of Education, 32(1), 45–58. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1503462
7.infuture.institute (2019). Pracownik Przyszłości [The employee of the future]. In collaboration with Samsung. (April 2019).
https://images.samsung.com/is/content/samsung/assets/pl/campaign/brand/pracownik-przyszlosci/pracownik_przyszlosci_2019infuturesamsung.pdf
8.infuture.institute (2021). Przyszłość edukacji: Scenariusze 2046 [The future of education: Scenarios 2046]. In collaboration with Collegium da Vinci. https://www.pcen.gda.pl/files/userfiles/2021-06/5231.pdf
9.Janssens, L., Kuppens, T., & Van Schoubroeck, S. (2021). Competences of the professional of the future in the circular economy: Evidence from the case of Limburg, Belgium. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, 125365. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125365
10.Krygowska-Nowak, N., Kwinta-Odrzywołek, J., & Datha J. (2022). Branżowy Bilans Kapitału Ludzkiego II: Sektor Komunikacji Marketingowej [Industry Balance of Human Capital II: Marketing Communications Sector]. Warszawa: PARP, Grupa PFR.
https://fers.parp.gov.pl/storage/publications/pdf/Branzowy-Bilans-Kapitau-Ludzkiego-II—sektor-komunikacji-marketingowej_16032022.pdf
11.Kurpiela, S., & Teuteberg, F. (2023). The changing role and competence profiles of strategic oriented jobs in times of product-service systems and business analytics: An analysis of job advertisements. Computers in Industry, 149, 103931. doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2023.103931
12.Lamri, J. (2019). The 21st Century Skills: How soft skills can make the difference in the digital era. The Next Society.
13.Łapińska, J., Sudolska, A. & Zinecker, M. (2022). Raport z badań empirycznych w zakresie kompetencji i zawodów przyszłości [Report on empirical research in the field of competences and professions of the future]. Materiał przygotowany w ramach prac Obserwatorium Kompetencji Przyszłości Fundacji Platforma Przemysłu Przyszłości.
14.ManpowerGroup (2022). Niedobór talentów w Polsce [Talent shortage in Poland].
https://www.manpowergroup.pl/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/INFOGRAFIKA_Niedobor_talentow_wersja_PL.pdf
15.ManpowerGroup. (2023). Industrials World of Work 2024 Outlook, Global Insights. https://workforce-resources.manpowergroup.com/white-papers/global-insights-industrials-report
16.Moczydłowska, J. (2021). Kluczowe kompetencje zmieniających się organizacji – nowe wyzwania na rynku pracy [Key competences for changing organizations – new challenges in the labor market]. Marketing i rynek, 1, 3–10.
17.Moczydłowska, J. M. (2008). Zarządzanie kompetencjami zawodowymi a motywowanie pracowników [Managing professional competences and employee motivation]. Warszawa: Difin.
18.Mościchowska, I., Rogaś-Turek, B. (2015). Badania jako podstawa projektowania user experience [Research as the basis for designing user experience]. Warszawa: PWN.
19.Oleksyn, T. (2006). Zarządzanie kompetencjami, teoria i praktyka [Managing competences, theory and practice]. Kraków: Oficyna Ekonomiczna.
20.Oleksyn, T. (2011). Zarządzanie zasobami ludzkimi w organizacji [Managing human resources in tge organization]. Warszawa: Oficyna Woltrs Kluwer.
21.OLX praca (2021). Prognozy Przyszłości: Know How 2021 [Forecasts of the Future: Know How 2021]. https://zawodowo.olx.pl/raporty/perspektywa-pracownikow-prognozy-przyszlosci-2021.pdf
22.Orczyk, J. (2009). Wokół pojęć kwalifikacji i kompetencji [Regarding the concepts of qualification and competence]. Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludzkimi, 3–4, 19–32.
23.PwC, Well.hr, & Absolvent Consulting (2022). Młodzi Polacy na rynku pracy. [Young Poles in the labor market]. III edycja badania – maj 2022. https://www.pwc.pl/pl/pdf/mlodzi-polacy-na-rynku-pracy-2022_pl.pptx.pdf
24.Rostkowski, T. (2002). Zarządzanie kompetencjami jako przyszłość ZZL w Polsce [Managing competences as the future of human resources management in Poland]. Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludzkimi, 6, 65–76.
25.Sajkiewicz, A. (ed.) (2008). Kompetencje menedżerów organizacji uczącej się [The competences of managers of a learning organization]. Warszawa: Difin.
26.Sidor-Rządkowska, M. (2008). Zarządzanie kompetencjami – teoria i praktyka. Zarządzanie zmianami [Managing competences – theory and practice: Managing change]. Biuletyn Polish Open University, 09/2008, www.wsz-pou.edu.pl
27.Spada, I., Chiarello, F., Barandoni, S., Ruggi, G., Martini, A., & Fantoni, G. (2022), Are universities ready to deliver digital skills and competences? A text mining-based case study of marketing courses in Italy, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 182, 121869. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121869
28.Taylor, A., Nelson, J., O’Donnell, S., Davies, E. & Hillary, J. (2022). The Skills Imperative 2035: what does the literature tell us about essential skills most needed for work? Slough: NFER
29.Upskill (2021). Badanie kompetencji na współczesnym rynku pracy. Raport z badań. [The study of competences in the modern labor market: survey report] (2021). https://upskill.net.pl/kompetencje-na-rynku-pracy-raport/#raport-zapis
30.Wagenaar, R. (2014). Competences and learning outcomes: A panacea for understanding the (new) role of Higher Education? Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 1(2), Article 2. doi: 10.18543/tjhe-1(2)-2014pp279-302
31.Wawrzyniak, B. (2001). Zarządzanie kapitałem ludzkim w przedsiębiorstwach [Managing human capital at companies]. Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludzkimi, 3–4, 45–57.
32.Włoch, R., Śledziewska, K. (2023). Kompetencje przyszłości. Jak je kształtować w elastycznym ekosystemie edukacyjnym? [Competences of the future: How to shape them in a flexible education ecosystem?]. Warszawa: DELab UW. https://pfr.pl/dam/jcr:42fb0b02-bae5-4c78-b857-0349ae97f6df/Kompetencje_przyszlosci_7.06_ONLINE.pdf
33.World Economic Forum (2020). The Future of Jobs Report 2020. (October 2020). https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2020.pdf
34.World Economic Forum (2023). Future of Jobs Report 2023. Insight Report. (May 2023).
https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2023.pdf

Higher education (HE) sector is undergoing a transformation in several fields. One of them focusses on active forms of cooperation with key stakeholders. A group of particular importance is students, whose opinions are increasingly valued and who actively co-create the university offer (Dziewanowska, 2018; Elsharnouby, 2015). This aspect of transformation corresponds with the theoretical stream of value co-creation, which currently aspires to a paradigm status in the field of management (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo & Lusch, 2008). Another important area of transformation is rapidly progressing digitalisation of education (Parker et al., 2011). An increasing acceptance of online courses in study programmes presents both opportunities and challenges to university stakeholders; and, overall, the quality of online education is questioned by many scholars (Allen & Seaman, 2011). Thus, studies of student satisfaction and the perception of the quality of online teaching and learning bring results that influence university strategy in a significant manner (Grace et al., 2012).

The objective of our study is to understand the role of students’ participation in value co-creation practices (such as dialogue, information access and exchange, and intellectual and relational experiences) in academic activities and resulting emotional attitude. Thus, we aim to investigate the effect that the student engagement in value co-creation has on the assessment of online learning, as well as whether the perception of online learning experience influences students’ satisfaction. The research model was tested using partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in a sample of 532 undergraduate and graduate business students.

The remaining parts of the paper are organised as follows: first, the theoretical background on value co-creation, perception of e-learning experience, and student satisfaction are presented. Next, the research method and results are presented, followed by the discussion of the results.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

Value co-creation

The concept of value originates from the business marketing literature; however, it has been successfully applied to the HE sector (Bowden & D’Alessandro, 2011; Diaz-Mendez & Gummeson, 2012; Dollinger et al., 2018). Value has been long studied in various contexts; thus, the concept is diversely understood. In this paper, we adopt a definition of value nested in the service-dominant logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2008), which states that the value is an improvement in system well-being that results from interactions among actors and application of resources (Vargo et al., 2008). Value is phenomenological, multidimensional, emergent and always cocreated (Vargo et al., 2017). Additionally, the process of value co-creation is defined as 'joint collaborative activities by parties involved in direct interactions, aiming to contribute to the value that emerges for one or both parties’ (Grönroos, 2012, p. 1520).

In the HE context, the above characteristics of value and value co-creation are of particular importance as they entail a shift from a traditional approach of 'marketing to consumers’ towards a 'marketing with stakeholders’ (Vargo & Lusch, 2008). First, there are many actors participating in the process of value co-creation, not limited to examples such as students, lecturers, administrative staff, and officials, but also encompassing external stakeholders, such as government, companies and parents. However, the core relationship occurs between the student and the lecturer (Diaz-Mendez & Gummeson, 2012), and this perspective is adopted in this paper. Moreover, value is constantly negotiated between the participants of the process, who bring their own operant resources and use the platform of products and services offered by the HE institutions (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004) that include study programmes, learning experiences, examinations and more. Finally, co-creation experiences are subjective, unique to each participant and affected by cognitive, affective, temporal and contextual influences (Akaka et al., 2015). That includes the influence of other participants and situational factors.

Researchers so far have focussed on various aspects of value and its cocreation. While some of them focus on a narrow understanding of value such as the perceived value of HE (Lai et al., 2012), others investigate value from a co-creation perspective (Bowden & D’Alessandro, 2011; DiazMendez & Gummeson, 2012; Smorvik & Vespestad, 2020). Student engagement is a particularly important factor contributing to the co-creation of the value of educational experience (Maxwell-Stuart et al., 2018). It is defined as 'the extent of involvement in a range of educationally purposeful in-class and out-of-class activities’ (Dean et al., 2016, p. 327), and it refers to the amount of psychological and physical energy students spend on their university experiences (Clynes et al., 2020). There are various indicators of student engagement: cognitive (e.g. entering deeply into learning on their own), affective (e.g. being interested), conative (giving energy and time) and relational (Dunne & Derfel, 2013). Academic engagement is considered a good predictor of personal development and learning outcomes, and it is related to general satisfaction with college (Zhao & Kuh, 2004). Moreover, actor engagement is considered a microfoundation of the value co-creation experience (Storbacka et al., 2016).

There have also been attempts to understand value co-creation process in HE from an empirical perspective (Dollinger et al., 2018). Two research approaches are present in the literature: one is based on Yi and Gong’s (2013) proposal combining participation and citizenship behaviour (Elsharnouby, 2015), while the other is based on the Ranjan and Read (2016) model combining co-production and value in use as key components of the value co-creation process (Authors, 2018; Dollinger et al., 2018). In this paper, we use the latter of these, with the following components of the value co-creation process: dialogue and access to information as evidence of co-production, involvement, intellectual stimulation and relational aspect as elements of engagement in value in use creation. This model fits the HE context well and incorporates key processes relevant to online learning experience.

H1: Student’s engagement in value co-creation is positively related to e-learning experience.

e-Learning experience perception and student satisfaction

The quality of teaching has become a focal aspect for many HE institutions (Yang et al., 2018) as they have been under scrutiny from both consumers and governmental bodies. Quality teaching enables students to engage in quality learning (Byrne & Flood, 2003; Yin et al., 2014), and it is an important determinant of learning experience and outcomes (PrietoRodriguez et al., 2016). Due to its strategic importance, many HE institutions have implemented policies and instruments designed to assure the desired quality of teaching and learning (Yin et al., 2014).

Studies conducted so far have proven that students are able to evaluate various aspects of teaching quality in a multidimensional and reliable manner (Byrne & Flood, 2003). Dimensions of student experience that are studied include good teaching, clear goals and standards, appropriate workload and assessment, and perceived skills obtained through the course (Yin et al., 2014). Good teaching refers to teacher interaction and presentation and the quality of feedback given to students, while clear goals and standards reflect whether students are aware of what is expected of them. An appropriate workload allows an assessment of students’ perception of the reasonability of the amount of work they need to do, and an appropriate assessment focusses on the extent to which students are encouraged to understand the material rather learn by rote (Asonitou et al., 2018; Byrne & Flood, 2003).

Recently, HE institutions have placed increasing importance on student satisfaction (Grace et al., 2012), and it has been frequently pronounced within university mission statements and marketing strategies (Elliot & Shin, 2002). Satisfaction has been conceptualised in many ways; however, there are two common elements (Grace et al., 2012): it is an emotive variable emerging from an evaluative response to product and non-product performance (Tanner, 1996); and it is an outcome variable of service quality perception (Cronin et al., 2000). In HE context, course quality reflects students’ perception of all course aspects, while student satisfaction results from the evaluation of course- and non-course-related aspects. Thus, student satisfaction can be defined as a 'student’s emotional and behavioural response to course appraisal’ (Grace et al., 2012), and it is considered a measure of the overall student experience (Gibson, 2010). Studies show that student satisfaction is linked to students’ motivation and retention (Elliot & Shin, 2002), persistence (Allen & Seaman, 2011; Gibson, 2010), self-confidence (Letcher & Neves, 2010), word-of-mouth communication and willingness to donate to the university as alumni (Parahoo et al., 2013).

Over that last decade, many HE institutions have accepted online courses as a legitimate component of their programmes in response to a growing student demand for online learning (Parker et al., 2011). This trend has become progressively more popular due to an increased access to the Internet (Bates, 2019), and the convenience and flexibility typically associated with participation in online courses (Croxton, 2014), as well as a growing need for lifelong learning among the population (Parahoo et al., 2016). However, despite the growing popularity of online learning, many educators question its value, rigour and overall quality (Allen & Seaman, 2011). Previous studies of online learning investigated its success and failure factors (Bolliger & Halupa, 2018) and determinants of student performance and satisfaction (Kuo et al., 2013). Research suggests that students respond positively to online courses (Judson et al., 2017) and that online learning works best when planned and combined with other forms of learning (Besser et al., 2020).

H2: Perception of e-learning experience is positively related to student’s satisfaction.

Figure 1 presents a theoretical model that is proposed and tested in this study.

Methods

Sample and data

The study was conducted in 2021 in a large public university in Poland, with the use of an online surveying tool placed at a Moodle platform used for online teaching. The research sample comprises 532 undergraduate and graduate business students, who participated in the study for course credits. The collected surveys were checked for missing data and the right answer to the trap question placed towards the end of the questionnaire. After this step, 15 surveys were excluded from further analysis.

Of the sample, 67.3% were female and 32.4% male (Table 1), and while 69.4% of the respondents were aged under 24 years, only 5.8% were aged over 30 years; the oldest study participant was 48 years. The majority of participants were graduate students.

Measures

To measure the variables included in our theoretical model, we used validated scales adapted from the existing literature.

To measure value co-creation, we used the scale developed by Dziewanowska (2018), which is suited for the HE context. According to this model, the value co-creation consists of five factors: dialogue between student and institution, being informed about institution policy, involvement and intellectual and relational aspects of studying experience.

The e-learning experience was measured with the course experience questionnaire (CEQ), which we adapted to the online context (Ramsden, 1991; Wilson et al., 1997). The questionnaire comprises of five factors: good teaching, clear goals and standards, appropriate workload, appropriate assessment, and generic skills.

The items for satisfaction measurement were based on the study of Oliver (1980), and they reflect general satisfaction, word of mouth and intention of further participation in online courses.

Data analysis

PLS-SEM was employed to validate the measurement and to assess the structural model. The calculations were made with the use of SmartPLS 3.0 software (Ringle et al., 2012). The PLS method is suitable to test models that are exploratory, and does not require multivariate normal data distribution (Ringle et al., 2012). Moreover, it allows the use of 2nd-order constructs, which are present in our study. Both value co-creation and e-learning experience are conceptualised as higher order measures, composed of several 1st-order factors. The SEM procedure consists of two stages: assessment of the measurement model and interpretation of the structural model (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).

Results

Measurement model

Convergent validity of reflective 1st-order measures was assessed by the size of individual item loadings on the 2nd-order constructs (Gefen & Straub, 2005). The analysis leads to the removal of three items forming an 'appropriate assessment’ factor from the e-learning experience scale. The loadings of these items were below 0.5. All remaining indicators have factor loadings above 0.650. We have decided to keep seven items with factor loadings between 0.650 and the threshold of 0.70, as the indicators with loadings of 0.4–0.7 should only be deleted if their exclusion from the model increases the composite reliability (CR) to more than 0.7. (Hair et al., 2017). In the case of our model, the Cronbach’s alpha, CR and average variance extracted (AVE) reached values above 0.7, which suggest that the measurement model is reliable (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) (Table 3).

As our model comprises three 2nd-order formative constructs (value cocreation, e-learning experience and stress), the item weights were calculated to confirm their convergent validity. The item weights for all 1storder constructs were significant (Table 2). The VIF values for 2nd-order constructs are below 3.0, suggesting that multicollinearity should not be a matter of concern (Hair et al., 2017). The discriminant validity of the model was tested with square roots of AVE for each construct as well as HTMT ratio of correlations.

Structural model

After confirming that our model has satisfactory reliability and validity, we have estimated the parameters of the structural model. The predictive power was estimated with R2 scores and appeared to be high, as its values are 0.304 for e-learning experience and 0.456 for satisfaction (Hair et al., 2012). To assess the significance of path coefficients, the bootstrapping technique with 5,000 subsamples was used (Henseler et al., 2009). As we hypothesised, the value co-creation positively affects e-learning experience (path coefficient = 0.551, t = 17.054, p < 0.0001), supporting H1. Moreover, the e-learning experience is significantly related to satisfaction (path coefficient = 0.676, t = 28.729, p < 0.0001), which provides empirical support for H2 (Table 4).

Discussion

Our study adds to the growing body of knowledge on value co-creation and e-learning in HE institutions. The results show that students’ engagement in value co-creation was positively related to their perception of e-learning experience (H1 is supported), which is in line with previous findings (Maxwell-Stuart et al., 2018). Further, this supports the findings of Smorvik and Vespestad (2020), who showed that value co-creation can contribute to students’ perception of learning. However, most previous studies were focussed on in-class education and our study extends these results into the online context.

The significance of H2 (p < 0.0001) supports the assumption that the perception of e-learning experience influences student satisfaction. This result is in line with results of studies focussed on services (e.g. Cronin et al., 2000). Kuo et al. (2013) found that learner-instructor interaction and learner-content interaction are predictors of student satisfaction in relation to an online course. This is also supported in our study, as certain subdimensions of e-learning experience (i.e. good teaching, appropriate workload, clear goals, and standards) refer to similar matters. The results of our study reinforce the findings of Besser et al. (2020) that student satisfaction with online learning is higher when it is planned and combined with other forms of learning. The general perception of e-learning experience and student satisfaction were rather low in our study, which is also in line with the findings of Bowden and D’Allessandro (2011), who claim that it is the pedagogy, and not the technology, that matters most in classrooms, and further emphasises the need for reflection upon the learning process. These findings emphasise the importance of active participation in various practices performed by actors in the HE ecosystem (Diaz-Mendez & Gummeson, 2012) and confirm the influence of the engagement in value co-creation on student satisfaction in line with the study of Dollinger et al. (2018).

Conclusions and Limitations

The topic of co-creation of value is currently popular and applied to various markets. It is undisputed that, in the case of HE, we are dealing with a specific educational service whose effects strongly depend on the level of involvement of participants in this process. This article focusses on the processes taking place on the side of students in an online environment. It has been shown that increased student engagement translates into positive results in the form of a good perception of the learning experience, as well as increased satisfaction. These results carry practical implications: universities should undertake actions that encourage students to increase their engagement through open dialogue and providing current information, as well as caring for building and maintaining relationships between themselves and lecturers as well as among themselves. This means that it is necessary to come out of the 'ivory tower’ and approach our key stakeholders in order to better address their needs.

The study is not without certain limitations that could suggest further areas of research. Firstly, it is based on student declarations, and this may not fully represent an actual situation. Thus, other methods should be used, such as observation, student testimonials, and experiments. It was also conducted at a single HE institution, and a comparative study among various institutions and various countries should be undertaken to bring about a better understanding of the studied phenomena.

References

1. Akaka, M., Vargo, S., & Schau, H. (2015). The context of experience. Journal of Service Management, 26(2), 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-10-2014-0270
2. Allen, I ., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from https://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/ reports/goingthedistance.pdf ; access date:12.06.2021.
3. Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
4. Asonitou, S., Mandilas, A., Chytis, E., & Latsou, D. (2018). A Greek evaluation of the course experience questionnaire: Students’ conceptions of the teaching quality of higher education accounting studies. International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research, 11(2), 51–62.
5. Bates, A. (2019). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Tony Bates Associates Ltd. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/ teachinginadigitalage; access date:12.06.2021.
6. Besser, A., Flett, G. L., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2020). Adaptability to a sudden transition to online the COVID-19 pandemic: Understanding the challenges for students. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. 8(2), 85–105 . https:// doi.org/10.1037/stl0000198
7. Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2018). Online student perceptions of engagement, transactional distance, and outcomes. Distance Education, 39(3), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1476845
8. Bowden, J.-H., & D’Alessandro, S. (2011). Co-creating value in higher education: The role of interactive classroom response technologies. Asian Social Science, 7(11), 35–49.
9. Byrne, M., & Flood, B. (2003). Assessing the teaching quality of accounting programmes: An evaluation of the course experience questionnaire. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930301668
10. Clynes, M., Sheridan, A., & Frazer, K. (2020). Student engagement in higher education: A cross-sectional study of nursing students’ participation in college-based education in the republic of Ireland. Nurse Education Today, 93, 104529.
11. Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00028-2
12. Croxton, R. A. (2014). The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and persistence in online learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 314–324.
13. Dean, A. M., Griffin, M., & Kulczynski, A. (2016). Applying service logic to education: The co-creation experience and value outcomes. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 224, 325–331.
14. Diaz-Mendez, M., & Gummeson, E. (2012). Value co-creation and university teaching quality. Journal of Service Management, 23(4), 571–592.
15. Dollinger, M., Lodge, J., & Coates, H. (2018). Co-creation in higher education: Towards a conceptual model. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 28(2), 210–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2018.1466756
16. Dunne, E., & Derfel, O. (2013). Student engagement handbook: Practice in higher education (1st ed.). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
17. Dziewanowska, K. (2018), Współtworzenie wartości w marketingu. Przykład szkolnictwa wyższego. C.H. Beck, Warszawa.
18. Elliot, K., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(2), 197–209.
19. Elsharnouby, T. (2015). Student co-creation behavior in higher education: The role of satisfaction with the university experience. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 25(2), 238–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2015.1059919
20. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
21. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 91–109.
22. Gibson, A. (2010). Measuring business student satisfaction: A review and summary of the major predictors. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(3), 251–259.
23. Grace, D., Weaven, S., Bodey, K., Ross, M., & Weaven, K. (2012). Putting student evaluations into perspective: The course experience quality and satisfaction model (CEQS). Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38(2), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.05.001
24. Grönroos, C. (2012). Conceptualising value co-creation: A journey to the 1970s and back to the future. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(13–14), 1520–1534.
25. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage.
26. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433.
27. Henseler, J., Ringle, C., & Sinkovics, R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modelling in international marketing. Advances in International Market, 20, 277–319.
28. Judson, K., Black, H., & Beggs, J. (2018, March). Online learning in higher education: Seeking value co-creation in the flipped classroom. Marketing Management Association Annual Conference Proceedings. Chicago, IL.
29. Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(1), 16–39.
30. Lai, L., To, W., Lung, J., & Lai, T. (2012). The perceived value of higher education: The voice of Chinese students. Higher Education, 63(3), 271–287.
31. Letcher, D. W., & Neves, J. S. (2010). Determinants of undergraduate business student satisfaction. Research in Higher Education Journal, 6(1), 1–26.
32. Maxwell-Stuart, R., Taheri, B., Paterson, A., O’Gorman, K., & Jackson, W. (2018). Working together to increase student satisfaction: Exploring the effects of mode of study and fee status. Studies in Higher Education, 43(8), 1392–1404.
33. Oliver, R. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469.
34. Parahoo, S. K., Harvey, H. L., & Tamim, R. M. (2013). Factors influencing student satisfaction in universities in the Gulf region: Does gender of students matter? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 23(2), 135–154.
35. Parahoo, S., Santally, M., Rajabalee, Y., & Harvey, H. (2016). Designing a predictive model of student satisfaction in online learning. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 26(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2015.1083511
36. Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Moore, K. (2011). The digital revolution and higher education: College presidents, differ on value of online learning. Pew Research Center Social and Demographic Trends. Retrieved from www.pewsocialtrends.org; access date:12.06.2021.
37. Pitt, A., Oprescu, F., Tapia, G., & Gray, M. (2018). An exploratory study of students’ weekly stress levels and sources of stress during the semester. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(1), 61–75.
38. Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–16. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/dir.20015
39. Prieto-Rodriguez, E., Gore, J., & Holmes, K. (2016). Exploring quality teaching in the online environment using an evidence-based approach. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(8), 22–39.
40. Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150.
41. Ranjan, K. R., & Read, S. (2016). Value co-creation: Concept and measurement. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(3), 290–315.
42. Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii–xiv.
43. Smorvik, K., & Vespestad, M. (2020). Bridging marketing and higher education: Resource integration, co-creation and student learning. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 30(2), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2020.1728465
44. Storbacka, K. B., Maglio, P., & Nenonena, S. (2016). Actor engagement as a microfoundation for value co-creation. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3008–3017.
45. Tanner, J. (1996). Buyer perceptions of the purchase process and its effect on customer satisfaction. Industrial Marketing Management, 25(2), 125–133.
46. Vargo, S., Akaka, M., & Vaughan, C. (2017). Conceptualizing value: A service-ecosystem view. Journal of Creating Value, 3(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2394964317732861 47. Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.
48. Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. emj.2008.04.003
49. Wilson, K., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and application of the course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 33–53.
50. Yang, N., Ghrislandi, P., & Dellantonio, S. (2018). Online collaboration in a large university class supports quality teaching. Education Technology Research Development, 66(3), 671–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9564-8
51. Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2013). Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1279–1284.
52. Yin, H., Lu, G., & Wang, W. (2014). Unmasking the teaching quality of higher education: Students’ course experience and approaches to learning in China. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 949–970. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02602938.2014.880107
53. Zhao, M., & Kuh, G. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in higher Education, 45(2), 115–138.