Comparison of Accounting and Finance Graduates to Business Admi... Page 1 of 11
Comparison of Accounting and Finance Graduates to Business Administration Graduates Nancy Buddy, Southwestern Oklahoma State University Harry Nowka, Southwestern Oklahoma State University ABSTRACT A comparison was made of accounting and finance graduates to business administration graduates of a regional university. The comparative analysis included demographic information comparisons and statistical analysis of educational and employment mentoring and networking. Important past influence variables included parents and family and university education. Important future influence variables were parents and family, networking, and the employer. Educational networking factors of importance were peer groups and parents and family. Important networking variables included friends in other work organizations, executive (higher than immediate supervisor), and professionalorganizations. INTRODUCTION Business graduates during the past years have tried many innovated strategies to gain and maintain employment. Alternatives for enhancing employment opportunities have been publicized by many diverse organizations. School of business graduates have seen an increased emphasis on initial and continuing employment designs. Networking and mentoring are two of the many strategies which seem to aid graduates with fulfilling employment opportunities and aspirations. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Networking Networking is the systematic process of developing helpful contacts, linking people for assisting, supporting, and helping each other find needed resources, information, job leads, opportunities, and feedback. It reduces isolation and builds participation and self-confidence. To construct a successful network, one starts with highly professional job performance. In addition, the networker watches for chances to help others, keeping in mind that the greater strength of networking is in mutual support, not paybacks (Gillis 1980). An informal organization consists of networks of relationships that employees form across functions and divisions to accomplish tasks quickly (Krackhardt and Hanson 93). Stockpiling contacts for job changes is the least important aspect of career networking. Recently it is common for executives to have four or more job changes in their careers. The rekindling of networking relationships and input of information into a computerized contact management system can be the most important aspect of career management (Olson 1994). Those who work at home must try a little harder to establish an outside network, both for business reasons and for their own psychological health (Smith 1993). Another development in the employment arena has been the movement of mentoring from the educational establishment into business employment. Many authors have developed a list of roles for which a mentor is a key component (Kram 1983; Roche 1979; Moore and Amey 1988; Olian, Carroll, Giannantonia, and Feren 1988; Speizer 1981; Levinson, Carrow, Klein, Levinson, McKee 1978). A limited list includes: a positive role model, opener of doors, teacher, adviser, sponsor, guide, successful leader, consultant, developer of talent,
file://C:\Windows\Desktop\1996\SSBIA\09.htm
5/24/04
Comparison of Accounting and Finance Graduates to Business Admi... Page 2 of 11
and one who encourages. Collins (1983) lists five major criteria that may be utilized to define mentorship. The person must be (1) higher up on the organizational ladder than the person being mentored; (2) an authority in the field; (3) influential; (4) interested in the growth and development of the person being mentored; and (5) willing to commit time and emotion to the relationship. Some research is concerned with both characteristics of individuals and interactions between mentors and proteges (Noe 1988; Olian, Giannantonia, and Feren 1988). Kram (1983) differentiated between career and psychosocial mentoring in a study of both proteges and mentors in a large business organization. Some research has indicated that female mentors have not had male proteges. Some suggest that men do not perceive women to be influential for careers (Erkut and Mokros 1981). While others suggest that women actively recruit proteges (Kanter 1977). However, a recent study suggests that there were no differences between men and women in attempts to initiate mentoring relationships and in mentoring received (Turban and Dougherty 1994). A survey of business school graduates found that those with greater mentoring relationships had more promotions, higher income, and satisfaction than those with less extensive mentoring relationships (Dreher and Ash 1990). Whitely, Dougherty, and Dreher (1991) reported mentoring to be significantly related to compensation and promotions. The match between perspective mentors and proteges is key in some research studies. Chao, WaIz, and Gardner (1992) found that informal mentoring relationships that were developed were significantly more productive than formal mentors. Hill, Bahniuk, Dobos, and Rouner (1989) found that the mentor/protege factor was similar to the one-way, complementary, parent-child relationships of most previous mentoring studies. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to compare accounting and finance graduates to business administration graduates of a regional university in the Southwest. The comparative analysis included demographic information comparisons and statistical analysis of data on educational and employment mentoring and networking. POPULATION AND RESPONDENTS The population consisted of school of business graduates from 1954-1993. A list of 711 business graduate addresses were collected from University Foundation and Alumni Associations. After eliminating two duplicates and determining 132 incorrect addresses, 577 business graduates received the initial questionnaire. One follow-up letter and questionnaire was sent. The total number of respondents from this group was 234 (40.6 percent). An additional 1802 names were identified from an alumni directory developed for the University by an outside consulting firm in 1993. Nine individuals were eliminated from this list because they reported not being business graduates, while undeliverable questionnaires indicated 563 incorrect addresses. Of the remaining 1229 graduates, 314 (25.5 percent) returned questionnaires after two mailings of a cover letter and questionnaire. A total of 548 (30.3 percent) usable questionnaires were returned. Data indicated that accounting and finance respondents totaled 191 and business administration respondents totaled 336. Address Source Groups A Chi-Square analysis was made between the sources of addresses from alumni
file://C:\Windows\Desktop\1996\SSBIA\09.htm
5/24/04
Comparison of Accounting and Finance Graduates to Business Admi... Page 3 of 11
groups and the address base supplied by the consulting group. The design of the study was to include potential respondents that would be representative of graduates for the period 1954-1993. Respondents from each group were compared by past and future influence and educational and employment mentoring and networking variables. None of the differences in source groups variables were significant at the p <.01 level. Future networking approached the p <.O1 level as might be expected because of the characteristic of respondents who joined the alumni associations as opposed to graduates who did not. METHODOLOGY A questionnaire was developed that included a series of statements to be ranked on a Likert-type scale. Prospective respondents were to indicate their responses about the importance of past and future aspirations variables. The variables were also compared for mentoring and networking for both educational and employment conditions. In addition, potential respondents were asked selected demographic data. The initial questionnaire was subjected to a pilot test of 22 School of Business Alumni. Revisions were made on the basis of the comments received from this pilot group. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Some demographic information received from the respondents had no response to major. Therefore, selected demographic characteristics are presented for 527 respondents. A comparison of demographic characteristics was made for the responses received from each survey group. The respondents were similar in demographic characteristics to the total school of business student body for the years surveyed except accounting and finance respondents were much more likely to be a former member of a business student organization than business administration graduates respondents (67.0 percent versus 43.5 percent). The Chi-square analysis revealed significance at a p < .001. FINDINGS Influence Variables Influence variable Chi-square values for past and future were computed for the 527 respondents. As indicated in Table 1, the Chi-square analysis indicated significant differences (p<.05) in the computed value for past influences only for peer groups. Chi-square analysis also indicated significant differences (p<.05) in the computed value for future influences for the university placement office and professional organizations. The past influence variables were ranked, as indicated in Table 2. TABLE 1 INFLUENCE VARIABLES FOR ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE GRADUATES COMPARED TO BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION GRADUATES (n =527) VARIABLE
University Major Department Faculty Peer Groups University Faculty
Influence Past Chi-Square Value
df
Signif.
Influence Future Chi-Square Value
9.56
5
.09
9.16
5
.103
11.42 2.59
5 5
.044* .763
3.40 8.22
5 6
.639 .144
file://C:\Windows\Desktop\1996\SSBIA\09.htm
df
Signif.
5/24/04
Comparison of Accounting and Finance Graduates to Business Admi... Page 4 of 11
Adviser Employer 1.79 Parents and Family 10.27 Religion 2.74 University Education 9.15 Student Organizations 11.03 Mentoring 9.67 Networking 7.61 Student Organization 2.79 Adviser(s) University Placement 1.31 Office Co-workers .87 University Alumni 3.19 Information Highway 4.56 Professional Organizations 3.37
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
.878 .068 .739 .103 .051 .085 .179 .732
5.80 6.91 4.53 5.61 2.09 4.01 5.85 3.44
5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5
.326 .227 .476 .346 .837 .548 .321 .633
5
.934
20.41
5
.001*
5 5 5
.973 .671 .472
1.43 2.69 4.41
5 5 5
.921 .748 .492
5
.644
11.78
5
.038*
*p <.05 TABLE 2 MOST IMPORTANT PAST INFLUENCE VARIABLES RANKED FOR ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE GRADUATES COMPARED TO BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION GRADUATES (n= 527) VARIABLE
University Education Parents and Family Employer Networking Peer Groups Religion University Major Department Faculty Mentoring Faculty Adviser Co-workers University Placement Office Student Organizations Student Organization Adviser University Alumni Information Highway Professional Organizations No Response
Past Rank Accounting and Finance 1 2 3 4 5.5 5.5 7
Past Percent Accounting and Finance 29.9 28.5 8.4 7.9 5.2 5.2 4.7
Past Rank Business Admin. 2 1 3 4 9 8 5
Past Percent Business Admin. 22.3 32.1 9.8 7.1 2.4 3.3 5.7
8 9.5 9.5 12
3.7 2.1 2.1 1.0
6.5 6.5 10.5 10.5
3.9 3.9 1.5 1.5
12 12
1.0 1.0
12 15
1.2 .3
13 15 15
1.1 .3 .3
1.1
2.1
When the past influences variables were ranked for business administration respondents, parents and family (32.1 percent) was ranked most important followed by university education (22.3 percent) and employer (9.8 percent). When the past influence variables were ranked for accounting and finance respondents, university education (29.9 percent) was ranked most important followed by parents and family (28.5 percent) and employer (8.4 percent). Accounting and finance respondents utilized the placement offices less and professional organizations more than the comparison group.
file://C:\Windows\Desktop\1996\SSBIA\09.htm
5/24/04
Comparison of Accounting and Finance Graduates to Business Admi... Page 5 of 11
Future influence variables were ranked as indicated in Table 3. When future influence variables were ranked for accounting and finance respondents networking (24.1 percent) was most important followed by parents and family (23.6 percent), employer (17.8 percent), and university education (12.0 percent). Mentoring (1.6 percent) declined in importance while networking (24.1 percent) dramatically increased. Future influence variables ranked most important for business administration respondents were parents and family (21.7 percent), networking (20.5 percent), employer (16.7 percent), and university education (12.5 percent). TABLE 3 MOST IMPORTANT FUTURE INFLUENCE VARIABLES RANKED FOR ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE GRADUATES COMPARED TO BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION GRADUATES (n= 527) VARIABLE
Future Rank Accounting and Finance
Networking Parents and Family Employer University Education Religion Professional Organization Co-workers Mentoring Peer Groups University Major Deptartment Faculty Faculty Adviser Information Highway Student Organization Adviser University Alumni University Placement Office Student Organizations No Response
1 2 3 4 5 6
Future % Accounting and Finance
Future Rank Business Admin.
Future % Business Admin.
24.1 23.6 17.8 12.0 7.3 4.2
2 1 3 4 5 10
20.5 21.7 16.7 12.5 6.9 1.8
7 8.5 8.5 11
3.1 1.6 1.6 1.1
10 7 10 12
1.8 3.6 1.5 1.2
11 11
1.1 1.1
13.5 6 15.5
1.1 4.2 .3
13.5 8
1.1 2.7
15.5
.3 3.3
1.6
Educational Influence Educational influence Chi-square statistical analysis for mentoring and networking is presented in Table 4. The Chi-square analysis for both educational mentoring and networking indicated significant differences (p <.05) for the variable of internships when the accounting and finance responses were compared to business administration responses. TABLE 4 EDUCATIONAL MENTORING AND NETWORKING INFLUENCE VARIABLES FOR ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE GRADUATES COMPARED TO BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION GRADUATES (n = 527) VARIABLE
Educational Mentoring Chi-Square Value df
Signif.
Educational Networking Chi-Square Value
file://C:\Windows\Desktop\1996\SSBIA\09.htm
df
Signif.
5/24/04
Comparison of Accounting and Finance Graduates to Business Admi... Page 6 of 11
Peer Groups 2.91 Parents and Family 7.29 University Faculty 4.62 (non-major) University 2.66 Administration Student Organization 3.95 Advisers University Faculty 1.56 Adviser University Major 5.77 Dept. Faculty Internships 22.98
5 5 5
.715 .200 .464
3.55 5.68 3.65
5 5 5
.616 .339 .600
5
.752
6.78
5
.237
5
.556
2.07
5
.840
5
.906
9.15
5
.103
5
.329
9.39
5
.095
5
.000*
13.20
5
.022*
*p<.05 Educational mentoring influences were ranked and presented in Table 5. When educational mentoring influences were ranked for accounting and finance respondents, the variable parents and family (36.1 percent) was the most important educational mentoring variable followed by university major department faculty (17.3 percent), and peer groups (14.1 percent) and the university faculty adviser (8.4 percent). When education mentoring influences were ranked for business administration respondents, the most important educational mentoring variable was also parents and family (38.1 percent). Other variables ranked in importance were peer groups (13.9 percent), university major department faculty (13.1 percent), and university faculty advisor (11.6 percent). Educational networking influences were ranked and presented in Table 6. Both accounting and finance respondents and business administration respondents indicated the most important educational networking variables were peer groups (35.1 percent and 34.8 percent, respectively), and parents and family (28.8 percent and 26.2 percent, respectively). TABLE 5 MOST IMPORTANT EDUCATIONAL MENTORING INFLUENCES RANKED FOR ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE GRADUATES COMPARED TO BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION GRADUATES (n=527) VARIABLE
Parents and Family University Major Dept. Faculty Peer Groups University Faculty Adviser University Administration University Faculty (non-major) Student Organization Adviser Internships No Response
Educational Mentoring Accounting and Finance Rank
Educational Mentoring Accounting and Finance Percent
Educational Mentoring Business Admin. Rank
Educational Mentoring Business Admin. Percent
1 2
36.1 17.3
1 3
38.1 13.1
3 4
14.1 8.4
2 4
13.9 11.6
5
5.8
8
3.2
6
5.2
5
5.7
7
4.7
7
5.1
8
3.1 5.2
6
5.4 3.9
file://C:\Windows\Desktop\1996\SSBIA\09.htm
5/24/04
Comparison of Accounting and Finance Graduates to Business Admi... Page 7 of 11
TABLE 6 MOST IMPORTANT EDUCATIONAL NETWORKING INFLUENCES RANKED FOR ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE GRADUATES COMPARED TO BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION GRADUATES (N=527) VARIABLE
Peer Groups Parents and Family University Major Dept. Faculty University Faculty Adviser University Administration University Faculty (non-major) Student Organization Adviser Internships No Response
Educational Networking Accounting and Finance Rank
Educational Networking Accounting and Finance Percent
Educational Networking Business Admin. Rank
Educational Networking Business Admin. Percent
1 2 3
35.1 28.8 7.3
1 2 3
34.8 26.2 8.9
4
6.3
7
3.9
5.5
4.2
5
5.1
5.5
4.2
6
4.5
7
3.7
8
2.9
8
2.6 7.9
4
8.0 6.0
Employment Influences Employment influence Chi-square statistical analysis for mentoring and networking is indicated in Table 7. The Chi-square analysis indicated the lack of significant differences (p .05) for each of the variables when accounting and finance responses were compared to business administration responses. TABLE 7 MOST IMPORTANT EMPLOYMENT MENTORING AND NETWORKING VARIABLES FOR ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE GRADUATES COMPARED TO BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION GRADUATES (n=527) VARIABLE
Immediate Supervisor Executive (Higher Than Immediate Supervisor) Co-workers Friends In Other Work Organizations Professional Organizations Parents and Family Previous Employer University Alumni University Placement Office Friends Information Highway
Employment Mentoring Chi-Square Value
Employment Networking Chi-Square Value
df
Signif.
10.82 11.81
5 5
.094 .066
6.44 9.12
5 5
.986 .104
2.21 3.46
5 5
.819 .629
1.60 6.18
5 5
.901 .987
1.98
5
.852
1.77
5
.880
1.42 6.59 9.67 9.96
5 5 5 5
.923 .253 .085 .077
3.25 5.18 6.15 7.36
5 5 5 5
.662 .395 .292 .195
8.45 2.67
5 5
.133 .750
5.51 2.21
5 5
.357 .819
file://C:\Windows\Desktop\1996\SSBIA\09.htm
df
Signif.
5/24/04
Comparison of Accounting and Finance Graduates to Business Admi... Page 8 of 11
*P<.05 As presented in Table 8 for accounting and finance respondents, immediate supervisor (29.1 percent) was the most important employment mentoring influence variable followed by executive (higher than immediate supervisor) (20.6 percent). The third most important employment mentoring influence variable was parents and family (16.6 percent). For business administration respondents, parents and family (21.5 percent) was the most important employment mentoring influence variable followed by executive (higher than immediate supervisor) (19.9 percent). The third most important employment mentoring influence variable was immediate supervisor (18.6 percent). TABLE 8 MOST IMPORTANT EMPLOYMENT MENTORING VARIABLES RANKED FOR ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE GRADUATES COMPARED TO BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION GRADUATES (n=527) VARIABLE
Immediate Supervisor Executive (Higher Than Immediate Supervisor) Parents and Family Friends In Other Work Organizations Previous Employer Friends Co-workers Professional Organizations Information Highway University Alumni University Placement Office
Employment Mentoring Accounting and Finance Rank
Employment Mentoring Accounting and Finance Percent
Employment Mantoring Business Admin. Rank
Employment Mentoring Business Admin. Percent
1 2
29.1 20.6
3 2
18.6 19.9
3 4
16.6 8.6
1 5
21.5 8.9
5 6 7 8
6.9 5.7 5.1 4.0
9 10 11
1.7 1.1 1.0
6.5 8 4 6.5 10 1 9
6.9 4.7 9.5 6.9 1.5 1.3 1.9
As presented in Table 9 for accounting and finance respondents, the most important employment networking influence variables were friends in other work organizations and friends (both at 16.5 percent). Executive (higher than immediate supervisor) ranked third (13.1 percent). Ranked fourth was professional organizations (11.9 percent). Ranked fifth was immediate supervisor (11.4 percent). For business administration respondents, friends in other work organizations (17.8 percent) was the most important employment networking influence variable. Next in importance were friends (14.6 percent), executive (higher than immediate supervisor) (14.3 percent), and parents and family (11.4 percent). TABLE 9 MOST IMPORTANT EDUCATIONAL NETWORKING VARIABLES RANKED FOR ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE GRADUATES COMPARED TO BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION GRADUATES (n=527) VARIABLE
Educational Networking Accounting And Finance Rank
Educational Networking Accounting And Finance Percent
file://C:\Windows\Desktop\1996\SSBIA\09.htm
Educational Networking Business Admin. Rank
Educational Networking Business Admin. Percent
5/24/04
Comparison of Accounting and Finance Graduates to Business Admi... Page 9 of 11
Friends In Other Work Organizations Friends Executive (Higher Than Immediate Supervisor) Professional Organizations Immediate Supervisor Parents and Family Co-wor-kers Previous Employer University Alumni Information Highway University Placement Office
1.5
16.5
1
17.8
1.5 3
16.5 13.1
2 3
14.6 14.3
4
11.9
7.5
7.9
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
11.4 10.2 9.7 4.6 2.8 2.3 1.1
5 4 6 7.5 11 9.5 9.5
9.2 11.4 8.9 7.9 1.1 3.5 3.5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The following is based upon the findings of this study: 1. Respondents indicated that the most important past influence variables were parents and family and university education. The most important future influence variables were parents and family, networking, and employer. 2. The most important educational mentoring influences were parents and family, peer groups, university major department faculty, and university faculty adviser. Educational networking factors of importance were peer groups and parents and family. 3. The most important employment mentoring influences were the immediate supervisor, executive (higher than immediate supervisor), and parents and family. Employment networking variables, in order of importance, were friends in other work organizations, friends, executive (higher than immediate supervisor), professional organizations and parents and family. 4. Accounting and finance graduates utilized the placement offices less and professional organizations more than business administration graduates. IMPLICATIONS As a result of these research findings, the following implications were indicated: 1. In this study, the variable parents and family, had both a mentoring and networking impact upon the educational and employment track that respondents tended to follow. As an influence, the relative importance of this variable appeared to be crucial in its impact upon the study. 2. Traditional responses based upon previous studies were found in this study when mentoring variables included supervisors and executive (higher than immediate supervisor). 3. Networking was significant in the study. Expansion of networking sources was essential to the respondents for future aspirations. 4. As noted by Jacobi (1991), many of the problems of mentoring research are the low levels of external validity when generalizing the findings to other students and institutions. This study appears to support the findings of previous studies in the identification of significant variables.
file://C:\Windows\Desktop\1996\SSBIA\09.htm
5/24/04
Comparison of Accounting and Finance Graduates to Business Ad...
Page 10 of 11
REFERENCES Chao, G.T., Wa1z, P.M., and Gardner, P.D. (1992). Formal and Informal Mentorships: A Comparison on Mentoring Functions and Contrast with Nonmentored Counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45. Collins, N.W. (1983). Professional Women and Their Mentors: A Practical Guide to Mentoring for the Woman Who Wants to Get Ahead. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dreher, G.F. and Ash, R.A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 539-546. Erkut, S. and Mokros, J.R. (1981). Professors as models and mentors for college students (Working Paper No. 65). Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. Gillis, P. (1980).
The new-girl network. Parents, 55(34), 40.
Hill, S.E. Kogler, Bahniuk, M. Hilton, Dobos, J., and Rouner, D.(1989). Mentoring and Other Communication Support in the Academic Setting. Group and Organization Studies, 14(3), 355-368. Jacobi, M. (1991). Literature Review. 505-532.
Mentoring and Undergraduate Academic Success: A Review of Educational Research, Winter 1991, 61(4),
Kanter, R.M. (1977). Books.
Men and Women of the Corporation.
Krackhardt, D. and Hanson, J.R. (1993). Harvard Business Review, 104
New York:
Informal Networks:
Basic
The Company.
Kram, K.E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship Academy of Management Journal. 26, 608-625. Levinson, D.J., Carrow, C.N., Klein, E.B., Levinson, M.H., and McKee, B. (1978). The Seasons of a Man's Life. New York: Ballentine. Marcus, B.W. (January 1994).
Networking.
New Accountant, 14-15.
Moore, K.M. and Amey, M.J. (1988). Some faculty leaders are born women. In M.A.D. Sageria (Ed.), Empowering Women: Leadership Development Strategies on Campus. New Directions for Student Services: No.44. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 39-50. Noe, R. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, 457-479. Olian, J.D., Carroll, S.J., Giannantonia, C.M., and Feren, D.B. (1988). What do proteges look for in a mentor? Results of three experimental studies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33, 15-37. Olson, A.A. (1993). Long-term networking: Management Review, 83(4), 33-36.
a strategy for career success.
Roche, G. (1979).
Harvard Business Review, 14-18.
Much ado about mentors.
file://C:\Windows\Desktop\1996\SSBIA\09.htm
5/24/04
Comparison of Accounting and Finance Graduates to Business Ad...
Smith, B. (1993). Home alone and feeling blue? solitude. Denver Business Journal, 44(27), 23.
Page 11 of 11
How to stand all that
Speizer, J.J. (1981). Role models, mentors, and sponsors: The elusive concepts. Signs of Women in Culture and Society, 6, 692-712. Turban, D.B. and Dougherty, T.W. (1994). Receipt of Mentoring and Career Success. 37(3), 688-702.
Role of Protege Personality in Academy of Management Journal,
Whitely, W., Dougherty, T.W., and Dreher, G.F. (1991). Relationship of career mentoring and socioeconomic origin to managers' and professionals' early career progress. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 331-351.
file://C:\Windows\Desktop\1996\SSBIA\09.htm
5/24/04
