This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University Business, Management and Economics Engineering ISSN: 2669-2481 / eISSN: 2669-249X 2022 Volume 20 Issue 1: 59–78 https://doi.org/10.3846/bmee.2022.15300 *Corresponding author. E-mail: sebestova@opf.slu.cz COMPETENCY MODELS IN BUSINESS STUDENTS AND BUSINESS OWNERS: A CROSS-NATIONAL CASE STUDY OF CZECHIA AND ROMANIA Jarmila DUHÁČEK ŠEBESTOVÁ 1, Radek KOWALA 1, Ana Iolanda VODĂ 2 , Ana-Maria BERCU 3 1Department of Business Economics and Management, Silesian University in Opava, School of Business Administration in Karviná, Karviná, Czech Republic 2Department of Interdisciplinary Research – Humanities and Social Sciences, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Iasi, Romania 3Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Iasi, Romania Received 16 July 2021; accepted 04 April 2022 Abstract. Purpose – The main goal is to compare and contrast the expectations of millennials, which skills will be needed for business in contrast to the entrepreneurial experience of the focus group of eight successful entrepreneurs from each country. Research methodology – A cross-national case study is made, based on two focus groups per country (80 business students and eight entrepreneurs from the Czech Republic and Romania), qualitative research findings are presented. Findings – Two competency models were evaluated, when the Romanian model is mostly motiva- tion-oriented and the Czech model is performance-oriented. Research limitations – Future studies should use an extended research sample and compare various methods for teaching entrepreneurship to students from different study areas and compare the impact of education on their mind-set before and after business courses finish. Practical implications  – The development of competency models in cooperation with experienced entrepreneurs would have the potential to increase students’ willingness to start up and prepare tailored business education. Possibility to create own generic models. Originality/Value  – The originality could be seen in comparison of two focus groups  – students and entrepreneurs – which have not been done before from a conflict comparison point of view. Keywords: competencies, millennials, entrepreneurship, employment. JEL Classification: L26, M53. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.3846/bmee.2022.15300 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7493-0759 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4250-5694 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2306-0172 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8954-8520 60 J. Duháček Šebestová et al. Competency models in business students and business owners: ... Introduction The youth labour market is closely connected with the concept of heterogeneous labour market structure (Ahmad et  al., 2010; Perciun & Balan, 2013; Bell & Blanchflower, 2011; Šebestová et  al., 2018, 2019; Vodă et  al., 2021). A biannual study by the OECD (OECD & European Union, 2019) showed that more than 40 per cent of young people (20–29 years old) were interested in starting up but never did so. More than adults reported that they did not have entrepreneurial skills. These studies show that while young people are willing to start a business, they are not starting. Surprisingly, according to the Labour Force Survey (Eurostat, 2019), Romania reports 10.5% of unemployed young people compared to 4.5% in the Czech Republic. These figures make both countries an exciting contrast, although they have similar educational systems and economic development from the central plan economy. Both have pretty similar historical roots – both were a part of economies in transformation after an “open” economy replaced the communist regime, and both are new members of the European Union accepted in 2004 (Czechia) and 2007 (Romania). The main goal is to compare and contrast the expectations of young people, which skills will be needed for the success of start-up businesses. Primary and secondary data analysis was provided to find similarities or differences in those countries as a reason for the different development of youth entrepreneurship. The paper contributes to the current state of research by conducting a literature review that connects competencies and expectations with business start-up. Therefore, implications and valuable recommendations for practitioners are provided based on preliminary research results. Considering the results of the paper and the size of the student and entrepreneur sample, we should point out the limitations of the study: first, the sample size consists of only 80 students and eight entrepreneurs; second, sample composition favoured students studying a business degree. The development of competency models in cooperation with entrepreneurs would have the potential in entrepreneurship education to increase the student’s self-confi- dence to start a company. 1. Review of the literature and research subject We must first define the target group of students who belong to the group of millennials and then define the competencies that include not only managerial skills for business – they include knowledge, skills, and behaviour. 1.1. Millennials and self-business activity Active entrepreneurial activities for each age group are determined not only by the genera- tions in which they were born, but also by the significant role they play in their environment, values and motivations. Each generation is different in behaviour, sometimes it is difficult to understand it and motivate it properly (Eken, 2017) not only to start up but also to be Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2022, 20(1): 59–78 61 a “good” employee. These days, most entrepreneurs as potential employees come from the generation of Baby Boomers and Generation X, when Generation Y, mostly called “Millen- nials”, is on the supply-side of the labour market. When most entrepreneurs came from two generations (mainly Baby Boomers and Gen- eration X), it is necessary to define their primary values, and they will probably expect the same behaviour from future employees (Generation Y). Baby boomers are highly motivated in making a “stable career” with salary, title, and recognition. They are also an independent, goal-oriented generation because they believe in power, responsibility, and authority in the workforce. Rather than that, Generation X is characterized as pessimistic, independent, self- reliant, and sceptical. They enjoyed the first computers or the Internet, making them more adaptable than other generations (Gorman et  al., 1997; Lancaster & Stillman, 2002; Eken, 2017). Millennials at work are multitaskers, and they can use their skills and talents simulta- neously to learn new things according to their personal skills. In their future job, Millennials expect supervision and mentoring. They seek to be graded, evaluated, and ranked (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002; Kamau et al., 2014; Twenge et al., 2012). They need to develop an entrepre- neurial spirit because they have a strong self-starter mentality. They prefer to work without micromanagement because they prefer to work in open and co-working spaces (Maize, 2017; Visser, 2018). The tension between highly experienced Baby Boomers approaching retirement and the ambitious, technologically educated, and collaborative millennials who will replace them has been a subject of intense discussion. 1.2. Competency models in entrepreneurship practice In general, competences are often reviewed in literature and are primarily dealt with dif- ferently by researchers in terms of their definition of meaning, composition, and achieve- ment. According to Pickett (1998), it is the sum of the experience, knowledge, abilities, val- ues and attitudes we have acquired during our lives. These traits include general or specific knowledge, physical and intellectual abilities, personality traits, motives, and self-knowledge (Klemp & McClelland, 1986; Šebestová & Rylková, 2011; Bercu & Lupu, 2020). Generally, a “pack of competencies” is knowledge, networking, customer orientation, strategic thinking, risk taking, negotiation, integrity and action. They could be divided into hard skills, which can be learned and improved, they can be measured relatively eas- ily (Bednář, 2012), in the opposite of soft skills, which are mostly are interpersonal and intrapersonal skills and they objectively identified with a person’s Emotional Intelligence Quotient (Iland, 2013). In particular, knowledge is closely linked to innovation, export direction, and networks. (Moen, 1999; Braunerhjelm, 2008; Matthews & Brueggemann, 2015). Competences can also be described as the behaviour of individuals to achieve a goal (Mitchelmore & Rowley, 2010; Markman, 2007). A large number of authors try to define competencies at their discretion and use different justifications. The origins of the compe- tence model are the EntreComp Competency Model (Bacigalupo et al., 2016), which places the main emphasis on business resource and optimization. Table 1 summarizes the work of academics according to key terms used to describe competencies. 62 J. Duháček Šebestová et al. Competency models in business students and business owners: ... Table 1. A summary of competency definitions (source: authors review) Competencies definition Authors Experience, knowledge, skills, values, attitudes Pickett (1998) Properties, knowledge, abilities, personality traits, motives, self- knowledge Kanungo and Misra (1992) Behaviour, attitudes, personality characteristics, knowledge, skills Mitchelmore and Rowley (2010) Skills / abilities, knowledge / experience, attitudes / personality traits Bartlett and Ghoshal (1997) Basic, personnel, managerial competencies Abraham et al. (2001) Skills Brightman (2004), Hofener (2000) Skills versus competency Kanungo and Misra (1992), McKenna (2004) Characteristics, knowledge, skills, personality traits Man et al. (2002) Knowledge, motives, features, own images, social roles, skills Bird (1995) Traits, personality, attitudes, social roles, self-knowledge, skills, knowledge, experience Man and Lau (2005), Bercu and Lupu (2020) A combination of hard and soft skills Šebestová and Lejková (2020), Šebestová et al. (2018) Successful entrepreneurial role models Boldureanu et al. (2020) Entrepreneurial and managerial competencies Penchev and Salopaju (2011) Innovation, knowledge management, and intellectual capital development Popescu (2020) Audretsch et al. (2008) Systemic, Professional, and Disciplinary competencies Ferreras-Garcia et al. (2021) This review shows a different mixture of competence definition and growth of interest in entrepreneurial competencies. More recent authors propose a concrete set of hard and soft skills which could be used in entrepreneurial practice. Soft versus hard skills. Soft skills, or so-called soft skills, do not only represent commu- nication skills. These competencies are primarily personal and interpersonal skills and are closely related to EQ, i.e. the individual’s emotional quotient (Bradberry & Greaves, 2007; Šebestová et al., 2018). It is a “package” of abilities and skills related to personal development, which mainly includes socialising, communication and language skills, personal habits, as- sertiveness, friendly, and last but not least, happy relationships with other people. Therefore, soft skills can be applied not only in professional life, but also in personal and family life. Hard skills can be acquired and improved through education and they can be measured relatively easily (Jogaratnam, 2002). Competency models. The competency model is created based on the identification of com- petencies. It is a set of competencies that are important for the management of the company. The business competence model should meet two aspects. One aspect is a description of the types of competency. In essence, different entrepreneurial competencies are associated with both different aspects of human behaviour and the individual’s ability to exhibit such behaviour. The second aspect is the level of competencies. The existence of each competence is Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2022, 20(1): 59–78 63 at different levels within the individual. Therefore, each of the competencies can exist within the individual at different levels. On the unconscious level, there are the individual’s motives in contrast to the self-assessment that exists on the conscious level. (Boyatzis, 1982; Šebestová et al., 2019; Šebestová & Lejková, 2020). The success of an entrepreneur depends mainly on their attitude and on the competencies that relate to them (Frederick et  al., 2007; Lukeš & Zouhar, 2016; Von Graevenitz et al., 2010; Stokes et al., 2010; Schneider & Albornoz, 2018). In light of the literature review above and in line with the objective of this article, the key research questions of this article are: – RQ1. What are the characteristics that entrepreneurs use the most to choose the com- petency model? – RQ2. Are there differences between competence models within Czechia and Romania? 2. Research methodology and description of country data Our previous research confirmed the differences between entrepreneurship theory and the expectations of the Millennials when comparing these two groups. In this research phase, improved methods were implemented to integrate the same variables into the competency model and become internationally comparable. Mixed research methods have been used for that case studies, when a fully mixed sequential dominant status research design was used. It means that in the first phase a qualitative approach was used, then a form of questionnaires was applied, but qualitative evaluation is predominant (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009), when main variables were in a line with Blenker et  al. (2014) and Barba-Sánchez et  al. (2016) or Boldureanu et al. (2020) and Cardenas-Gutierrez et al. (2021). Secondary country data analy- sis about young entrepreneurs was performed before primary research. 2.1. Primary research design This research was designed in three phases (see Figure 1). The first two phases are connected with data collection from two different groups (entrepreneurs as business owners and the students), and final phase was dedicated to the development of competence models. Both phases were implemented from December 2019 to March 2020, when personal meetings were possible. Figure 1. The research framework Phase 1 • focus group of business owners • standardized values for competency model Phase 2 • focus group of students • opposite values to be compared in phase 3 Phase 3 • comparison of standardized (required) values with student́ s results Output • suggestion of the model and control values 64 J. Duháček Šebestová et al. Competency models in business students and business owners: ... Phase One. A checklist was introduced for focus group evaluation (see Appendix). To be able to compare within countries, a table with all variables has to be standardized. A Lik- ert scale was used for consensus evaluation to obtain information about the importance of the competence model (presented by mode value). In the first step, eight entrepreneurs were randomly selected for cooperation to meet the criteria for the focus group discussion (Mishra, 2016). In that meeting, we introduced a list of items based on theoretical review introduced in Table  1, divided into following dimensions: (a) motivation to start up, (b) knowledge of processes, and (c) knowledge of financial issues. The responses were recoded to the Likert scale (1 – strongly agree, 5 – strongly disagree). Both samples consist of four female and four male entrepreneurs (in the role of business owners). The average age was 41 to 55 years (37.5%) and they hold a university degree of 62.5%. A significant descriptive factor was their business experience; most of them spent more than ten years in business (75%). In the second step, the panellist evaluation weights developed to summarize each com- petency group in one number. The evaluation, by panel consensus, was according to the Likert scale as: – Likert scale 1 – I strongly agree, the weight of 1. – Likert scale 2 – I agree, the weight of 0.75. – Likert scale 3 – I do not know, the weight of 0.5. – Likert scale 4 – I disagree, the weight of 0.25. – Likert scale 5 – I strongly disagree, the weight of 0.05. Each variable was planned to be finally recalculated as weight multiplied by scale in phase three. Phase Two. The same checklist was introduced for a student evaluation focus group. The size of the group was 80 in each university (one in Czechia / one in Romania) when just one condition was set: a student is not involved in business, and it is studying business economics or entrepreneurship. This research was primarily performed quantitatively when students tick their preferences into personal competency checklists. Data collection was done anonymously without personal data collection. Due to diversity of millennials profiles from Delloite (2018a) study, we expected quite different final competency model requirements in the phase three. Phase Three. Researches developed competence models and evaluate significant ties between variables, using Spearman correlation in p-value of 0.05. Output: The standardized value for each variable will be possible to use for the next research. 2.2. Cross-country comparison A group of millennials represents a significant group of potential entrepreneurs in the future. The Labour Force Survey (2019) indicated that self-employed young people in the Czech Republic were 9.1% of their population when the unemployment rate was 4.5% (versus Ro- mania 11.3% self-employed young people and 10.5% of youth unemployment). It seems that a country with a higher youth unemployment rate has a higher self-employed young genera- tion, mainly necessity driven entrepreneurs (Dvouletý et al., 2018). Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2022, 20(1): 59–78 65 In the population of adult self-employed in the Czech Republic, the situation is mostly stable (18.8% of the total population). The number of young men in the entrepreneurial population is declining (from 11.6% in 2009 to 7.9% in 2018). Opposite to that, Romanian statistics do not offer evaluation according to male and female entrepreneurship. The youth entrepreneurship rate is lower than in the Czech Republic (4.7%), which is correlated with the total active population of adults (6.93% in 2018). When the proportion in education groups in the Czech Republic is mostly the same in both groups (adults and youth), at least 68% with secondary education and 26% with tertiary education, in the Romanian case, em- ployees have a higher level of education than active entrepreneurs – most of them 42% have primary education completed to 52% of secondary educated and 6% with university level (Eurostat, 2019). 2.2.1. Young millennials in the Czech Republic Czech millennials seek work on job portal sites to find out large employers. Consistent with that, the Delloite survey (2018a) confirmed most of the previous findings. Significant is the growth of millennials who want to move abroad (75.3%), which is alarming for domestic employers to get millennials into their companies. On the other hand, the growth is in their expectation in work position initially as most of them want to be managers, with almost 44% of those surveyed telling us they are aiming for either a mid-level or a high-management position. Notable is that they plan to be managers, but on the other side, they do not like to take a risk to establish a company (7.6% only). Second, they believe that their personal development is only in the company’s hands, and they are not personally responsible for taking care of their competence (53%). In the case of generation diversification, millennials want to work in a diverse environment, particularly in the age diversity, when 94% view older colleagues as a source of valuable knowledge for those who are younger and less experienced, what is a positive way, how to deal with multigenerational teams. 2.2.2. Young millennials in Romania A share of 43.5% of young Romanian university graduates want to work in a big corporation, and only 17.3% want to become entrepreneurs. They prefer to be educated, as 75% of Ro- manian students wish to continue their education to a post-graduate level, compared to 39% in Central and Eastern Europe (Furnea, 2018), because they feel that they would have more skills which will be appreciated by potential employers (analytical skills, decision-making skills, teamwork). Millennials prefer teamwork or are active in CSR activities to have a good relationship with the company and feel the social impact of their work (Business Review, 2017). Against that, Stamule and Todea (2017) described them as ethnocentric, when they prefer foreign goods than domestic product, which influence their motivation to work for multinational companies. Unlike Czech millennials, they prefer to be an expert in their field, and they are hard workers. The primary motivation to work for the company is not a salary for Czech millen- nials, but a space for development (59.7%). In addition, they reported being more entrepre- neurial (17.3%). The same problem is that they see a job opportunity abroad and in a large company (Delloite, 2018b). 66 J. Duháček Šebestová et al. Competency models in business students and business owners: ... 3. Results of cross-national evaluation The competency model is created based on the identification of competencies. It is a set of essential competencies for the company’s management, both from the point of view of en- trepreneurs and from the point of view of students. The first part presents the focus group of entrepreneurs (in the role of business owners) from both countries, their evaluation of the three groups of competencies that they would expect from millennials to do business successfully or to motivate them to start their own business. 3.1. Czech and Romania business owners’ competence model As already mentioned, the competency model consists of three parts and each of the groups chose the importance of the individual element proposed by the compromise method. Tables 2 to 4 will present the individual sections related to motivation, financial indicators, and business processes. Table 2. Motivation to start-up competencies (source: survey data, compromise solution values, differ- ences are in bold) Factor Czechia Romania Financial stability of the family 1 1 Self-employed family members 2 2 Friends who have own business 4 2 Education 2 1 The desire for freedom and success 1 1 Social background from which I came 4 2 Personal attitudes to life (working longer, being reliable, etc.). 1 1 Practical skills related to business 1 1 Table  2 shows the fundamental differences in the perception of business motivation, where panels of entrepreneurs (in role of business owners) differ in three areas, namely the influence of friends, social background, or education. Influential entrepreneurs consider education for business to be less critical (mark 2), but there is a big difference in the influ- ence of social background or friends, who do not consider it at all as motivators or drivers of starting a business. Therefore, according to their attitude, it could be missing in the Czech competence model. In the next part, indicators related to financial issues and the need for their use were evaluated (Table  3). Differences were found in four indicators, where two according to the evaluation of Romanian entrepreneurs would not even be in the competency model (mark 4 – claims, stock planning). In other cases, the mark differed slightly (costs and productivity); otherwise, the evaluation was the same. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2022, 20(1): 59–78 67 Table 3. Financial issues – importance (source: survey data, compromise solution values, differences are in bold) Factor Czechia Romania Profit 1 1 Costs 1 2 Business outcomes 1 1 Cash-flow 2 2 Profitability 1 1 Liquidity 2 2 Commitment structure 2 2 Types of claims 2 4 Stock planning 2 4 Sales 1 1 Quality 1 1 Planning working time 2 2 Productivity 2 1 The third part (Table  4) focused on critical processes, revealed what is not popular or used in business practice. In both panels, both in Czech and Romanian, we can observe agreement on the significance of processes up to three of them, which Czech entrepreneurs would not include in their competencies, namely non-standard forms of employment, out- sourcing, and business agenda (mark 4). Table  4. Key processes for business  – hard skills (source: survey data, compromise solution values, differences are in bold) Factor Czechia Romania Non-standard forms of employment (home office, part time jobs) 4 2 Outsourcing 4 2 Personnel processes 2 2 Internal logistics 2 2 Reverse logistics 4 4 Distribution logistics 2 2 Recovery of machinery (investments to machinery, technology) 2 2 Maintenance 2 2 Business agenda 4 2 Those values and results (Tables 2 to 4) are treated in the final step as the level requested for each competency in the national model. To evaluate the differences in the thinking of business owners, the relationships between individual evaluations were compared. Their relationship was expressed using the Spearman correlation coefficient at the level of significance α = 0.05. 68 J. Duháček Šebestová et al. Competency models in business students and business owners: ... Although Czech entrepreneurs did not prefer a business agenda or the influence of social background on future business in the model, these links nevertheless proved to be statistically significant in the model in connection with other variables. Social background has a positive correlation with personnel processes (0.609), maintenance (0.660), and busi- ness agenda (0.656). This means an influence of social background on business behaviour. In case of Romanian business owners, three essential groups of ties were found based on examples of family members, working time planning, and logistics. The members of the entrepreneurial family as an example influenced the relationship with friends, who pro- vided the business (0.954) and their attitude toward sales (0.629) and negatively toward reverse logistics (–0.698). 3.2. Cross-national student competency model The same process was repeated for students who individually decided on the importance of individual hard and soft skills for business and the necessary knowledge of business econom- ics. Tables 5 to 7 present differences in their evaluation. In the motivation (Table 5), four differences were noted, two insignificant (only a slight change in preference, mark 2) in the area of education and financial stability of the family. A very opposite reaction was observed among Czech students when evaluating the impact of social environment or friends on business, where items would not play a significant role in the model (mark 4). Table 5. Motivation to start-up – A student view (survey data mode values, differences are in bold) Factor Czechia Std.dev Romania Std.dev Financial stability of the family 2 1.067187 1 1.594261 Self-employed family members 2 1.171863 2 1.414883 Friends who have own business 4 1.368672 2 1.560036 Education 2 1.142609 1 1.197377 The desire for freedom and success 1 0.986013 1 0.977008 Social background from which I came 4 1.274074 2 1.488593 Personal attitudes toward life (working longer. Being reliable. ...) 1 0.866025 1 1.0234 Practical skills related to business 1 1.01977 1 0.98377 In financial issues, Czech students are more profit-oriented than Romanian students (grade 1, four indicators), while Romanian students exclude types of claims and stock plan- ning (grade 4) from the model. Otherwise, the evaluations are identical. The area of key processes offers a very controversial comparison (Table  7). Differences were found in most indicators. Although in most cases, there was only a slight deviation in the evaluation (marks 1 and 2) in two cases, opposite opinions on the given competence were found. These are nonstandard employment and reverse logistics forms, which Romanian students would completely exclude from the model (mark 4). Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2022, 20(1): 59–78 69 Table 6. Financial issues – A student view (survey data mode values, differences are in bold) Factor Czechia Std.dev Romania Std.dev Profit 1 0.433013 2 0.658568 Costs 1 0.45453 2 0.950478 Business outcomes 1 0.406116 2 1.197377 Cash-flow 1 0.702179 2 0.913908 Profitability 1 0.433013 1 0.889757 Liquidity 2 1.01977 2 1.223197 Commitment structure 2 1.053269 2 1.252271 Types of claims 1 1.067187 4 1.297579 Stock planning 1 0.978058 4 1.436141 Sales 1 0.866025 1 1.153059 Quality 1 0.865022 1 1.000947 Planning working time 2 0.953794 2 1.07485 Productivity 1 0.745356 1 0.795346 Table 7. Key processes – A student view (survey data mode values, differences are in bold) Factor Czechia Std.dev Romania Std.dev Non-standard forms of employment 2 1 4 1.386488 Outsourcing 2 0.934486 2 0.819969 Personnel processes 1 0.840593 2 0.97215 Internal logistics 1 0.702179 2 1.253027 Reverse logistics 2 1.165922 4 1.197377 Distribution logistics 1 0.702179 2 1.225518 Recovery of machinery (investments to machinery. technology) 1 0.862007 2 1.245446 Maintenance 1 1.306368 2 1.202113 Business agenda 1 1.414214 2 1.231684 To evaluate the differences in entrepreneurial thinking, the relationships between in- dividual evaluations were compared. Their relationship was expressed using the Spearman correlation coefficient at the level of significance α = 0.05. By evaluating the answers of Czech students, we concluded that they show more focus on the performance of the company, where significant statistical links were demonstrated with competencies in the field of commitment structure, business agenda, and logistics. A com- mitment structure has a positive relationship with the types of claim (0.720) and “planning working time” (0.676). This process continues by the influence of planning working time on liquidity vs. (0.660). When students prefer to use the business agenda, two connected variables were found such as stock planning (0.570) and maintenance (0.712). Finally, a logical link 70 J. Duháček Šebestová et al. Competency models in business students and business owners: ... between internal and reverse logistics was confirmed (0.659). Unlike Czech students, Roma- nian students showed a connection between motivation and other business factors, especially the influence of the role of financial stability of the family and the desire for their business success. Financial stability of the family has a positive relationship with friends who have their own business as a positive influence (0.536), but negative ties were confirmed with practical skills related to business (–0.483), a need to find their own path to success. Costs (–0.469) and personnel processes (–0.435) also indicate the need for freedom, without any influence on family. 3.3. A conflict between expectation and business experience In the last step, the results were compared internationally and between students and entre- preneurs. To standardize the significance of individual evaluations, they were assigned to individual weight values (WS) according to the explanation in the section 2.1. 3.3.1. Development and evaluation The model of Czech entrepreneurs as business owners (ENT) and students (S) highlights areas where both groups differ in their views on the issues under consideration. As can be seen in Table 8, the most different view is on business processes, where students focus on lean busi- ness, that is, not to waste time on activities that are not directly related to their own business and use outsourcing or cooperation with others through alternative forms of employment (which entrepreneurs rated by a mark 4). Table 8. Evaluation of the Czech competencies model (source: survey data mode values, differences are in bold, WS/S- weighted score students, WS/E- weighted score entrepreneurs) Factor ENT WS/E S WS/S ENT WS/E S WS/S Start-up – factors (SUp) Key processes (KP) Financial stability of the family 1 1 2 1.5 Non-standard forms of employment 4 1 2 1.5 Self-employed family members 2 1.5 2 1.5 Outsourcing 4 1 2 1.5 Friends who have own business 4 1 4 1 Personnel processes 2 1.5 1 1 Education 2 1.5 2 1.5 Internal logistics 2 1.5 1 1 The desire for freedom and success 1 1 1 1 Reverse logistics 4 1 2 1.5 Social background from which I came 4 1 4 1 Distribution logistics 2 1.5 1 1 Personal attitudes to life 1 1 1 1 Recovery of machinery 2 1.5 1 1 Practical skills related to business 1 1 1 1 Maintenance 2 1.5 1 1 Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2022, 20(1): 59–78 71 Factor ENT WS/E S WS/S ENT WS/E S WS/S – – – – Business agenda 4 1 1 1 Final score 1 2 2.12 1.12 1.18 Final score 2 1.53 1.23 1.26 1.11 Financial issues (F) Profit 1 1 1 1 Commitment structure 2 1.5 2 1.5 Costs 1 1 1 1 Types of claims 2 1.5 1 1 Business outcomes 1 1 1 1 Stock planning 2 1.5 1 1 Cash-flow 2 1.5 1 1 Sales 1 1 1 1 Profitability 1 1 1 1 Quality 1 1 1 1 Liquidity 2 1.5 2 1.5 Planning working time 2 1.5 2 1.5 Final score 3 2.88 1.33 1.27 1.16 Productivity 2 1.5 1 1 Standardization and summarization of the individual parts of the model were performed using the geometric mean of the individual evaluations to obtain a single mark for each area. Moreover, by this, we compared the importance of individual areas for both groups. The behaviour of individual groups can be written according to individual scores, when entrepreneurs have KP (1.23) ≤ F (1.33) ≤ SUp (2.12), which means that Czech entrepreneurs are mostly performance-oriented. In contrast to them, the students’ competency model pre- fers a balanced model in each area KP (1.11) ≤ F (1.16) ≤ SUp (1.18), but still we could still evaluate it as performance or process-oriented. 3.3.2. Development and evaluation In contrast, the Romanian model does not show significant differences in opinion on the competencies presented, and many do not differ in the opinion of entrepreneurs and stu- dents. Motivation factors are identical, and minor differences are only in the processes and key financial indicators (Table 9). Table 9. Evaluation of Romanian competencies model (source: survey data mode values, differences are in bold, WS/S- weighted score students, WS/E- weighted score entrepreneurs) Factor ENT WS/E S WS/S ENT WS/E S WS/S Start-up – factors (SUp) Key processes (KP) Financial stability of the family 1 1 1 1 Non-standard forms of employment 2 1.5 4 1 Self-employed family members 2 1.5 2 1.5 Outsourcing 2 1.5 2 1.5 Friends who have own business 2 1.5 2 1.5 Personnel processes 2 1.5 2 1.5 Education 1 1 1 1 Internal logistics 2 1.5 2 1.5 End of Table 8 72 J. Duháček Šebestová et al. Competency models in business students and business owners: ... Factor ENT WS/E S WS/S ENT WS/E S WS/S The desire for freedom and success 1 1 1 1 Reverse logistics 4 1 4 1 Social background from which I came 2 1.5 2 1.5 Distribution logistics 2 1.5 2 1.5 Personal attitudes to life 1 1 1 1 Recovery of machinery 2 1.5 2 1.5 Practical skills related to business 1 1 1 1 Maintenance 2 1.5 2 1.5 – – – – Business agenda 2 1.5 2 1.5 Final score 1 1.37 1.18 1.37 1.18 Final score 2 2.22 1.44 2.44 1.38 Financial issues (F) Profit 1 1 2 1.5 Commitment structure 2 1.5 2 1.5 Costs 2 1.5 2 1.5 Types of claims 4 1 4 1 Business outcomes 1 1 2 1.5 Stock planning 4 1 4 1 Cash-flow 2 1.5 2 1.5 Sales 1 1 1 1 Profitability 1 1 1 1 Quality 1 1 1 1 Liquidity 2 1.5 2 1.5 Planning working time 2 1.5 2 1.5 Final score 3 1.84 1.19 2 1.26 Productivity 1 1 1 1 The marks were standardized for further comparison. Business preferences in the model we could evaluate as SUp (1.18) ≤ F (1.19) ≤ KP (1.44). It indicates a preference of motivated entrepreneurs, rather than performance. The students’ point of view copies the general en- trepreneurial meaning of SUp (1.18) ≤ F (1.26) ≤ KP (1.38). Discussion Czech entrepreneurs would prefer in the competency model (according to RQ1) mostly fi- nancial indicators such as profit, costs, business outcomes, sales, quality and profitability to the competence model. In second place as motivational factors they prefer the desire for freedom and success, personal attitudes to life, and practical skills related to business. In line with that, Romanian entrepreneurs (following RQ2) prefer financial stability of the family, education, the desire for freedom and success, personal attitudes to life, and practical skills related to business. In the area of business economics, they prefer to include profit, profit- ability, sales, quality, and productivity. The international comparison (CZ / RO) shows a difference in the preferences of indi- vidual types of competencies, where the Romanian focus group prefers motivation to do business, which supports the results of the OECD survey on entrepreneurship out of neces- End of Table 9 Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2022, 20(1): 59–78 73 sity in case of high youth unemployment and high involvement in entrepreneurship (OECD & European Union, 2019; Dvouletý et al., 2018). Furthermore, the finding that education for entrepreneurship makes sense and impacts young people’s willingness to start a business has been confirmed, supported by the Boldureanu et al. (2020) and Šebestová et al. (2019) stud- ies. Due to the developed standardization of competence evaluation is possible to continue in other cross-national studies. We also confirmed the study of Cardenas-Gutierrez et  al. (2021), where operations and Marketing Competencies were the most important in the study of Spain (N = 237), unfortunately in our study financial indicators were more important than in the mentioned study. Conclusions The conclusions of the study can be divided into three areas of practical use. The first is the perspective of policy makers. Thanks to this analysis, it is possible to find out which factors are considered by entrepreneurs (in the role of owners) to be important for entrepreneur- ship and can motivate them to adapt entrepreneurship education so that they can get as close as possible to the requirements of practice. The second area is the individual point of view. Thanks to the checklist, everyone can easily carry out a self-evaluation and find their own level of business competencies. By consulting entrepreneurs with long experience, it can be said that they can help personal development and strengthen the commitment to entre- preneurship. The third dimension can be the evaluation of employees by the entrepreneur. Thanks to the recommended values of the model, as well as the method of its creation, he can set his own set of criteria with an evaluation scale and the recommended value that the employee should have in the selected position. Simplicity and replicability is just a big added advantage of these generic competency models. Funding The paper was supported by the Student Grant System of Silesian University in Opava under Grant [SGS/14/2021], named “Smart Dashboards in Business Practice”. Author contributions JDS and AIV conceived the study and were responsible for the design and development of the data analysis. RK, AIV and AMB were responsible for data collection and analysis. JDS and AIV were responsible for data interpretation. JDS, RK wrote the first draft of the article. AIV and AMB revised the paper and added conclusion. Final version was made by JDS, AIV, RK and AMB. Disclosure statement All authors declare that they do not have any competing financial, professional, or personal interests from other parties. 74 J. Duháček Šebestová et al. Competency models in business students and business owners: ... References Abraham, S. E., Karns, L. A., Shaw, K., & Mena, M. A. (2001). Managerial competencies and the mana- gerial performance appraisal process. The Journal of Management Development, 20(9/10), 842–852. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710110410842 Ahmad, N. H., Ramayah, T., Wilson, C., & Kummerow, L. (2010). Is entrepreneurial competency and business success relationship contingent upon business environment? A study of Malaysian SMEs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 16(3), 182–203. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551011042780 Audretsch, D. B., Bönte, W., & Keilbach, M. (2008). Entrepreneurship capital and its impact on knowl- edge diffusion and economic performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 687–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.01.006 Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Van den Brande, G. (2016). EntreComp: The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Barba-Sánchez, V., Atienza-Sahuquillo, C., McCracken, M., & Matlay, H. (2016). The development of entrepreneurship at school: The Spanish experience. Education + Training, 58(7/8). https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-01-2016-0021 Bartlett, Ch. A., & Ghoshal, A S. (1997). The myth of the generic manager: New personal competencies for new management roles. California Management Review, 40(1), 92–116. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165924 Bednář, V. (2012). Strategie vyjednávání. Grada. Bell, D.  N.  F., & Blanchflower,  D.  G. (2011). Youth people and the great recession. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 27(2), 241–267. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grr011 Bercu, A., & Lupu, D. (2020). Entrepreneurial competencies as strategic tools. In J. Šebestová (Ed.), Developing entrepreneurial competencies for start-ups and small business (pp. 23–40). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2714-6.ch002 Bird, B. (1995). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial competency. In J.  A.  Katz & R.  H.  Brockhaus, Sr. (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth (Vol. 2, pp. 51–72). JAI Press. Blenker, P., Trolle Elmholdt, S., Hedeboe Frederiksen, S., Korsgaard, S., & Wagner, K. (2014). Methods in entrepreneurship education research: a review and integrative framework. Education + Training, 56(8/9), 697–715. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2014-0066 Boldureanu, G., Măriuca Ionescu, A., Bercu, A., Bedrule-Grigoruță,  M.  V., & Boldureanu, D. (2020). Entrepreneurship education through successful entrepreneurial models in higher education institu- tions. Sustainability, 12(3), 1267. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031267 Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. John Wiley & Sons. Bradberry, T., & Greaves, J. (2007). Emoční inteligence v praxi: všechno, co potřebujete vědět o úspěšném životě, vztazích a kariéře. Columbus. Braunerhjelm, P. (2008). Entrepreneurship, knowledge and economic growth. Now Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000013 Brightman, B. (2004). Why managers fail, and how organizations can rewrite the script. The Journal of Business Strategy, 25(2), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660410526416 Business Review. (2017). Analysis. Millennials in Romania: The driving (work) force. http://business- review.eu/news/analysis-millennials-in-romania-the-driving-workforce-147405 Cardenas-Gutierrez,  A.  R., Bernal-Guerrero, A., & Montoro-Fernandez, E. (2021). Construction and validation of the basic scale of entrepreneurial competencies for the secondary education level. A study conducted in Spain. PLoS ONE, 16(4), e0249903. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903 https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710110410842 https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551011042780 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.01.006 https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-01-2016-0021 https://doi.org/10.2307/41165924 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grr011 https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2714-6.ch002 https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2014-0066 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031267 https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000013 https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660410526416 http://business-review.eu/news/analysis-millennials-in-romania-the-driving-workforce-147405 http://business-review.eu/news/analysis-millennials-in-romania-the-driving-workforce-147405 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903 Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2022, 20(1): 59–78 75 Delloite. (2018a). First steps into the Labour Market International survey of students and graduates Cen- tral Europe 2018, Delloite. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ce/Documents/about- deloitte/ce-first-steps-into-the-labour-market-2018.pdf Delloite. (2018b). The 2018 Deloitte millennial survey. https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/ about-deloitte/articles/millennialsurvey.html Dvouletý, O., Mühlböck, M., Warmuth, J., & Kittel, B. (2018). Scarred’ young entrepreneurs. Exploring young adults’ transition from former unemployment to self-employment. Journal of Youth Studies, 21(9), 1159–1181. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2018.1450971 Eken, I. (2017). Relationship between generations of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial traits [PhD The- sis]. http://athenaeum.uiw.edu/uiw_etds/36 Eurostat. (2019). Labour force survey. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/lfs/data/database Ferreras-Garcia, R., Sales-Zaguirre, J., & Serradell-López, E. (2021). Developing entrepreneurial com- petencies in higher education: A structural model approach. Education + Training, 63(5), 720–743. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-09-2020-0257 Frederick, H., Kuratko, D. F., & Hodgetts, R. (2007). Entrepreneurship theory process practice. Thomson Learning. Furnea, R. (2018). Four in ten Romanian millennials want to work in corporations. https://creativeroma- nia.com/four-in-ten-romanian-millennials-want-to-work-in-corporations/ Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., & King, W. (1997). Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship educa- tion, enterprise education and education for small business management: A ten-year literature re- view. International Small Business Journal, 15(3), 56–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242697153004 Hofener, S. (2000). Recipe for success as a leader and manager. ITE Journal, 70(5), 28–30. Iland, A. (2013). Soft Skills: Be professionally proactive (2nd ed.). Iland Business Pages. Jogaratnam, G. (2002). Entrepreneurial orientation and environmental hostility: An assessment of small independent restaurant businesses. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 26(3), 258–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348002026003004 Kamau, J. N., Njau, M. M., & Wanyagi, J. (2014). Factors influencing work attitude among “Y” genera- tion (a case of Africa Nazarene University). European Scientific Journal, 10(10), 636–642. Klemp, G. O., Jr., & McClelland, D. C. (1986). What characterizes intelligent functioning among senior managers? In R.  J.  Sternberg & R.  K.  Wagner (Eds.), Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world (pp. 31–50). Cambridge University Press. Kanungo, R., & Misra, S. (1992). Managerial resourcefulness: A reconceptualization of management skills. Human Relations, 45(12), 1311–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204501204 Lancaster, L., & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide: Who they are, why they clash, how to solve the generational puzzle at work. Harper Business. Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43(2), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3 Lukeš, M., & Zouhar, J. (2016). The causes of early-stage entrepreneurial discontinuance. Prague Eco- nomic Papers, 25(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.18267/j.pep.534 Maize, R. (2017). 6 ways millennials have changed business practices. https://www.entrepreneur.com/ article/289574 Man, T. W. Y., & Lau, T. (2005). The context of entrepreneurship in Hong Kong: An investigation through the patterns of entrepreneurial competencies in contrasting industrial environments. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12(4), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000510628162 Man, T., Lau, T., & Chan, K. F. (2002). The competitiveness of small and medium enterprises. A concep- tualization with focus on entrepreneurial competencies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00058-6 https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ce/Documents/about-deloitte/ce-first-steps-into-the-labour-market-2018.pdf https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ce/Documents/about-deloitte/ce-first-steps-into-the-labour-market-2018.pdf https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/millennialsurvey.html https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/millennialsurvey.html https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2018.1450971 http://athenaeum.uiw.edu/uiw_etds/36 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/lfs/data/database https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-09-2020-0257 https://creativeromania.com/four-in-ten-romanian-millennials-want-to-work-in-corporations/ https://creativeromania.com/four-in-ten-romanian-millennials-want-to-work-in-corporations/ https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242697153004 https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348002026003004 https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204501204 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3 https://doi.org/10.18267/j.pep.534 https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/289574 https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/289574 https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000510628162 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00058-6 76 J. Duháček Šebestová et al. Competency models in business students and business owners: ... Markman, G. D. (2007). Entrepreneurs’ competencies. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese, & R. A. Baron (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship (pp. 67–92). Earlbaum Associates Publishers. Matthews, Ch. H., & Brueggemann, R. (2015). Innovation and entrepreneurship: A competency frame- work. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315813622 McKenna, S. (2004). Predispositions and context in the development of managerial skills. The Journal of Management Development, 23(7/8), 664–677. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710410546669 Mishra, L. (2016). Focus group discussion in qualitative research. Techno Learn, 6(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-5223.2016.00001.2 Mitchelmore, S., & Rowley, J. (2010). Entrepreneurial competencies: a literature review and develop- ment agenda. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 16(2), 92–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551011026995 Moen, O. (1999). The relationship between firm size, competitive advantages and export performance re- visited. International Small Business Journal, 18(1), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242699181003 OECD, & European Union. (2019). The missing entrepreneurs 2019: Policies for inclusive entrepreneur- ship. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/3ed84801-en Penchev, P., & Salopaju, A. (2011). Entrepreneurial competencies needed by managers in their work [Master thesis]. Jönköping University. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:419847/FULL- TEXT01.pdf Perciun, R., & Balan, M. (2013). Youth labour market: Characteristics specific issues. Internal Auditing & Risk Management, 30, 31–42. Pickett, L. (1998). Competencies and managerial effectiveness: Putting competencies to work. Public Personnel Management, 27(1), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609802700110 Popescu, C., & Raluca, Gh. (2020). Developing a model for entrepreneurship competencies. In J. Šebestová (Ed.), Developing entrepreneurial competencies for start-ups and small business (pp. 1–22). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2714-6.ch001 Schneider, K., & Albornoz, C. (2018). Theoretical model of fundamental entrepreneurial competencies. Science Journal of Education, 6(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20180601.12 Šebestová, J., & Rylková, Ž. (2011). Competencies and innovation within learning organization. The Journal Economics and Management, 16(1), 954–960. Šebestová, J., & Lejková, M. (2020). Business competencies within unstable business environments (pp. 41–58). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2714-6.ch003 Šebestová, J., Bercu, A., & Voda, I. (2019). Attracting a new workforce for SMEs: Millennial’s challenge. In R. Šperka, P. Suchánek, J. Šebestová, Ž. Rylková, K. Matušínská, J. Mazurek, Š. Čemerková, & R. Dolák (Eds.), 2nd International Conference on Decision Making for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises DEMSME 2019 (pp. 226–234). Silesian University in Opava, School of Business Ad- ministration in Karviná, Karviná. Šebestová, J., Rylková, Ž., Krejčí, P., & Lejková, M. (2018). Different strategic goals in the same business environment: Competent entrepreneurs or just luck? In New trends in management: Regional and cross-border perspectives (pp. 71–82). London Scientific. Stamule, S., & Todea, S. (2017). Millennials between consumer ethnocentrism and attitudes towards local campaigns. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, 11(1), 720–729. https://doi.org/10.1515/picbe-2017-0076 Stokes, D., Wilson, N., & Mador, M. (2010). Entrepreneurship. South-Western Cengage Learning, Unit- ed States. Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Freeman, E. C. (2012). Generational differences in the life goals of young adults, the concern for others, and civic orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 102(5), 1045–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027408 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315813622 https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710410546669 https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-5223.2016.00001.2 https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551011026995 https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242699181003 https://doi.org/10.1787/3ed84801-en http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:419847/FULLTEXT01.pdf http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:419847/FULLTEXT01.pdf https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609802700110 https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2714-6.ch001 https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20180601.12 https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2714-6.ch003 https://doi.org/10.1515/picbe-2017-0076 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027408 Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2022, 20(1): 59–78 77 Visser, H. (2018). Understanding how millennial hospitality employees deal with emotional labour. Research in Hospitality Management, 8(1), 63–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/22243534.2018.1501957 Vodă, A. I., Bercu, A. M., & Sebestova, J. (2021). Is a higher minimum wage associated with a higher youth employment rate A panel data analysis. European Journal of International Management, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2021.118569 Von Graevenitz, G., Harhoff, D., & Weber, R. (2010). The effects of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(1), 90–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2010.02.015 Weber, R. (2011). Evaluating entrepreneurship education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-3654-7 APPENDIX A checklist of competencies Evaluate how important are those competencies for business processes and economics. Please use the scale from 1 to 5 (1 – I am strongly agree to 5 – I am strongly disagree). Motivation to start-up Factor Your score Financial stability of the family Self-employed family members Friends who have own business Education The desire for freedom and success Social background from which I came Personal attitudes to life (working longer, being reliable, etc.). Practical skills related to business Financial issues Factor Your score Profit Costs Business outcomes Cash-flow Profitability Liquidity Commitment structure Types of claims Stock planning Sales Quality Planning working time Productivity https://doi.org/10.1080/22243534.2018.1501957 https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2021.118569 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2010.02.015 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-3654-7 78 J. Duháček Šebestová et al. Competency models in business students and business owners: ... Key processes Factor Your score Non-standard forms of employment Outsourcing Personnel processes Internal logistics Reverse logistics Distribution logistics Recovery of machinery (investments to machinery, technology) Maintenance Business agenda