## 5 Results and Discussion
As illustrated in Table 10, the similarity is high for the following pairs of PEOs, (CS, GS), (KC, TC) and (TC, CS), while it is low for the pairs (EC, TC), (EC, GS), (L, TC). This is expected, as the PEOs in the first group depend mostly on the soft skills SOs while the PEOs in the second group depend on a different set of SOs skills. Additionally, the spectral visualization of the similarity of each PEO with the other PEOs is shown in Table 11. A closer look at the spectral representation of PEOs' similarities disclose several interesting aspects of PEOs correlations. First, the similarity between the spectral representation of PEOs similarities of CS, TC, KC, and GS suggests that they are forming a cluster. This can be interpreted by looking at the PEOs-PLOs mapping, from which it can be observed that these PEOs are highly correlated with a set of PLOs (a, b, c, e, k) that is known as the hard skills PLOs. By the same token, the following set of PEOs (C, L, T, EC, P and SC) show a similarity in their spectral representation of PEOs similarities. Again, this suggests that they are forming another PEOs cluster and can be interpreted by looking at the PEOs-PLOs mapping, in which it can be observed that these PEOs are highly correlated with a set of PLOs (d, f, g, h, i, j) that are known as the soft or professional skills PLOs. An interesting observation of the tow cluster is that the correlations among the PEOs of the first cluster is higher than the correlations among the PEOs of the second cluster. Finally, with regards to LL PEO, the spectral representation shows that it is mostly correlated with the PEOs of the first cluster; however, its highest similarity with P PEOs from the second cluster is notable. This is suggesting that LL is a common PEO which is related to both PEOs clusters. The spectral representation of the PEOs' similarities can give an overall view on the correlations among them. As shown in Table 11, some of these of these correlations are intuitive and self-explanatory, such as TC and CS, because the technical competency is essential for carrier success; KC and TC because the knowledge and technical competencies have a reciprocal influence on each other. T and CS are also correlated because teaming \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{LL} & P & GS & CS & KC & SC & TC & L & T & C & EC \\ \cline{2-11}  & 0.81 & 0.79 & 0.78 & 0.76 & 0.73 & 0.71 & 0.67 & 0.64 & 0.60 & 0.57 \\ \cline{2-11}  & T & L & P & CS & GS & SC & LL & EC & TC & KC \\ \cline{2-11}  & 0.76 & 0.69 & 0.69 & 0.67 & 0.63 & 0.61 & 0.60 & 0.60 & 0.56 & 0.54 \\ \cline{2-11}  & P & SC & EC & T & C & LL & CS & GS & KC & TC \\ \cline{2-11}  & 0.79 & 0.77 & 0.74 & 0.69 & 0.67 & 0.65 & 0.58 & 0.55 & 0.51 \\ \cline{2-11}  & CS & C & L & P & EC & GS & TC & SC & LL & KC \\ \cline{2-11}  & 0.77 & 0.76 & 0.74 & 0.72 & 0.71 & 0.67 & 0.65 & 0.64 & 0.64 & 0.59 \\ \cline{2-11}  & L & SC & T & P & CS & C & LL & KC & GS & TC \\ \cline{2-11}  & 0.77 & 0.75 & 0.71 & 0.68 & 0.64 & 0.60 & 0.57 & 0.56 & 0.53 & 0.52 \\ \cline{2-11}  & LL & SC & L & CS & GS & T & KC & C & EC & TC \\ \cline{2-11}  & 0.81 & 0.80 & 0.79 & 0.78 & 0.75 & 0.72 & 0.70 & 0.69 & 0.68 & 0.65 \\ \cline{2-11}  & P & L & EC & LL & CS & KC & T & GS & C & TC \\ \cline{2-11}  & SC & 0.81 & 0.77 & 0.75 & 0.73 & 0.70 & 0.68 & 0.64 & 0.64 & 0.61 & 0.59 \\ \cline{2-11}  & GS & TC & KC & P & LL & T & SC & C & L & EC \\ \cline{2-11}  & 0.84 & 0.85 & 0.83 & 0.78 & 0.78 & 0.77 & 0.70 & 0.67 & 0.65 & 0.64 \\ \cline{2-11}  & CS & KC & GS & LL & P & T & SC & C & EC & L \\ \cline{2-11}  & 0.85 & 0.85 & 0.85 & 0.71 & 0.65 & 0.65 & 0.59 & 0.56 & 0.52 & 0.51 \\ \cline{2-11}  & TC & GS & CS & LL & P & SC & T & EC & L & C \\ \cline{2-11}  & 0.85 & 0.83 & 0.85 & 0.76 & 0.70 & 0.68 & 0.59 & 0.56 & 0.55 & 0.54 \\ \cline{2-11}  & CS & TC & KC & LL & P & T & SC & C & L & EC \\ \cline{2-11}  & 0.88 & 0.85 & 0.83 & 0.79 & 0.75 & 0.67 & 0.64 & 0.63 & 0.58 & 0.53 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}