Interns Perceptions of Internships: A Look at Work, Supervision and Appraisals¹

Although hospitality organizations downsized during the 1980s and 1990s, the hospitality industry has still sought to attract and retain hospitality school interns. These interns, if successful, are prime job candidates in the eyes of recruiters. As well, interns realize the potential of employment through this activity (Breiter, Gargill & Fried-Kline, 1995). Therefore, there may be no doubt that these experiences are valuable to both employers and interns, and may be why internships have been integral to 95 percent of undergraduate hospitality programs since 1992 (Zabel, 1992).

If attracting and retaining future managers from interns is a goal of hospitality companies, wouldn't an evaluation of internship experiences, by interns, be important? Breiter et al. (1995), in their study, asked industry what objectives of experiential learning are important. We are asking interns, what kind of experience is industry providing? To better understand this question, this study was designed to examine interns' perceptions of work. supervision and appraisals. to get a look at, as Dawson (1973) states "a picture of the student's approach to the job; making of needed decisions; acceptance of suggestions and criticisms, and adjustment to the organization" (p. 10).

Method

The survey instrument developed for this study centered on work, supervision and appraisal factors identified in the literature, and was based on an internship questionnaire utilized by Stonecash, Pecorella and Winegar (1995). The 48 items assessing the dimensions of work, supervision, and appraisals, were presented in a Likert-type format. Respondents stated their agreement or disagreement with each item on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. A preliminary version of the questionnaire was administered to previous interns. The final version was modified to reflect pretest concerns.

Internship Directors/ Coordinators from Illinois, New Mexico, Florida, North Carolina, and Rhode Island were present at an experiential learning special interest group meeting at a hospitality conference. Each indicated interest in the study and volunteered to assist in the distribution of questionnaires. A total of 120 questionnaires were mailed to these Internship Directors/ Coordinators who distributed them to their interns. Only seniors who were engaged in their final work experience internship at the management development level were included in the study.

In total. 69 of a possible 120 survey instruments were useable, providing a 57 .5 percent useable rate. The results presented cannot be construed to be statistically representative of the entire population of senior interns across the United States, though it is quite possible that they may reflect the views of a broader population of all interns. It is in this context that these findings are presented .

Results

Work. Work itself has always been at the core of satisfaction to employees. It may be the same for interns. As shown in Table 1, most interns felt responsible for the work (98.2%) and dealt effectively with problems at work (91.2%). Interns also received acknowledgment for their work, (84.2%) and received recognition and gratitude for their work (82.5%).

Responses of disagreement show nearly 60 percent of interns perceived they were not full of energy at the end of the day (59.7%), while almost 50 percent did not see advancement for everyone (49.2%), and did not receive incentives (49.1 %). In addition over one-third felt frustrated by their job (36.1 %), did not feel empowered (38.6%), did not get a complete outline of their training program (36.9%), and felt working conditions were not excellent (36.1 %). More than 25 percent did not see opportunity for growth (26.4%), were not motivated by the work (29.9%), and did not enjoy getting up for work each day (28.1 %) .

Supervision. During internships, the supervisor plays two important roles, first, assuring intern performance on the job, and second as a model/ mentor. The second role, being a model/mentor, may be more important than ensuring performance (Hogan, 1992; Pearce, 1982; Tabachi et al., 1990). This contact with the supervisor gives the intern glimpses into the field and leadership patterns for the intern. Table 1 also represents interns' perceptions toward their supervisors.

Most interns perceived that they were treated well (91.3%) and had a good relationship with their supervisor (89.3%). Supervisors were also perceived as encouraging interns to ask questions (84.3%), assisted interns to solve problems, gave appropriate levels of supervision (80. 7%), and were available for questions (72%). More than 75 percent felt their suggestions were listened to (77 .2%) and that they received emotional support (75.4%).

Supervisors informed interns on company policies (75.4%), and the organization's progress (72%). Interns also felt they were given interesting work by their supervisor (73.6%) and were given special assignments (64.9%). However, many interns did not feel their suggestions were acted upon (35.1%) and 30 percent were not mentored about their future (29.8%).

Appraisals. Appendix 1 indicates the percentages of intern responses on appraisal factors. Performance appraisals are very important in that they assist in determining promotions, transfers, raises, demotions, or terminations. These are extremely important decisions that have an impact upon employees.

While only 70.2 percent of interns were offered appraisals, 80.7 percent received appraisals and felt that their appraisals were fair. As well, over two-thirds of the interns were allowed to comment on their appraisals (68.5%).

We should look closely at the interns' responses in the column neither agree or disagree. It appears that a number of interns were unsure of just how appraisals were oriented toward their progress. As Appendix l shows, interns could not distinguish among improvement focused appraisals (15.8%), appraisals that were lists of accomplishments (15.8%), or mistake-focused appraisals (19.3%). With this in mind, it appears that the hospitality industry could reexamine the composition, application and explanation of performance appraisals.

Discussion

Freedland (1989) reported the primary source of job satisfaction is work itself. Antil (1984) points out "If the position does not provide what the individual is looking for, he or she will soon become dissatisfied" (p. 47). As well, findings in a study by Knutson (1987) measuring factors for students' choice of employment indicated 96.6 percent considered interesting work as the number one consideration. In addition Pavesic and Brymer (1990) cite the "most frequent responses to what the respondents like best is … direct involvement with their work" (p.94). When almost 30 percent of interns disagree with "during my internship I was motivated by the work itself' (29.9%), it may be that these respondents will be the "one out of four graduates [expected] to leave the hospitality field within five years" (Knutson, 1989, p. 99). Knutson's (1987) study indicated that 96.4 percent of students listed growth and promotion as a very important consideration. However, interns in this study observed that these two areas were limited. The fact that interns did not feel that there was opportunity for growth, and everyone did not have an opportunity for advancement is troubling. Especially when Williams and Hunter (1992) and Pavesic and Brymer (1990) reported current managers felt there was room for advancement.

It is not surprising that almost half the interns did not receive incentives for exceptional work. It is a common practice to work interns in as many facets of the operation as possible and to pay them minimum wages. However, it would seem that by bringing incentive programs into the internship, companies might increase productivity, morale, and gain motivation.

Three variables, not full of energy at the end of day, unsatisfactory working conditions and too tired to get up in the morning also have implications, since requiring interns to work long hours seems prevalent in the industry. Farmer and Tucker (1988) identified 20 items to be considered in defining working conditions. The top item was hours of work. Sarabakhsh, Carson, and Lindgren (1989) investigated working conditions and how they affect managers' quality of life. Their study indicated "that life-stress scores were significantly higher for the hospitality groups … [where] the numbers of hours per week … weekends and holidays contributed to the hotel group's higher rating" (p. 74). They also indicated number of hours worked as a primary reason for low quality. Pavesic and Brymer (1990) reported "long hours-six days a week, 14 hours a day-will bum out even the most career-oriented person," (p. 95). This study has relevance for most burnout studies, and the need to assess our usage of personnel. Should current management consider doing something besides discuss the issue?

Another variable, "during my internship I felt others were more empowered," had 38.6 percent disagreement and would seem appropriate on the surface, because, we are making the inquiry to interns. As well, the 26 percent who felt their position did not have status would also seem appropriate. However, Freedland, (1989) found that in male respondents the leading source of job satisfaction is "the autonomy it affords them," (p. 94). If it is empowerment, autonomy, independence that our industry is trying to extol perhaps these interns should be given more opportunity to become empowered. As Stern burg (1992) suggests, "empowerment can involve setting ceilings … " (p. 70). Hogan (1992) states, "Enable your employees … by giving them as much authority as possible," (p. 45). As well Boarden, quoted in Wagner (1990), states, "Empowerment is absolutely necessary and critical… [h]ire potential leaders and empower them," (p. 54).

Also worth noting are the 31.6 percent that indicated "during my internship I was not given special assignments" and the 36.9 percent of respondents who did not receive a complete outline of the training program. Frohmand and Pascarella (1991) agree with interns in this study when they found in industry that "four out of ten first-level managers do not have clear job goals … and … 60 percent of first-level managers do not have [clear performance standards]" (p. 26). For internships, it is generally a priority of the university that students be given various special assignments to expand their horizons, and leadership responsibilities. As well, it is important for interns to complete the internship training program as established by the university or college. These internships are supposed to develop intern talent, and lack of special assignments or not completing a training program does not make work itself interesting. Which perhaps brings us back to our first item which was not being motivated by the work itself or is it as Williams and Hunter (1992) find "a perceived lack of encouragement from within the organization," (p. 357).

Within supervision, we found that 35.1 percent of interns did not feel their suggestions were acted upon. Levine (1993), identified three principles to turn ideas into action and help solve problems. Primarily, his advice is: (I) listen and talk to people from all over the company; (2) be receptive to their ideas if you want them to listen to yours; and (3) build an atmosphere of trust.

In this study, 29.8 percent of respondents were not mentored about their future. During a 1992 conference cosponsored by Campbell Soup Co. Food Service Division and Restaurants & Institutions, presenter Fred Reichheld stated, "You need to start looking at maximum investments in people. You can't succeed in business if you keep turning them over," (Bernstein, 1992). Is it time to start designing career development plans for our future managers?

How an appraisal is oriented is important. Formal processes of appraisal are needed so that essential aspects of performance are clearly understood. As Manter and Benjamin (1989) state, "Opportunity to understand the big picture of the firm," (p. 45) was a factor to entice first careerists to stay. In this study, most interns could neither agree nor disagree with the method used to give an appraisal of their performance. This seems to agree with findings of Cohen and Nielsen (1988) where "new approaches to … measurement … could be implemented," (p. 41). Again, should performance appraisals be reexamined by the hospitality industry?

Conclusion

As the pool of interns is a labor market that represents potential management quality employees, it would make sense for the hospitality industry to have an appreciation of intern perceptions. This study suggests that while interns may be highly satisfied with work, and generally satisfied with supervision, appraisals are still an area of concern. Although work was seen as a positive experience, the negative comments about work need to be addressed. To examine the number of working hours alone may be an essential factor. However, establishing good training programs, giving interns meaningful work to do and empowering them to do it could also play a part.

Only two areas of supervision were identified as negative experiences for interns. Supervisors need to be aware that interns need explanations for why their suggestions are not implemented. As well, being a model/mentor for interns is a role that is more important and needs to be strengthened.

Appraisals provide interns with a clear understanding of their performance. The confusion over appraisals may demonstrate some misunderstanding of the associated job standards and the technical aspects of the work. This may be addressed by clearly identifying development paths and job requirements.

This study demonstrates that the hospitality industry is strongly committed to recruitment and retention of interns yet suggests that opportunities still exist for improving the experience. Research currently being conducted on a specific internship program with specific procedures may provide us with some answers and further research questions.