This paper uses a case-study approach to examine the effects of co-op on the initial employment of a carefully selected group of community college drafting graduates. Graduates from two North Carolina community college drafting programs were selected for the study. Research focused on whether the co-op graduates reported having a greater sense of workplace power as interpreted by measures designed to assess organization socialization, relevance of job to career plans, degree of access to resources and participation in decision-making. These measures, created by (Brown, 1984), provided the basis for an interview involving a co-op graduate and a graduate who lacked co-op experience. A quantitative study based on these measures provided statistical support for the study. Differences were not statistically detected because of small sample size limitations; however, this study provides a foundation for a future investigation that focus on community college populations.
While studies have been conducted into the effects of co-op on the early organizational socialization process of participants (e.g., Brown, 1984, Gardner & Kozlowski, 1993), there is a dearth of such research that specifically focuses on two-year college graduates. The lack of studies also suggest that studies of special populations, such as drafting students, are absent from the literature.
The significance of career oriented work experience (i.e., cooperative education) in the organizational socialization process of recent college graduates was summarized by Gardner & Lambert (1992). Based on a longitudinal study involving college students before and after graduation, the authors report that many graduates are not prepared for the realities of socialization in their new jobs. This dilemma is often indicated by high rates of employee turnover and job dissatisfaction among new college graduates in the workplace. Lack of previous meaningful work experience and unrealistic expectations are often associated with interrupted work histories in early career. A major recommendation of the research on early transition into the workplace is that students should gain experience with cooperative education or internships before they graduate in order to enhance their early success in the workplace.
This recommendation logically relates to community college drafting students beginning their first job after graduation. The need to know more about this subject is enhanced when one considers the prominence of drafters in our technological society. Their importance is indicated by the relatively high number of drafters working all over the country. During the mid-1900’s, around 304,000 drafters worked throughout the United States. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that the need for drafters will remain steady through the first decade of this century (Chronicle Guidance Publications, 1997).
In order to better understand the initial workplace behaviors of two diverse groups of North Carolina community college drafting graduates, this investigation compared two carefully chosen clusters of graduates. These clusters consisted of graduates who experienced co-op and graduates who did not experience co-op. Although the graduates were from different institutions, the programs they represented were similar in academic scope and expected outcomes. The primary difference was that coop was incorporated into the curriculum of one of the programs while the other program did not utilize this educational strategy. The groups of graduates were compared through measures of organizational socialization, relevance of job to career plans, degree of access to resources and participation in decisionmaking on their jobs. Organizational socialization was examined by measures relating to early expectations, job congruence, organizational commitment and “learning the ropes.” All of these measures were based on a study by Brown (1984) but altered to meet the requirements of this study. Four measures were utilized in order to assess power in the workplace with regard to the various drafting graduates (Owen, 2000). This study’s interpretation of employee sense of power was based on the work of Kanter (1977, 1993) and Brown (1984). This interpretation of power relates more closely to the process of adjusting to the work environment than with exerting dominance over others. The measures pertaining to degree of access to resources and participation in decision-making functioned as the principal indicators of employee sense of power in this study.
A case-study approach provided the framework for this study because of the very specific academic program being studied. The findings may not be generalized to all community college graduates; thus the interpretation will be confined to the students being studied. The case study used an interview process combined with quantitative procedures to examine the effects of co-op on the initial employment of community college drafting graduates. The interview process was conducted at the same time as the quantitative investigation. The interview process and the quantitative inquiry were both structured around the following areas associated with employee sense of power: organizational socialization, relevance of job to career plans, degree of access to resources and participation in decision-making. These four areas were derived from a study by Brown (1984) which investigated the influence of co-op on the first job of four-year college graduates.
Organizational socialization and relevance of job to career plans served as variables of employee sense of power. Degree of access to resources and participation in decision-making functioned as the principal indicators of employee sense of power in this study.
To gain insight into the organizational socialization variable, the following variables were instituted: early expectations, job congruence, organizational commitment and learning the ropes.
The four areas used to assess employee sense of
power in this investigation were originally created by
Brown (1984) for a quantitative investigation. Using
Kanter’s (1977, 1993) definition of employee sense of
power, Brown (1984) comprised a series of questions
to examine each of the four areas. Brown’s questions
were measured using 4, 5, 7 and 9- point Likert scales
in which one represented the lowest value (i.e.,
strongly disagree, not at all true, never true and very
little) and the values of 4, 5, 7 and 9 represented the
highest value (i.e., strongly agree, very true, always
true and very much). The questions and scales used
for the quantitative portion of this investigation were
derived directly from Brown’s study. In some cases,
these questions were slightly altered in order to
improve clarity. In order to further improve clarity, the
scales were adjusted to consistently reflect a 5-point
Likert system. The 5-point Likert system was used for all of questions utilized in the quantitative portion of
the research. More specifically, in order to acquire
quantitative data about employee sense of power from
the graduates involved in this investigation, a
questionnaire based on 5-point Likert scales was
derived from each of the following areas:
organizational socialization, relevance of job to career
plans, degree of access to resources and participation
in decision-making. The numerical and descriptive
range utilized by the scales was 1, strongly disagree; 2,
disagree; 3, uncertain; 4, agree and 5, strongly agree
The following information describes the areas intended to assess employee sense of power. A sample question is provided to help illustrate how each area was measured.
With regard to early expectations, Brown (1984) indicates that “one way to judge the success of efforts to socialize new recruits to an organization is to measure how realistic the employee’s expectations of his [her] job were when he [she] first began to work for the company” (p.12). The following question is one of three questions utilized to measure early expectations. “I knew what to expect about the workplace when I came to work for this company” (Owen, 2000).
According to Brown (1984), job congruence is another ingredient of organizational socialization. This intermediate variable concerns having a quality match between an employee and his/her job. The following question is one of two questions used to assess job congruence. “I feel like this is the right type of work for me and I’m the right type of person for this job” (Owen, 2000).
An additional element of organizational socialization employed in this investigation was organizational commitment. Brown (1984) relates that this intermediate variable concerns how well an employee identifies with and is involved with his/her workplace organization. According to Brown, organizational commitment has generally been connected with successful organizational socialization. Nine questions were employed to measure this area including the following question. “I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization” (Owen, 2000).
The final element of organizational socialization utilized in this study was learning the ropes. According to Brown (1984), this intermediate variable concerns learning what is expected at the workplace and knowing how to carry it out. The following question was solely utilized to measure learning the ropes. “I have learned the ropes (i.e., learned what is expected of me and how to get it done) at my current job” (Owen, 2000).
Relevance of job to career plans served as the second major variable of employee sense of power used in this investigation. According to Brown (1984), “if co-op graduates are more likely to be certain of their career choice at graduation and more concerned that their first job after college relates to their undergraduate major, then it is probable that they will perceive their current job as being part of a broader career plan” (p. 12). Six questions were used to assess this area. A sample question follows. “This job is part of my overall career plan” (Owen, 2000).
The first primary indicator of employee sense of power employed in this study was degree of access to resources. Brown (1984) reports that this type of power involves having adequate access to the resources needed to perform one’s workplace duties. This indicator specifically concerns having access to “information, equipment, supervisor, co-workers, and authority” (p. 13). The following question is an example of one of eleven questions used to measure degree of access to resources. “I have enough information to get the job done” (Owen, 2000).
Participation in decision-making was the second and final indicator of employee sense of power utilized in this investigation. This indicator concerns the ability of employees to make decisions which pertain to their needs. Based on Brown’s (1984) interpretation, this indicator provided information about the new employee’s view of their participation with supervisors as related to job-oriented issues. Four questions served to assess participation in decision-making. The following question is one such example. “In general, I have much say and influence over what goes on in my job” (Owen, 2000). All scales used in this study are available from the lead author.
The interview process utilized in this study was not intended to generate theory as a comprehensive qualitative investigation. Rather, it was based on a case-study design. According to Borg & Gall (1989), case-study research “involves an investigator who makes a detailed examination of a single subject or group or phenomenon” (p. 402). Whenever a casestudy is composed of two or more subjects or situations, it is known as a multi-case study. Such research occasionally involves a comparison or contrast within the investigation. In this situation, the multi-case study is generally referred to as a comparative case study. Bogdan & Biklen (1992) report, “if you are doing a second case study to compare and contrast, you pick a second site on the basis of the extent and presence or absence of some particular characteristic of the original study” (p. 69). Since the interview component was concerned with comparing co-op versus non-co-op community college drafting graduates, it resembled a comparative casestudy.
In order to obtain information concerning employee sense of power, the researcher conducted open-ended interviews with the study participants. Such interviews were based on semi-structured interview questions designed to probe each of the four areas associated with employee sense of power and search for additional relevant findings. The questions used in the study’s interview component were derived directly from the questions used in the quantitative study. For example, the following two questions were intended to examine the respondents’ views concerning early expectations. “What were your expectations about working in the drafting field when you first began to work at your current drafting job?” “How did your early expectations compare with the actual experiences you later encountered at this job?” (Owen, 2000).
The additional areas associated with employee sense of power were likewise explored using semi-structured interview questions.
Purposeful sampling was employed to select one representative community college drafting graduate from each of the following two groups: graduates with co-op experience and graduates without co-op experience. This sampling strategy permits the researcher to select particular respondents who are believed to have the ability to satisfy study requirements (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). Moreover, purposeful sampling allows the researcher to choose which cases are most informative and to employ these cases in the investigation (Patton, 1990). In congruence with this understanding, the researcher selected the two community college drafting graduates to serve as respondents. The two respondents were thoughtfully selected in order to be “typical” of the community college drafting program they represented. According to Patton, the “typical” approach to purposeful sampling occurs when the cases involved in the study are not atypical to any significant degree. In other words, this sampling strategy focuses on the selection of representative cases. Respondents deemed “typical” by the researcher were chosen from each community college drafting program based on such factors as age, gender, race and availability.
To ensure a meaningful comparison, it was deemed necessary to utilize respondents with widely diverse work experiences during community college. More specifically, a recent drafting graduate with two terms of co-op experience was chosen to represent the graduates with co-op experience. To represent the graduates who lacked co-op experience, a recent drafting graduate was chosen who not only lacked coop experience but likewise did not experience any drafting-related work during community college. The respondents were also selected because they held similar work assignments. In particular, they both held entry-level drafting (i.e., computer-aided drafting) jobs at local architectural firms. Table 1 illustrates the characteristics of the two interviewed community college drafting graduates (see Appendix A).
Data from the interviews were interpreted with respect to each of the following areas associated with employee sense of power: organizational socialization, relevance of job to career plans, degree of access to resources and participation in decision-making.
The subsequent discussion reveals how the two respondents perceived their involvement with the following areas associated with employee sense of power: organizational socialization, relevance of job to career plans, degree of access to resources and participation in decision-making. Respondent insights concerning organizational socialization are categorized and discussed in relationship to their experiences with early expectations, job congruence, organizational commitment and learning the ropes. Related findings are likewise discussed. The information which follows was derived from interview questions based on the four areas connected with employee sense of power.
With respect to the early expectations intermediate variable, the interview data revealed that both respondents were somewhat surprised with their early work experiences. In particular, Respondent #1 (the co-op graduate) reported that more thinking, calculating and social interaction was required on the job than expected. Respondent #2 (the graduate without co-op experience) indicated that early work experiences were easier and more relaxed than anticipated.
Information concerning the job congruence intermediate variable suggests that both respondents were generally well matched with their drafting jobs. However, the two drafting graduates indicated a desire to advance in their work and become more involved with design responsibilities.
The two respondents revealed diverse views concerning their organizational commitment to the companies at which they were employed. Overall, Respondent #1 (the co-op graduate) expressed a higher level of organizational commitment than Respondent #2. The main indicator of such commitment was that Respondent #1 reported spending much more time and effort on job assignments than required in contrast to Respondent #2.
Both respondents reported that they were good at learning the ropes in their drafting jobs. The interview data did not suggest that either of the respondents held an advantage over the other with respect to this intermediate variable. However, one major difference was detected concerning how the two respondents initially learned the ropes. More precisely, Respondent #2 (the graduate without co-op experience) initially relied upon a trainer to help learn the ropes.
In regards to the relevance of job to career plans variable, the two respondents disclosed that their drafting jobs were relevant to their overall career goals. This disclosure was especially evident in the interview data of Respondent #1 (the co-op graduate). Although the respondents held positive views about their drafting jobs, both expressed the desire for advancement.
Interview data for the degree of access to resources measure revealed similarities as well as differences between the two respondents. For example, both respondents reported having a high degree of access to the following types of resources: information, equipment and co-worker resources. On the other hand, Respondent #1 (the co-op graduate) reported having more access to supervisor and authority resources than Respondent #2.
Differences were detected between the co-op graduate and the graduate without co-op experience for the measure concerning participation in decisionmaking. More precisely, Respondent #1 (the co-op graduate) reported having a higher degree of input into decisions related to the work environment than the graduate without co-op experience.
Additional interviewing disclosed that both respondents highly value the educational strategy of experiencing one’s chosen profession during community college. In particular, Respondent #1 (the co-op graduate) reported various benefits realized as the result of personal co-op involvement. While apparently unfamiliar with the cooperative education concept, Respondent #2 (the graduate without co-op experience) expressed the desire to have gained exposure to the drafting field while attending community college. Although these additional findings are not directly linked to the four measures associated with employee sense of power, they do provide meaningful insights about co-op and/or workrelated experience for community college drafting students.
A quantitative study was also carried out to help make sense of the interview results. This part of the investigation made use of a casual-comparative research strategy. This method of inquiry often referred to as ex-post facto research, “attempts to determine the cause, or reason, for existing differences in the behavior or status of groups of individuals” (Gay, 1987, p. 542). A questionnaire similar to Brown (1984) was used to obtain information from drafting graduates to determine if co-op graduates reported a greater sense of workplace power than non co-op drafting graduates. Means on the scales described earlier were analyzed using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique (Owen & Clark, 2001). The analysis encountered a small sample problem that obfuscates the meaning of the significance statistics.
Two North Carolina community colleges furnished a list of recent graduates from 1992 to 1999 for this investigation. Graduates who fell outside the parameters of the selection criteria were not utilized. Graduates who did not work in the drafting field after they graduated or graduates who acquired other degrees after graduation prior to attaining employment in the drafting field were excluded from the study. This procedure focused the sample population on drafting graduates employed at their first job after graduation. In particular, a total of 67 questionnaires were sent to the drafting graduates from the two selected North Carolina community colleges for the years 1992 to 1999. From the 67 questionnaires sent to graduates of the two community colleges, the total number of eligible participants was 37: 13 with no coop experience and 24 with co-op experience.
Twenty-four co-op graduates and 13 non co-op graduates responded to the survey, or a total of 37 out 67, for a 55% response rate In the co-op cluster, 18 of the graduates were male while 6 were female. Of this group, 20 were white and 4 non-white. The nonco-op cluster consisted of 10 males and 3 females. All 13 members of this group were white. Age differences between the group of co-op graduates and graduates without co-op experience are evident in the demographics of the study participants. As the following table illustrates, the age of the co-op graduates was generally younger than the graduates without co-op experience. Small sample sizes restricted the controlling of this important factor. Table 2 provides the demographics of the study participants (see Appendix B).
Table 3 provides the means for each scale for co-op and non co-op participants. The ANOVAs are confounded by the small sample for both groups, especially the non-co-op. Using a level of statistical significance of p. < .05, none of the tests reached this level of significance. The problem stems from the small samples. The lack of statistically significant results does not mean that there is not some useful interpretation of the data. By scanning the means between groups several observations can be made that have practical significance. First the co-op graduates reported lower means on 5 of the seven scales and had higher levels of agreement on two. In particular, the two scales that revealed higher means for the co-op graduates were organizational commitment and degree of access of resources. Although not statistically significant, these two areas may provide a direction for future research involving much larger samples (see Appendix C).
In order to examine the small groups of community college drafting graduates required for this investigation, a case-study approach was utilized. It was known from the beginning of the research that appropriate sample sizes would likely not be available to the author. However, by using carefully constructed case-study procedures supported by a quantitative study, it was believed that meaningful findings could be achieved. The lack of previous studies on this topic also contributed toward the decision to proceed with this research.
The lack of adequate sample sizes associated with this investigation did not allow for an appropriate comparison regarding co-op experience and employee sense of power with respect to the particular graduates used in this inquiry. Another limitation of this study is that age differences existed between the two groups of graduates. In general, the co-op graduates were younger than the graduates without co-op experience. This reality suggests that the older group of non-co-op graduates may have had previous meaningful work experience although the drafting program from which they graduated did not utilize co-op. Depending on the situation, it is likely that some of the non-co-op graduates were more familiar with the world of work than the younger graduates that experienced two terms of co-op. Such age differences found in the two groups of graduates could have affected the findings of this investigation.
While statistically significant differences (p. < .05) were not detected between the small samples of community college drafting graduates, it is interesting to examine the mean scores associated with the scales and compare them with the interview findings. For example, the graduates with co-op experience reported higher mean scores for the areas concerning organizational commitment and degree of access to resources. Data from the interview component seems to support this revelation. For example, the interviews revealed that Respondent #1 (the co-op graduate) experienced a higher level of organizational commitment and access to supervisor and authority resources than Respondent #2 (the graduate without co-op experience). The similarities revealed in the findings of the interview component and quantitative studies suggest a direction for future investigation. Research into these two areas, however, should not negate investigation into the other five areas (i.e., early expectations, job congruence, learning the ropes, relevance of job to career plans and participation in decision-making) that did not report higher means for the co-op graduates in this particular study. This outlook may be especially true for the area concerning participation in decision-making. Although the quantitative study reported a higher mean score for the graduates without co-op experience on this particular measure, the interview component revealed a diverse finding. In particular, Respondent #1 (the co-op graduate) reported having a higher level of participation in decision-making than Respondent #2 (the graduate without co-op experience). Such diversity in the findings only enhances the need for further study.
Since findings from both components of this investigation were derived from small samples, resolute conclusions are inappropriate.. However, it is possible that co-op experience is positively associated with various workplace power measures in regards to this particular group of graduates. This may be especially true for the areas of organizational commitment and degree of access to resources. Based on this understanding, it is reasonable to believe that a future study comprised of a substantially larger sample of community college drafting graduates would indicate a positive relationship between co-op experience and organizational commitment and degree of access to resources. The use of larger sample sizes would allow for the age of the participants to be carefully controlled, a procedure that would likely contribute to a more positive relationship between coop experience and these areas. Additional measures associated with employee sense of power may also be positively connected to co-op experience as a result of these study enhancements.
Based on the above reasoning, it is recommended that a full qualitative investigation be undertaken to further pursue the effects of co-op on the initial employment of community college drafting graduates. In support of this investigation, it is recommended that a larger scale quantitative study based on the same measures and comprised of the same population of community college drafting graduates be conducted at a parallel time.