Chapter 21: Hospitality Practitioner Satisfaction Factors to Interns and an Internship Program in Taiwan
Yi-Fan Tung
Yi-Fan Tung, Department of Leisure Industry and Health Promotion, National Ilan University
Abstract
This chapter aims to discover hospitality practitioner satisfaction factors affecting interns and internship programs in Taiwan. A qualitative approach is adopted using in-depth semi structured interviews. The study revealed three main hospitality practitioner satisfaction factors for interns that included work ethic, team work, and initiative. In addition, the three main hospitality practitioner satisfaction factors for internship programs emerged that included cooperation, duration and mentoring. The findings of this study will benefit interns, university internship programs and hotel practitioners.
Keywords: Hospitality practitioner, Satisfaction, Interns, Internship program
Introduction
Taiwan offers two types of universities, traditional general universities and more specialised universities of science and technology. According to Huang et al (2008: 3) the general university model follows the “orthodox-education system” combines academic research, undergraduate teaching, extension course and social service. The science and technology university system has a stronger focus on technical education and research in order to continue to ensure the continued sufficiency of manpower to meet the economy’s demands. Both types of universities offer tourism and hospitality programs and both recognize the importance of practical training for students. As a result, almost every university develops internship programs and requires students to finish them before graduation. Generally speaking, the duration of internships in most general universities is either two to three months of full time employment taken over the summer, or 320 hours of part-time employment taken over the course of a year. Internships in universities of science and technology are typically longer, lasting from six months to one year as a full-time employee.
Internship programs involve three parties: students, schools and industry partners. Successful internship programs benefit all three. However, these three parties may view the benefits differently, and have different expectations and perceptions (Beggs, Ross, & Goodwin, 2008; Beggs, Ross, & Knapp, 2006; Yiu & Law, 2012; Waryszak, 1999). The differences between expectations and perceptions could lead to a satisfying or dissatisfying experience (Lam & Ching, 2007). In order to fulfil the benefits of all, students, schools and industry partners’ expectations, perceptions and satisfactions toward internship need to be understood and taken consideration.
Some studies have explored and examined internship from students’ perspectives. Jenkins (2001) stated that students often perceive internship programs as poorly organized and unstructured, and complain about the quality of their experiences. Beggs et al. (2008) revealed that students and industry practitioners had significantly different perceptions regarding intern skills, the role of the intern, responsibilities that interns should be given, and factors to consider in selecting an internship. Luo and Lam (2019) discovered that work experience, monetary benefit, human resource policies, language and time are important factors determining the satisfaction or otherwise of students towards coop programs.
Little research, though, has focused on industry partners’ perspectives toward interns and internship program. Fong, Lee, Luk, & Law (2014) suggest the need exists to investigate industry practitioners’ perspectives on internship, in order to detect problems to improve the design and execution of internship programs. This study fills that gap by discovering hospitality practitioner satisfaction factors for interns and internship programs in Taiwan. Moreover, it seeks to focus on drawing out factors and suggesting practical actions arising from them.
Method
This research adopted a qualitative approach using in-depth, semi structured interviews (Bryman, 2016). Hospitality practitioners’ expectations, perceptions and satisfaction were summarized and quotes were used to illustrate key themes. The most important consideration in qualitative sampling is the ability to describe the salient characteristics of respondents and not to focus on trying to gather a ‘representative’ sample or scale (Holloway & Galvin, 2016; Ritchie, Lewis, Nicholls & Ormston, 2014). Therefore, purposive sampling selection was adopted to identify managerial-level hospitality practitioners who were involved with industry internships in a wide range of sectors. The interview questions were based on the following research objectives:
(1) What are your expectations for interns and internship programs?
(2) What are your perceptions for interns and internship programs?
(3) What are your satisfying/dissatisfying aspects of interns and internship programs?
(4) Any suggestions for interns and internship programs?
One-on-one face-to-face interviews were conducted with hospitality practitioners either at their hotels or on the National Ilan University campus during September and October 2020. Each interview lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes. The researcher asked questions to clarify during, before or after the interviews to capture every aspect, verbal or nonverbal, of the interviewees; constant comparison method was systematically records, codes and analyse data (Glaser & Strauss, 2017). Data saturation was reached after 20 interviews. The interviews were recorded and transcribed for content analysis.
Findings and discussions
The results of the interviews with hospitality practitioners are now presented, drawing on three key factors and using illustrative quotes to amplify hospitality practitioner’s points of view.
Characteristics of Interviewees
The 20 interviewees were hospitality practitioners in a wide range of sectors from five upscale hotels. They included one resident manager and two assistant general managers in the executive operating committee, two managers and three assistant managesr from human resource departments, two managers, one assistant manager and one captain in food and beverage departments, one executive housekeeper, two assistant executive housekeepers and one captain in the housekeeping department, and two managers and two assistant managers in the leisure and recreation department. Table 1 presents the position and number of the respondents.
Table 1 Positions of the Interviewees
| Position | Hotel A | Hotel B | Hotel C | Hotel D | Hotel E | Total |
| Executive operation committee (EOC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Resident manager (RM) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Assistant general manager (AGM) |
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
2 |
| Human resource (HR) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager (M) |
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
Assistant manager (AM) |
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
3 |
| Food & beverage (F&B) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager (M) |
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
Assistant manager (AM) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Captain (C) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
| Housekeeping (HK) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Executive housekeeper (EH) |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
Assist. executive housekeeper(AEH) |
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
Captain (C) |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
| Leisure & recreation (L&R) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager (M) |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Assistant manager (AM) |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
| Total |
7 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
20 |
Hospitality Practitioner Satisfaction Factors to Intern
Participants were asked to identify the key qualities desired in interns. Three main factors emerged including work ethic, team work, and initiative. Table 2 lists these main factors and their corresponding subthemes. Taking the job seriously was identified most frequently by respondents. Practitioners appreciated interns who adjusted their mentality to work mode and were willing to assume work responsibility from the day-one of internship. Front-line managers such as a restaurant assistant manager and captain especially cared about punctuality and attendance and valued those who always worked on time and got ready before the shift. By contrast, interns who thought of the internship as nothing more than a requirement for graduation, caused dissatisfaction for everyone.
The second most frequently mentioned factor was teamwork. Hospitality work requires collaboration among a group of people who need to work as a team. Further, the job position is hierarchical with reporting lines showing order and responsibility. Interviewee 18 made the astute observation that interns were “expected to learn how to follow, in order to learn how to lead.” Practitioners especially appreciated interns who took their advice, as it made them feel rewarded and increased their satisfaction of advising interns (Interviewee 20). In the hospitality industry, staff work closely with each other and require a high degree of collaboration. As a result, Interviewee 5 stated interns were expected to have good communication skills with peers and supervisors in order to get the job done well. Good communications’ ability influenced job performance which in turn influenced the hospitality practitioner’s satisfaction with the intern.
Initiative was the third most frequently mentioned satisfaction factor. Hospitality practitioners looked for interns to learn skills and knowledge eagerly around their work because it would help them do a better job. Interviewee 6 said “I like interns who show interest in the details of job and a desire to learn from me.” Interns were expected to take action autonomously to facilitate their peers and managers without asking for help. Interviewee 19 said “I appreciated the intern who was willing to assist peers voluntarily.”
Table 2 Results of content analysis on satisfaction factors to intern
| Theme | Subthemes | EOC | HR | F&B | HK | L&R | |||||||
| RM | AGM | M | AM | M | AM | C | M | AM | C | M | AM | ||
| Work ethic | Mentality, readiness to work | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| Work responsibility | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Attendance | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Teamwork | Follow the leader | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Listen to advice | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| Good communication | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Initiative | Eager to learn | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Take action autonomously | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Hospitality Practitioner Satisfaction Factors to Internship program
Participants were then asked to identify key success factors for internship programs as a whole. Again, three main factors emerged, including cooperation, duration and mentoring. Table 3 lists these factors and their corresponding subthemes. Cooperation was the most frequently mentioned satisfaction factor. All interviewees from human resource departments and senior managers mentioned that establishing school partnerships needed a lot of effort. Therefore, they sought long-term school partnerships rather than short-term ones. Instead of establishing new relationship with internship programs, they preferred to work with programs where they had past experience of cooperation. In addition, building a dialogue channel or platform between the school and the industry partner led to higher satisfaction for hospitality practitioners. Interviewee 19 stated that “I like to have periodical meetings with school internship program leader or supervisor to report and discuss the situation of interns. It would help us to solve some issues and improve learning and performance of interns”.
Duration of internships was the second most frequently mentioned factor. Many interviewees mentioned that they liked longer duration internships of up to one-year more so than summer internship programs. Interviewee 12 stated that “if we had choices, we would choose one-year or longer internship program only. The summer internship program is simply too short. Students cannot learn much in a couple of months and would not help us much.” Hospitality practitioners would pay more attention on the one-year interns than the summer interns. Increasing the duration may also improve their attitude toward internship programs.
The third most frequently mentioned factor was mentoring. Interviewees stated that they expected internship programs to prepare interns and make sure interns were ready before internships. Interviewee 17 stated that “a lot of interns are just like a piece blank paper. Many lack common sense. I do not think that school did a good job to prepare their students to work in industry, both mentally and professionally. This puts a lot of responsibility and pressure on us”. Hospitality practitioners appreciated that school internship program supervisors provided intern counselling during the internship, for it would comfort and stabilize interns and decrease the pressure on hospitality practitioners.
Table 3 Results of content analysis on satisfaction factors to internship program
| Theme | Subthemes | EOC | HR | F&B | HK | L&R | |||||||
| RM | AGM | M | AM | M | AM | C | M | AM | C | M | AM | ||
| Cooperation | Long-term school partnership | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Communication mechanism | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Duration | One-year duration internship | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Mentoring | Before internship mentoring | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| During internship mentoring | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Conclusion and implications
This study discovered several hospitality practitioner satisfaction factors for interns and internship programs in Taiwan. Based on the interviews with staff from various departments in the hotel sector, three main factors emerged that affected hospitality practitioner satisfaction with interns: good work ethic, teamwork, and initiative. Three other factors influenced a satisfactory internship program: a high level of cooperation, duration and mentoring.
This research makes several important contributions. To begin, it is one of the few studies that has focused on the needs of industry. The findings may facilitate future research to build models or conceptual frameworks. In addition, it may benefit interns by having them be able to understand factors which are of concern to hospitality practitioners. Interns need to pay attention to work ethic such as work responsibility, attendance and mental readiness; teamwork such as following the lead, listening to advice, and communicating well; and initiative such as being eager to learn and taking action autonomously. The findings serve like a guideline and reminder of attitude and behaviour for interns.
In addition, these findings may also facilitate university internship administrators to advise students before and during internship. Internship administrators need to maintain a healthy and enduring relationship with industry partners since establishing a new partnership is harder than maintaining an existing one. Moreover, maintaining proper communication mechanism between industry and school partner are good for a health and lasting partnership, as practitioners appreciate periodical communication to report intern situations and solve intern issues to each other.
The findings suggest one-year duration internship is more popular than short or summer internship for hospitality practitioners. Hospitality practitioners perceive longer-term interns are more productive and accountable. Moreover, they can be treated as full-time staff, enabling practitioners to make more of an effort on intern training and giving them more responsibilities on long-term interns. Given, this model is not adopted in many universities, though, the finding suggest there is a need to adjust the curriculum to develop longer duration internship.
References
Beggs, B., Ross, C.M., & Goodwin, B. (2008). A comparison of student and practitioner perspectives of the travel and tourism internship. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 7(1), 31-39.
Beggs, B.A., Ross, C.M., & Knapp, J.S. (2006). Internships in leisure services: An analysis of student and practitioner perceptions and expectations. Schole, 21, 1-20.
Bryman, A. Social Research Methods; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016.
Fong, H. N., Lee, H., Luk, C., & Law, R. (2014). How do hotel and tourism students select internship employers? Asegmentation approach. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 15(1), 68-79.
Fox, T. (2001). A sense of place. Caterer and Hotelkeeper, 189 (4160).
Glaser, B.; Strauss, A (2017). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research; Routledge: Abingdon, UK.
Holloway, I.; Galvin, K. (2016) Qualitative Research in Nursing and Healthcare; John Wiley & Sons: West Sussex, UK.
Huang, C., Yuan, Y., Huang, C. (2008). Differences between public and private institutions of Taiwan’s HTVE system in determinants of competitiveness. US-China Education Review. 5(7): 1- 12.
Jenkins, A. K. (2001). Making a career of it? Hospitality students’future perspectives: An Anglo-Dutch study. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(1), 13-20.
Lam, T. & Ching, L. (2007). An exploratory study of an internship program: The case of Hong Kong students. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(2), 336-351.
Luo, J. M. & Lam, C. (2019). Qualitative Analysis of Satisfying and Dissatisfying Factors in a University-Industry Cooperation Programme. Education Sciences. 9. 10.3390/educsci9010056
Ritchie, J.; Lewis, J.; Nicholls, C.M.; Ormston, R. (2014). Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers; Sage: London, UK.
Waryszak, R. Z., (1999). Student’ expections from their cooperative education placements in the hospitality industry: an international perspective. Education and Training, 41(1), 33-40.
Yiu, M. & Law, R. (2012). A Review of Hospitality Internship: Different Perspectives of Students, Employers, and Educators, Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 12:4, 377-402, DOI: 10.1080/15313220.2012.729459