INTRODUCTION
Hospitality internship programs have a long tradition in Greece. As early as in the mid-1950s, the first students from ASTER (School of Tourism Professions: Educational Establishment of Higher Education in Rhodes) attended their practical training programs in luxury hotels in Rhodes, and soon these programs spread in popular tourism destinations all over Greece. Most of these internships took place in the state-owned Xenia luxury hotels; after graduation those students progressed to senior managerial positions in the luxury hospitality sector. This was in effect until the early 1980s where dramatic changes occurred both in the tourism industry and hospitality curricula in the country. The era of mass tourism raised the demand for more qualified staff in hospitality; as a result the government upgraded with European Community funds the existing vocational training centres to today"s Technological Educational Institutes (T.E.I.), equivalent to British Polytechnics at that time; the first students from T.E.I."s hospitality and tourism internship programs appear in the mid-1980s. In the 1990s, the first graduates from private higher education hospitality program participated in internship programs. More recently, since the early 2000s, an influx of students from Eastern European countries and an increasing number of student grievances for exploitation on behalf the hoteliers has resulted to the introduction of a new legislation on internships in 2010.
Today, six decades after the first internship students appeared as trainees in luxury hotels in Greece, it is more important than ever to ensure that our graduates will not only decide
1Address correspondence to Evangelia Marinakou: Royal University for Women, Bahrain to follow a career in this profession, but also will be able to compete in a turbulent and constantly changing global environment. Internships have the potential to provide multiple benefits for the participant students such as the development of practical skills that cannot be taught in class environment i.e. dealing with difficult customers and using specialized equipment (Zopiatis & Constanti, 2007). On the other hand, a practical training program is a first class opportunity for students to acquire and exercise managerial competencies by observation and practice (Tse, 2010). Practical training has been found by Marinakou et al. (2012) to increase student satisfaction and enhance the learning experience.
This study aims at investigating how hospitality students in Greece perceive their experiences during their practical training. More specifically it focuses on the following objectives: 1) to understand the internship experience from the student perspective; 2) to explore the factors that create student satisfaction and dissatisfaction; and 3) to explore students" expectations from their internships.
Literature Review
Hospitality internship research appears in literature in the late 1980s when the first students from hospitality and tourism university undergraduate programs in the U.S.A. and the U.K. respectively participated in internship programs; these are described with a variety of names such as placements, supervised work experience (SWE), workintegration education and practicum. From the very beginning this experiential form of learning was viewed as a golden opportunity for students to integrate and consolidate thinking and action (Davies, 1990). Nevertheless, during the 1990s a considerable number of discrepancies are highlighted in most of the Anglo-American studies, at a time when the industry suffered from a rather poor image due to the unfavorable working conditions and low pay compared with other sectors (Jenkins, 2001; Leslie & Richardson, 2000; Patterson & George, 2001). Despite the considerable amount of discrepancies reported from the internship stakeholders (students, academic institutions and employers), there is a unanimous view of internships as a critical factor in the successful completion of hospitality curricula and the smooth transition of student to the real world of work (Lam & Ching, 2007; Richardson, 2009). Collins (2002:93) argues that internships are not supplemental components of hospitality curricula, "but an essential collegiate experience component". Zopiatis (2007) suggests that the success or failure of the various internship programs, determines the volume and quality of the hospitality graduates and the future leaders of this sector.
In the new millennia, a number of studies outside the Anglo-American context explored the challenges created from the introduction and implementation of internship programs in different cultural settings i.e. Australia (Richardson, 2008); Cyprus (Zopiatis, 2007); Greece (Christou, 1999); Hong Kong (Lam & Ching, 2007); Malaysia (Austin, 2002); Taiwan (Chen & Shen 2012); South Korea (Kim & Park, 2013); The Netherlands (Akomaning et al., 2011); Turkey (Collins, 2002). Despite the cultural dichotomy that divides the individualistic western world from the largely collective eastern cultures (van "t Klooster et al., 2008), a number of themes appear to be common in hospitality internship research. This practically means that hospitality students face common challenges during their practical training in the industry regardless their background. Thus, hospitality students are mostly concerned with the capitalization of their internship as the main gateway to their first job (Collins, 2002), the working conditions (Richardson, 2008), relationship with colleagues and supervisors (Kim & Park, 2013), taking responsibility (Waryszak, 1999) and preparing themselves for the real world of work (Zopiatis, 2007). Although it is normal due to cultural and contextual conditions to expect different views, it is very important to acknowledge that most of the problems created before, during and after the implementation of an internship program, appear to have common roots.
Most of the existing research indicates that students view internships as a unique opportunity to land on their first job, since this valuable qualification will help them enter the job market faster and easier (Charles, 1992; Collins, 2002). Choosing a career in hospitality though appears to be problematic, especially after the completion of an internship program. Some argue that students do not have realistic expectations regarding the work itself in hospitality (Downey & DeVeau, 1988); this fact quite often creates a gap between expectations and the actual perception of the internship experience (Lam and Ching, 2007; Tse, 2010; Waryszak, 1999). As a result, a considerable amount of graduates decide to seek employment in other sectors (Barron, 2008; Jenkins, 2001; Zopiatis, 2007). Student experiences from their internship participation may be positive or negative depending on a number of moderating factors and their expectations. On the one hand, interns value high the social climate, referring to the interactions with colleagues and supervisors (Kin & Park, 2013; Waryszak, 1999). Additionally they appreciate working in a professional environment that encourages experiential learning and practicing new skills (Lam & Ching, 2007). The successful completion of an internship program improves the students" self-confidence, encourages them to develop and participate in professional networks, and enhances their understanding of the industry itself (Zopiatis, 2007).
On the other hand, the most common factors that create dissatisfaction and decreased motivation of interns are found to be poor or no pay, poor employee-supervisor relations, poor communication, lack of co-ordination and disorganized work environment, limited or no delegation, long working hours and overall a hectic working environment (Collins, 2002; Lam & Ching, 2007). Students assign a great share of responsibility for the problems created during their internship program to the receiving company; more specifically there are grievances that small firms and/or family businesses are using students as cheap labour in order to cope with seasonal demands (Miner & Crane, 1995; Taylor, 2004). There are also complaints that full time staff and managers, are not properly trained and prepared in order to enhance and contribute to the overall student experience during the internship (Akis Roney & Öztin, 2007). Hospitality interns also propose that their schools/departments are not very well prepared to design, monitor and manage these programs (Zopiatis, 2007). It is also argued that educational institutes fail to prepare students adequately in order to cope with the challenges and demands of work in this sector (Lam & Ching, 2007). It seems that the role of the internship coordinator is critical for the success or failure of an internship; the inadequate emphasis and planning in this position for a number of factors such as heavy workloads or lack of industry knowledge may cause negative impact to an entire internship program (McMahon & Quinn, 1995; Beggs et al., 2008).
Based on the existing research and building on Lam and Ching"s (2007) findings, it is argued that measuring and understanding students" perceptions against their expectations on their internship programs is of paramount importance. A good or bad experience can determine the student"s decision to continue his/her career in the hospitality and tourism industry after graduation (Waryszak, 1999). The talent hemorrhage is no longer an option for the hospitality sector, since its continuous growth is not analogous to the new graduates entering this market (Giousmpasoglou, 2012). Given the paucity of research in this area despite the long history of hospitality and tourism education in this country, an exploratory research was conducted in this study in order to investigate the internship experience in the context of the Greek hospitality industry. Further, tourism plays a vital role in the country"s economy, thus qualified and trained employees are required to provide a series of diversified quality services. Based on this necessity, internships may provide the basis for the development of professionals and future managers. Building on Parasuraman"s et al. (1988) research on customer satisfaction, three constructs were measured: students" expectations, students" perceptions, and their overall satisfaction towards internship programs in the Greek hospitality sector.
Methodology
For the purpose of this study a questionnaire was designed based on extensive review of the literature on student satisfaction and expectations from internships. A selfadministered questionnaire was created and it was pilot tested with ten tourism and hospitality students who had just completed a three month internship in Greece during the summer 2011. Content validity (Zikmund, 2002) was employed to examine items and provide feedback for greater clarity and alignment with construct dimensions in the study. Although all participants were Greek nationals, the questionnaire was in English so little or no changes were required and thus a final version was created. The structured selfadministered questionnaire included five sections. Section one included questions on demographic information. In section two students were asked to rate certain aspects of their experience during the internship on a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from "Always" to "Never" (5). Section three examined the student"s employability options and section four measured the overall internship experience with a single-item instrument developed by Van de Ven and Ferry (1980) on a 10-point scale ranging from "Terrible" (1) to "Excellent" (10). Section four measured student"s likes, dislikes and expectations from their internship, in which students were required to choose their most preferred among a list of factors that emerged from the literature review. In order to identify any other factors that were not included in the previous sections, section five asked the students to comment on their internship experience. This qualitative data was cross tabulated with the findings of the quantitative data.
The questionnaires were distributed to hospitality and tourism students in private (two) and public (two) higher education institutions in Greece that had to undertake an internship as part of their curriculum and had already completed that. Although convenience sampling technique was used, the sample was representative of the population as students from all types of higher educational institutions that offer hospitality and tourism programs within Greece were used. In total 125 questionnaires were distributed and 116 students returned the questionnaire, with a response rate of 92.8 percent. The questionnaire was distributed in the classroom by lecturers who agreed to participate in the study and they explained the students the purpose of the study and the procedures on its completion.
Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the data and determine any statistically significant opinions and factors that contribute to student satisfaction from internships in hotels. The results are discussed in the following section.
Findings and discussion
For testing the reliability of the findings Cronbach"s alpha tests were conducted on all variables and they varied between 1 and 0 assuming that the data is reliable (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). All tests were above 0.7, .731 which is considered satisfactory (Sekaran, 2003) and confirmed the reliability and the validity of the instrument used for the study. For all statistical tests an alpha level of 0.05 was used. The sample included a balanced participation regarding gender with as male students were 52.6% and female 47.4%. Since the participants were all undergraduate students between 18 and 24 years old, it was decided not to include age in demographics. Participation from private and public institutions was almost equal, with the latter providing slightly more participants (53.4%). Most students (69%) were on the first or second year of study (during their internship). It has to be noticed that only 2 out of 4 participant institutions provide a 4 year program, a fact that justifies the low senior (4th year) student participation. More than half of the student internships (51.7%) took place in Rhodes and Crete two of the most popular tourist destinations in Greece. Table 1 shows the demographic data of the participants in the study.
Table 1: Profile of the participants
| Variable | Frequency (%) | Variable | Frequency (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Institution | |||
| Male | 61 (52.6) | University (private, 2) | 54 (46.6) | |
| Female | 55 (47.4) | TEI (public) | 21 (18.1) | |
| ASTER (public) | 41 (35.3) | |||
| Hotel Location | ||||
| Athens | 20 (17.2) | Year of Study | ||
| Thessaloniki | 10 (8.6) | First | 37 (31.9) | |
| Rhodes – Kos | 37 (31.9) | Second | 43 (37.1) | |
| Crete | 23 (19.8) | Third | 15 (12.9) | |
| Cyclades | 11(9.5) | Fourth | 21 (18,1) | |
| Other | 15 (12.9) | |||
Further, comparisons of means were conducted to investigate the value students place at their internship experience. Table 2 shows details on students" evaluation of their work experience.
Table 2: Work experience evaluation
| Variable | Always | Usually | Sometimes Rarely | Never | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freq.(%) | Freq.(%) | Freq.(%) | Freq.(%) | Freq.(%) | x | SD | |
| Meaningful tasks | 55(47.4) | 35(30.2) | 20(17.2) | 6(5.2) | 0 | 1.80 | .906 |
| Relevance to my studies | 48(41.4) | 38(32.8) | 20(17.2) | 8(6.9) | 2(1.7) | 1.95 | 1.012 |
| Relevance to my interests | 54(46.6) | 32(27.6) | 22(19) | 8(6.9) | 0 | 1.86 | .959 |
| Supervision | 46(39.7) | 43(37.1) | 14(12.1) | 10(8.6) | 2(1.7) | 1.95 | 1.016 |
| Availability of staff | 74(63.8) | 28(24.1) | 6(3.2) | 8(6.9) | 0 | 1.55 | .878 |
| New knowledge | 62(53.4) | 26(22.4) | 18(15.5) | 6(5.2) | 4(3.4) | 1.83 | 1.090 |
| New skills | 52(44.8) | 32(27.6) | 20(17.2) | 8(6.9) | 4(3.4) | 1.97 | 1.103 |
| Self-knowledge | |||||||
| 48(41.4) | 34(29.3) | 22(19.0) | 10(8.6) | 2(1.7) | 2 | 1.055 |
Notes: N=116
The overall mean value was 1.86 out of 5 (with 1 as the best response and 5 the worst), means that the overall perception of the respondents towards their experience from their internship was very favourable. More specifically the data showed that students found that they performed meaningful tasks as 47.4% agreed with this. They found their
experience relevant to their studies (41.4%) and their interests (46.6%). Further they found the supervision provided (39.7%) and the availability of staff during their internship (63.8%) as always there, in agreement to Collins (2002) suggestion that most students value the professional relationship with other members of staff. Moreover, they stated they acquired new knowledge (53.4%), new skills (44.8%) and they learned something new about themselves (41.4%). These findings affirm Chan et al. (2002) who also propose that hospitality students acquire mainly technical skills during their internships. The means showed that the majority of students believed they learned something new (x 2.0) and they acquired new skills (x 1.97).
The authors conducted also multiple response frequencies to identify the students" motivation/demotivation factors and the qualities they value most of their internship. The results are shown in table 3. It is evident from this data set that students liked firstly the professional environment at the hotels their internship took place (50.4%). This study affirms others (Akis Roney & Öztin, 2007) that students value their internship experience in forming perceptions for their future in the industry. The least liked was the flexible schedule (9.7%) mainly due to the fact that work in the hospitality industry requires long hours and there is lack of flexibility to work especially during the high season when these students did their internships. Dickerson (2009) and Girard (1999) similarly found that low pay and long working hours are less valued by interns. Akis Roney and Öztin (2007:13) affirm this and state "irregular working hours is a well-known negative characteristic of tourism employment". Additionally, students found the work interesting (40.7%) and they believe they learned a lot (47.8%), however they did not like very much that they were not paid well (28.1%). Although Riley et al. (2002 ) propose that there are occupations in tourism that are well paid, this study proposes that internships are not among these as students did not like their pay. This view is in agreement with Zopiatis and Constanti (2007) as students are not highly paid during their internships, and they do not approve the existing working conditions. Additionally, students did not like the volume of their work and sometimes they found there was lack of organisation. Moreover, others found the work boring or menial (13.5%), this is due to the fact that usually students during their internships perform routinized tasks as they are not always given the opportunity to make decisions as according to Lam and Ching (2007:348)
"managers are reluctant to empower decision-making authority to students as they are afraid of taking the risk of complaints from customers". One responded stated:
"I was placed in a position that was not included to the guidelines of my internship. I did learn several things as a "Doorman-Groom" but I didn't have the chance (and I asked for it) to go through different departments of the hotel such as the restaurant, the bar or perhaps the kitchen. I was interested on the F&B Dept. but didn't have that chance to serve tables, taking orders or serving wines and beverages. It was a bit disappointing the fact that I was given duties that didn't learn in the first year of my Tourism Academy".
The students did not feel disconnected from co-workers as this was the least in their order of preferences. Students put as first choice the learning they get from their internships (58%), and then the professional working environment (53.6%). The findings affirm Collins (2002) who suggests that internship programs provide students with knowledge and skills necessary to pursue a career in the industry. Students equally value being accepted in the teams and making valuable contacts that will help them find a job in the future. Similarly, Zopiatis (2007) suggested that students participate in professional networks. Finally, students put last in their preferences the money they can make and to gain credit for their studies.
Table 3: Students' motivation/demotivation factors and expectations frequencies
| Motivators | Freq. | Demotivators | Freq. | Expectations | Freq. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (%) | (%) | (%) | |||
| Professional | 50.4 | Not paid well | 28.1 | Learn a lot | 58.0 |
| environment | |||||
| Learned | 47.8 | Too much work | 22.9 | Professional | 53.6 |
| a lot | environment | ||||
| Interesting work | 40.7 | Disorganised work | 20.8 | Feel like part of | 36.6 |
| environment | the team | ||||
| Good supervisor | 30.1 | Not enough to do | 14.6 | Make valuable | 36.6 |
| contacts | |||||
| Made valuable | 27.4 | Work was boring or | 13.5 | Interesting work | 34.8 |
| contacts | menial | ||||
| Felt like part of | 26.5 | Not enough | 12.5 | Good supervisor | 28.6 |
| the team | supervision | ||||
| Made good | 23 | Didn"t learn | 10.4 | Like co workers | 20.5 |
| money | anything | ||||
| Liked co | 21.2 | Work was not well | 10.4 | Receive a job | 19.6 |
| workers | defined | offer | |||
| Flexible | 9.7 | Disconnected from | 8.3 | Receive school | 14.3 |
| schedule | co - workers | credit | |||
| Make good | 10.7 | ||||
| money |
N=116
Finally, students evaluated their overall experience. In order to identify whether students" evaluation of their experience influences (independent variable) the overall satisfaction (dependent variable) simple linear regression was performed. There was no statistically significance between the variables. Further, overall satisfaction was grouped in four main categories, bad (1-3), fair (4-6), very good (7-8) and excellent (9-10). The majority of students evaluated their overall experience with 8 (very good, 32.8%) and 9 (excellent, 31%). None evaluated the experience as 1 and 2, and only 1 (bad, 0.9%). Evidently the overall experience was very good. The qualitative question also affirmed this finding as for example one of the students stated "That was such a brilliant work experience actually we had the opportunity to learn enough and the team spirit was so open mind and helped me improve my abilities". Another reply was "My experience of the hotel gave me the footsteps to achieve my expectations to fulfill my career!! The hotel environment is the root to accomplish my professional dreams".
Conclusion and implications
This study investigated the factors that contribute to student satisfaction from their internships in hospitality. In addition, it explored the moderating factors (motivators/demotivators) as well as the factors students" value in their internship experience. The study shows that students overall rate their internship experience as very good. The study proposes that students value considerably the learning experience and the knowledge and skills they acquire. Thus, educational institutions should promote experiential learning and focus their studies on the practical aspect of work in the hospitality industry. Moreover, educational institutions should monitor internships as the students were not satisfied with the organisation and planning of their internships. In many cases the working conditions were negatively viewed by students. Trained
educators should participate in the learning process with evaluation and feedback of the overall learning experience as well as the working and learning environment provided at hotels for internships. As low pay, routinized tasks, the lack of decision-making, and long working hours were among the factors that influence student satisfaction, educators should prepare students on the expectations and the working culture in hospitality organisations. At the same time they should choose such establishments that offer the best possible working conditions for training students. In addition, students value their participation in professional networks, and the social interaction with colleagues at work. This interaction enhances their experiences and their interest regarding work and helps at minimizing the dissatisfaction created by the long working hours and the occasional poor organization of work. Hospitality institutions should inform students on the demands of work in the industry and other stakeholders involved in the internship should be informed on the importance of creating a learning environment for students that will enhance their perceptions of the industry and urge them to continue their career in the sector. Although, some dissatisfaction factors were identified internships play a vital role to students learning, experiences from the industry and their decision to pursue a career in the sector. Limitations of the study include the sample size and its composition. Only four higher education hospitality institutions are included in the study and only Greek students. A comparison may be conducted between Greek and non-Greek students satisfaction in order to identify any other potential factors. Further research could also be conducted to compare students" satisfaction between private and public educational institutions.