http://jht.sagepub.com/Tourism Research

Journal of Hospitality &

http://jht.sagepub.com/content/13/3/193The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/109634808901300319

1989 13: 193Journal of Hospitality & Tourism ResearchBonnie J. Knutson

Expectations of Hospitality Juniors and Seniors: Wave II  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  International Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education

at: can be foundJournal of Hospitality & Tourism ResearchAdditional services and information for

   

  http://jht.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://jht.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://jht.sagepub.com/content/13/3/193.refs.htmlCitations:  

at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on October 4, 2014jht.sagepub.comDownloaded from at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on October 4, 2014jht.sagepub.comDownloaded from

What is This? 

- Jan 1, 1989Version of Record >>

at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on October 4, 2014jht.sagepub.comDownloaded from at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on October 4, 2014jht.sagepub.comDownloaded from

193

EXPECTATIONS OF HOSPITALITYJUNIORS AND SENIORS: WAVE II

Bonnie J. Knutson

School of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional ManagementCollege of Business

Michigan State University

ABSTRACTThis paper presents findings from the second wave in a longitudinal study of

juniors/seniors in the School of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management atMichigan State University. Findings indicate: (1) a shift in the hierarchical rankingof the factors considered and the influences on the students’ choice of a companyfor which to work aftergraduation, (2) apprehensions about working in the hospitalityindustry which center on perceived personal inadequacies and quality-of-life issues,(3) a "push-pull" theory about reasons why students believe they might leave theirfirst company, and (4) differences in attitudes between hotel students and food-service students.

BACKGROUND

A survey is a snapshot; it provides a picture of perceptions of reality at onemoment in time. While providing valuable information, of more value is informationdrawn from a series of surveys conducted over time, i.e. a moving picture.

The &dquo;first frame&dquo; (Wave I) of a longitudinal study of students enrolled in theSchool of Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Management (HRIM) at MichiganState University (MSU), was conducted during the winter term, 1987 (Knutson,1987). This paper presents the &dquo;second frame&dquo; (Wave II) in that project. It was

designed to measure any changes in factors of influence on students, choice ofemployment and attitudes/expectations relative to that employment choice.

METHODOLOGY &dquo;

Because the 1987 study (1) uncovered major differences in attitudes/expecta-tions between underclassmen (freshmen and sophomores) and upperclassmen(juniors and seniors), and (2) the majority of recruiting activities occur during the lasttwo years of college, Wave 11 was directed towards the upperclassmen.

Self-administered questionnaires were given to students in all junior and senior

at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on October 4, 2014jht.sagepub.comDownloaded from

194

level classes during the first full week of the 1988 fall term. The instrument contained67 open- and closed-ended questions and was based on the findings from Wave Ias well as newly identified informational needs of recruiters. Faculty distributed andcollected the surveys in their respective classes. Care was taken so that no studentcompleted the survey more than once.

The 165 valid questionnaires were checked for completeness, then coded andcomputer processed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).A 20% verification check was made on (1) coding from raw data and (2) data entryinto the computer from coded data.

Frequencies and measures of central tendency were used to identify differ-ences between the groups studied in the two waves.

FINDINGSCareer Preferences

_

The desire to work in the hotel industry remained virtually constant, with 3 out

Table 1Career Preferences and Expectations

[1988 N = 165; 1987 N = 201] ] ,

at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on October 4, 2014jht.sagepub.comDownloaded from

195

of 5 students continuing to opt for this segment. Women continued to be more likelythan men to favor this side of the hospitality industry.

On the other hand, the popularity of a career in foodservice increased slightly.In the benchmark study, it was favored by about one fourth of these upperclassmen;a year latter, it was favored nearly one third. Most of the gain came from Travel andTourism. Interestingly, the gap between males and females choosing food servicewidened nearly three-fold from Wave I to Wave II. While the split was nearly equalin 1987, it jumped to 11.6% in the 1988 study, with more males planning to enterthissegment.

In Wave II, students were asked in which field they wanted to work. Operationswas the predominant choice, being chosen more frequently by those wanting to gointo foodservice. By almost a four-to-one ratio, however, Sales and Marketingattracted more students heading for the hotel field than it did their foodservice

counterparts. Overall, fewer than one in five students said they were planning to gointo either Human Resources or Accounting/Finance. This last finding may stemfrom a variety of factors. For example, in general, college students are weak in orhave a dislike for mathematics and therefore shy away from financial majors.Because the increased importance and scope of the human resource field is

relatively new, students may not be fully aware of career opportunities. Further,students may perceive the Human Resource and Accounting/Finance to be corpo-rate functions whereas they expect to enter at a unit level.

In thinking about their beginning salary, both groups increased their expecta-tions about one or two thousand dollars. In the first survey, the bulk of the studentshovered around the $20,000 mark; 18 months later, the majority had moved closerto $22,000, with the biggest jump occurring in the foodservice group. Some of thisrise might be attributed to the influence of inflation. Another contributing factor couldbe student awareness of the critical labor shortage in the hospitality industry.Perhaps, recalling price as a function of supply and demand, they are raising theirsalary expectations. This point finds support in the dramatic shift in the likelihood thatthey would reject a job offer if the salary range were less than anticipated.

The one year anniversary remains the presumed time for the first promotion.

Selecting a Company for which to WorkThere are many things people consider when deciding whether or not they

should join a particular company. In both surveys, students were asked to rate 16consideration items as to how important each is in their decision-making process.They were also asked to rate each of nine influence factors. The five most importantconsiderations and the three greatest influences are shown in Table 2.

The identification of the top five considerations across time indicate that studentdeliberations have present and future components. For instance, having interestingwork to do is more immediate in nature whereas gaining increasing responsibility andbeing promoted are more future directed. Wanting a good training program haselements of each dimensions.

The rankings further imply that, in general, students continue to considerobjective components more important than subjective components. To illustrate, the

at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on October 4, 2014jht.sagepub.comDownloaded from

196

Table 2

Selecting a Company for Which to Work[1988 N =165; 1987 N = 201 ] ,

‘ *1988 = Combined Responses: Much/Some Influence1987 = Combined Responses: Very Important/Important

more subjective needs of wanting to feel a part of things and being appreciated forwork done were the only ones to make the list and they were in last place.

Regarding the consideration items, data shows a shift in the hierarchical rankingfor the two student segments. For those who are hotel bound, the desire forinteresting work as well as increasing responsibility showed small drops in impor-tance while the worth of a good training program gained 8.8% and rose from 5th to2nd place.

Forthose who are planning to enter food service, the changes are more striking.Not only is there an entirely new order, but the overall level of importance droppedfor the five items. In the first survey, four out of the five were judged to be importantconsideration by at least 90% of the sample. By the second measure, only theInteresting Work retained its high level of support. The most dramatic drop is foundin Growth and Promotion. Said to be an important consideration by virtually all of the1987 food service group, only 80% expressed the same opinion in 1988-a drop ofnearly 20%. Although it retained its third place ranking, there was a similar sharpdrop in the percentage of food service students who said Increasing Responsibilityis an important consideration for them-falling from 95 to 80%.

Because the question about what influences students was worded differently inthe two studies, the percentages cannot be compared. What can be compared,however, are the relative rankings of the three leading influences on students whenthey are choosing a company for which to work.

Of this trio of factors, two are integral to the company and one to the students’academic experiences. The reputation or image enjoyed by the company is clearlythe most important of the factors. Whether that reputation is formed in the student’s

at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on October 4, 2014jht.sagepub.comDownloaded from

197

mind through personal encounters, from hearsay or through various forms of media,the student’s perception of the hotel or restaurant company obviously plays aprincipal role in his/her decision-making process. The recruiter, as a personificationof the company, has a lesser, but still important, influence on the student’s selection.

The intense hands-on experience of MSU’s required 800 hours of internshipmaintains its influence on students’ decisions about company selection. For thoseinterested in foodservice careers, it exchanged rank positions with companyrecruiters second to third.

Beginning Their Careers in the Hospitality IndustryGraduates are generally excited and optimistic about starting their career paths.

But they apparently do have certain apprehensions about working in the hospitality

Table 3Attitudes About Beginning Their Jobs .

[1988 N = 165]

at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on October 4, 2014jht.sagepub.comDownloaded from

198

industry. Responses to questions added in Wave 11 reveal the students’ concernsabout two areas. See Table 3.

The first centers on quality of life issues. Although they understand long hoursare an integral part of the hospitality industry, these future hoteliers and food servicemanagers are most anxious about the required time commitment they are making.To an open-ended question, about a quarter of each segment said they were scaredby the long hours they know they will work. As a result, many, particularly those infoodservice, fear they will &dquo;burn out&dquo; or won’t have enough time for a personal life.Many voiced this latter concern relative to the future when marriage and/or childrenare part of their lives. In a similar vein, the uneasiness of having to continuallyrelocate surfaced, again, particularly as a future family issue.

The second area about which students are scared centers on perceivedpersonal inadequacies. Those entering the foodservice sector are expresslyconcerned about not being sufficiently prepared or not being good enough tosucceed. While more than 9 out of 10 think they’re at least somewhat prepared togo into the industry, only a third feel very well prepared. At the same time, this groupbelieves they can work well under pressure; nearly half said they worktheir best whilethey are subject to tension.

More than 9 out of 10 hotel students likewise feel prepared to go into theirindustry, with half believing they are very well prepared. Subsequently, they wereless likely to express fear of failing or being inadequate to handle their jobrequirements. Further, while they say they work well under pressure, more of thisgroup doesn’t really like to be placed in that type of situation.

By the time these students are upperclassmen, they have completed their 800hours of Internship; most have worked in some aspect of the hospitality industry to .

earn money for college; many have even gone through job interviews and may haveeven accepted a position for after graduation. Still they have expressed theseapprehensions. Even with their anxieties, the students are still pleased with theirdecision to work in some aspect of the hospitality industry. Those going intofoodservice operations are especially satisfied-a point which seems to be reflectedin their expectation that they will still be working in the industry five years from now.

This look into the future is an especially critical one for both hospitality educatorsand the industry. It takes fourto five years for a student to complete a college degreein hospitality management. If that is added to a five year view into the future, thereis a combined ten year education/industrytime/recourse investment in each student.In this light, it is important to look at three findings. First, overall, about one out of fourgraduates expect to leave the hospitality field within the next five years. Secondly,there is a marked difference in this expectation based upon industry segment. Thehotel industry can expect to lose about one third of its graduate hires, whereas thefoodservice companies can anticipate losing only one tenth. Third, neither hospital-ity education nor the hospitality industry can afford such losses.

Why They Will Leave Their First CompanyThe hospitality industry, in general, must worry about losing these graduates

at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on October 4, 2014jht.sagepub.comDownloaded from

199

Table 4 -

Leave First Company( 1988 N = 165]

within five years; just as importantly, individual hotel and foodservice companiesmust worry about losing them too. In today’s work environment, it is more commonfor employees to change companies than it once was. The findings presented inTable 4 show that this is also the case with future hospitality managers.

While it is encouraging that most students expect to stay with their first companyas long as they feel they are being &dquo;treated right,&dquo; it is discouraging that 16.6% of hotelstudents and 27.5% foodservice students expect to leave their first company withinthree years after graduation. Looking at the five-year mark, these figures jump tomore than one third (36.4%) of the hotel group and nearly half (45.1 %) of thefoodservice set.

Analysis of the reasons given for expecting to leave the first company points toa &dquo;push-pull&dquo; theory of causes. In other words, responses to open-ended questionssuggest that tomorrow’s hospitality managers are more likely to leave because theyare &dquo;pushed&dquo; out by a myriad of factors which include : (1 ) not being able to see afuture with timely promotions and salary increases, more challenging responsibili-ties, and professional growth, (2) poor working conditions (long hours, too manytransfers, people they can’t get along/work with (particularly an immediate superior),and a change in the company’s philosophy or direction. In an era when the industryis peppered with mergers, acquisitions, takeovers, and leveraged buyouts, this lastpoint is meaningful.

These students don’t necessarily see themselves being recruited-i.e. &dquo;pulled&dquo;away-by another company. As would be anticipated, if an employee is happy in thework situation and sees an upwardly mobile future, he/she is less likely to be luredaway. In other words, the perception on the part of these respondents is that it would

at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on October 4, 2014jht.sagepub.comDownloaded from

200

most likely be conditions within the company which drive them to either look foremployment elsewhere or be a candidate for recruitment by another company.

At this point, it is important to recall that satisfaction is related to the relationshipbetween expectations and perceptions of reality. For students, company recruitersare an integral element in setting expectations about the work situation and careeropportunities with a given company. It is, therefore, interesting to note that only oneout of five students believe company recruiters are very realistic is describing whatit would be like working for their respective companies; another three fourths thinkcompany recruiters are only somewhat realistic. Five percent say that companyrecruiters are not at all realistic in their descriptions.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

From this study, several broad conclusions may be drawn. First, the markedvariations between the findings of the two waves support the call for longitudinalstudies made in Wave I. The value of continuing to survey upperclassmen at a majorfour year hospitality program will help determine whether the changes identified areat the beginning of a trend or are a mere aberration. A case in point is the changein relative influence of the internship experience on company selection for food-service students. If this downward movement were to continue, both industry andHRIM would have to assess the cost-benefit and component structure of theinternship program.

Second, panel studies following these same students throughout their careersin the hospitality industry would be of added value. Understanding to what degreetheir graduation expectations had or had not been met is a crucial ingredient ineducation/industry efforts to help students set realistic expectations. A first step inthis direction has been taken. A survey of one to five year graduates of MichiganState University’s HRIM School was conducted in 1987. Results of the study arefound elsewhere in this journal (Knutson, 1989).

Finally, there appears to be explicit differences between students who plan togo into the hotel field and those planning a career in food service operations. Thesedifferences must be more thoroughly researched and analyzed. An improvedunderstanding of similarities and dissimilarities between these two student seg-ments should lead to more targeted recruiting efforts for industry and more effectiveprograms for hospitality education.

REFERENCES

Knutson, Bonnie J. (1989). Hospitality Alumni Survey: Were Their Expectationsas Graduates Met as Industry Employees? Hospitality Education andResearch Journal, 13 (2).

Knutson, Bonnie J. (1988). Hospitality Student Survey: Measures of Influenceson and Expectations for Post-Graduate Employment. HospitalityEducation and Research Journal, 11 (2).

at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on October 4, 2014jht.sagepub.comDownloaded from

201

McCleary, Ken W. and Weaver, Pamela A. (1988). Expectations of HospitalityStudents Regarding Entry Level Positions in the Hospitality Industry.Hospitality Education and Research Journal, 12 (2).