- Email: [email protected]
Internship performance and satisfaction in sports: Application of the proactive motivation model
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 18 (2016) 33–41
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhlste
Critical Perspectives
Internship performance and satisfaction in sports: Application of the proactive motivation model Wan Chen Lu a, Che-Chun Kuo b,n a
Department of Athletics, National Taiwan University, Taiwan Department of Recreation and Leisure Industry Management, National Taiwan Sport University, No. 250, Wenhua 1st Rd., Guishan, Taoyuan 33301, Taiwan b
a r t i c l e i n f o
abstract
Article history: Received 20 August 2015 Received in revised form 27 February 2016 Accepted 29 February 2016
Career-related internships are often promoted as important opportunities for college students to explore their career options and gain valuable experience (Brooks, Cornelius, Greenfield, & Joseph, 1995). Despite a reasonably large body of internships in the sport industry each year, little research has been conducted on college internship programs. The present study used the proactive motivation model (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010) as the framework for identifying the antecedents of internship performance and their satisfaction. A total of 306 college students majoring in sports were recruited as participants in the current study. The researcher gathered data from paper questionnaires and electronic surveys (e-surveys) with a two time-point design. The results indicated that self-efficacy mediated the relationship between proactive personality and internship performance as well as satisfaction. In terms of the current findings, the theoretical and practical implications of sport internship and proactivity literature are further discussed. & 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Proactive personality Self-efficacy Career exploration Intern
1. Introduction With the growing number of college institutions and graduates, career preparation has become a significant concern among university students (Choi & Kim, 2013). As such, an internship serves as an important instrument for students’ workplace learning and job searching (Brooks et al., 1995; Liu, Xu, & Weitz, 2011). To assess this resource, cooperating companies who offered internships could receive the benefits of temporary assistance from interns (Narayanan, Olk, & Fukami, 2010) and establish the most effective relationships with students and schools for job recruitment (Knouse, Tanner, & Harris, 1999; Pianko, 1996). Successful internship experiences not only improve students’ competitive advantage in the job market (Aggett & Busby, 2011) but also ease their transition into the workplace (Liu et al., 2011). They can use the internship as a screening device for future jobs (Narayanan et al., 2010) and receive higher evaluations from college recruiters than those without internship experience would receive (Taylor, 1988). These benefits are becoming increasingly relevant as the number of students engaging in internships has risen dramatically (D’abate, Youndt, & Wenzel, 2009). A survey from Zawel (2005) reported that almost 80% of all college seniors have at least one internship experience—that is 25 times the 3% participation rate in 1980. This may be because the high cost of education is increasing the pressure to find a job; thus, internships have become more popular since real-world experience may enhance recent graduates’ employability (Coco, 2000). n
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.-C. Kuo).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2016.02.003 1473-8376/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
34
W.C. Lu, C.-C. Kuo / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 18 (2016) 33–41
Although internships are becoming more widespread, internship research still requires attention when one compares it to other topics in the literature of education. Given that past studies on internships have focused mainly on business (i.e., marketing and financial; Clark, 2003), hospitality (e.g., Aggett & Busby, 2011; Chen & Shen, 2012; Hsu, 2012; Wang, Chiang, & Lee, 2014), and tourism (e.g., Kim & Park, 2013; Koc, Yumusak, Ulukoy, Kilic, & Toptas, 2014; Ruhanen, Robinson, & Breakey, 2013), little is known about internships in other fields, such as sports. In fact, compared with the attributes of internships such as hospitality and tourism, which mainly train students for service work (e.g., administration, housekeeping; Chen & Shen, 2012; Koc, Yumusak, Ulukoy, Kilic, & Toptas, 2014), sport internships often offer not only training in general services but also physical education or coaching practices involving comprehensive skills (e.g., game strategy) and the pedagogical expertise in sports (Cushion, Armour, & Jones 2003; Demers, Woodburn, & Savard 2006; O’Bryant, O’Sullivan, & Raudensky, 2000). In this regard, sport interns need to have higher self-efficacy (Dieffenbach, Murray, & Zakrajsek, 2011; Weiss, Barber, Sisley, & Ebbeck, 1991). As a consequence, internship plays an important and unique role in the sport field. It deserves more attention from both a theoretical and a practical standpoint, as it is relevant to many real-world learning situations. Overall, in recent studies on internships, we have found growing studies grounded in conceptual models in order to explain the systematic assessments of internships (D’abate et al., 2009; Narayanan et al., 2010). To date, the role of interns’ traits in influencing their job performance has received little scholarly attention. It is believed that career success is the result of individual fit between personality and working environment (Callanan & Benzing, 2004). As a result, our study attempted to extend prior research on internship performance by adopting the proactive motivation model proposed by Parker, Bindl, and Strauss (2010), which demonstrates the antecedents and motivation process variables to influence proactive outcomes; in particular, we suggested that self-efficacy is a proactive motivational mechanism between proactive disposition and outcomes. Our study contributes to the existing literature in three main aspects. First, we investigated sport internship from the proactivity perspective, which has been recognized as a beneficial approach to explaining individuals’ career development because of the rise of nonlinear careers that need people to be proactive to actively change their situations and create ideal futures (Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). Second, we introduced a motivational role called self-efficacy, which is a critical indicator in proactivity theory (Bindl & Parker, 2011; Wu & Parker, 2011) as well as in the field of sport internship (Dieffenbach et al., 2011). In addition, the current examination further expanded the external validity of the proactive motivation model in different domains. The below sections further elaborate the proactivity concept, the model of proactive motivation, and the research hypothesis.
2. Individual proactivity in career domain In today’s rapidly changing environment, an organization in the sports industry requires rapid responses to a changing external environment. Specifically, in the sport industry, services play a critical role and are receiving growing attention nowadays; sport organizations are required not only to maintain outstanding service quality but also to deliver satisfactory consumption experiences to fulfill consumers’ expectations (Chanavata & Bodet, 2014; Robinson, 2006). This would allow these organizations to create and maintain a competitive advantage. In other words, organizations would benefit from employees who actively exert the personal initiative to engage in behaviors described as individual proactivity (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). In this regard, being proactive, rather than passive, might be an essential way to develop a personal career path because proactivity concerns making things happen and aspiring and striving to change one’s situation to build an ideal future (Parker et al., 2010). Following the concept of proactivity from a dispositional perspective, proactive personality has been identified as a determinant of individual proactivity (Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008). Proactive personality is defined as a self-initiated, change-oriented, and future-focused personal trait (Griffin, Parker, & Mason, 2010; Parker et al., 2010), which is different from the five-factor model (Crant & Bateman, 2000). For the past two decades, the proactive personality has been widely applied in organizational behavior. A number of studies and meta-analysis reviews support the utility of the proactive personality in predicting work outcomes (Crant, 1995; Fuller & Marler, 2009; Kim, Hon, & Crant, 2009; Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010; Major, Turner, & Fletcher 2006; Parker & Sprigg, 1999; Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). Researchers have found that proactive personality is associated with beneficial outcomes, such as career success (Seibert et al., 1999), innovation (Seibert et al., 2001), entrepreneurship (Crant, 1996), organizational commitment (Chan, 2006), job satisfaction (Pinquart, Juang, & Silbereisen, 2003), and job performance (Crant, 1995; Thompson, 2005). Crant and Bateman (2000) indicated that proactive personality is a stable characteristic attribute across a range of activities and situations in general, including the education setting. As a result, this trait could be captured in diverse fields and be unrelated to context (Lin, Lu, Chen, & Chen, 2014). Yet, surprisingly, little research has investigated how students with proactive traits could influence pre-employment outcomes and its mechanism (Kim et al., 2009; Lin et al., 2014). The evidence of a cross-contextual personality is scarce in empirical studies. In this regard, we adopted the proactive motivation model as a framework for the current study. The proactive motivation model assumes that individual proactivity is a goal-driven process (Parker et al., 2010). It involves setting goals and aspirations and striving to bring about change to achieve a better future (Grant & Ashford, 2008). It consists of individual differences (i.e., personality and life values), contextual variables, motivation and goal processes (i.e., self-efficacy), and work context and outcomes (i.e., job performance and satisfaction) within this model. Accordingly, we suggested that individual traits such as proactive personality could influence proactive outcomes through motivational processes (Parker et al., 2006, 2010). Specifically, drawing on the theoretical and practical reasons above, we further proposed self-efficacy as a potential motivational indicator in the present study.
W.C. Lu, C.-C. Kuo / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 18 (2016) 33–41
35
3. The motivational role of self-efficacy Following the concept of the proactive motivation model, our study tried to investigate links among personality attributes, internship performance, and satisfaction through self-efficacy. Self-efficacy reflects a person’s beliefs about abilities to execute particular tasks (Bandura,1977, 1997). It could enhance an individual’s persistence and strengthen his or her willingness to defeat frustrations and obstacles (Bandura, 1997). Individuals with proactive personality have long-term perspectives and are willing to go further in the allotment of tasks in order to accomplish established goals (Parker et al., 2006). In fulfilling their ambitions, proactive individuals may seek new information and new ways of improving the status quo (Bateman & Crant, 1993), which may eventually lead to higher self-efficacy. Past studies also revealed that individuals with proactive traits could have a strong tendency toward learning, which may result in higher learning self-efficacy (Fuller & Marler, 2009). On the other hand, individuals require the feeling of confidence that comes from pursuing proactive goals and taking the consequences into consideration before they act (Parker et al., 2010). Since self-efficacy often raises one’s perceived level of control and the likelihood of success, it serves as a crucial motivation variable for facilitating individuals’ proactive work behaviors (Parker et al., 2006) and leading to greater job performance (Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott, & Rich, 2007) as well as higher satisfaction (Pinquart et al., 2003). Moreover, meta-analytic evidence from 186 articles suggested that self-efficacy is positively linked to work-related performance (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). As suggested by the “can do” motivational mechanism (Parker et al., 2010), the model of proactive motivation demonstrated that people with high proactive personality tend to believe they are capable of pursuing and achieving personal goals and aspirations, thereby possessing more metal resources in creating more positive work experiences (i.e., job performance and job satisfaction) in relation to career success. According to the above definitions, interns with proactive personality would be expected to reveal higher self-efficacy, and this would eventually lead to better career outcomes (Parker et al., 2010). Hypothesis 1. (H1): Proactive personality has a significant influence on job performance through self-efficacy. Hypothesis 2. (H2): Proactive personality has a significant influence on job satisfaction through self-efficacy. As shown in Fig. 1, we attempted to examine the link among proactive personality, internship performance, and satisfaction among students from a theoretical perspective. Specifically, our aim was to validate the mediating role of selfefficacy to interpret the relationship among proactive personality, internship performance, and satisfaction. To our knowledge, this is the first time the proactive motivation model has been applied with regard to the internship literature, and the results may provide new insights for the work experiential setting, especially in the sport domain, which highly emphasizes the necessity of self-efficacy for individuals.
4. Method 4.1. Participants and procedures The current study was intended to validate the predicted variables of job performance and job satisfaction in internships. Data were collected from surveys given to students majoring in the sport departments of four vocational colleges and universities in Taiwan. Participants joined this study voluntarily, and their confidentiality was guaranteed. Two rounds of surveys were conducted because we would like to identify the antecedents of internship performance and their satisfaction, which suggests that the directional influences between the focal variables are an imperative issue. Therefore, to clarify and confirm the directional effects between variables in this study, we collected data with two different time points instead of a single shot which just indicates the relationships (i.e., positive/negative and strong/weak correlations) between focal variables. Initially, we asked participants to report their demographics, proactive personality, and self-efficacy before internships. In this phrase, a paper survey was used to collect the data in the classrooms after the course. After the participants finished their internships, they were asked to report their expressions about work performance and their satisfaction with the internships at the second stage via e-survey. Participants’ student identification (ID) numbers were used to match the second-wave responses.
Job performance Proactive personality
Selfefficacy
Job satisfaction
Fig. 1. The conceptual model in the present study.
36
W.C. Lu, C.-C. Kuo / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 18 (2016) 33–41
From the initial 354 respondents, 48 were excluded as a result of missing ratings, leading to a final sample of 306 participants who completed both the initial and the follow-up questionnaires. The overall response rate was 86.4%. No significant difference was found between study completers and dropouts. Of the participants (n ¼306), 48.1% were male, and 93.5% were either 21 or 22 years old (M¼21.40, SD ¼.66). All participants were college seniors. They completed their internship programs primarily in sport centers, fitness clubs, athletic organizations, and recreation facilities. The participants performed their internships during the entire semester, which lasted about 6 months and paid between $3.80 and $5.00 per hour.
4.2. Measures The instruments were all translated from English to Chinese, the participants’ native language. Back-translation was also undertaken to ensure that the translation did not alter the meanings of the original measures. In addition, we conducted a pilot study before the formal survey to confirm the instrument’s validity and reliability. Control variable included participants’ gender.
4.3. Proactive personality We assessed proactive personality by using the four highest loading items on the Bateman and Crant, (1993) scale. Proactive personality was defined as the relatively stable personal disposition to effect environmental change (Bateman & Crant, 1993). A sample item is, “No matter what the odds, if I believe in something I will make it happen.” The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbach alpha was .77.
4.4. Self-efficacy We assessed self-efficacy by using Chen, Gully, and Eden’s (2001) general self-efficacy scale, which included eight items. General self-efficacy is defined as individuals’ perceptions of their ability to perform across a wide variety of achievement situations (Chen et al., 2001; Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998). A sample item is, “I am confident that I can perform effectively on many different tasks.” The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbach alpha was .92.
4.5. Job performance We measured job performance by using Podsakoff and MacKenzie’s (1989) in-role job performance scale, which includes five items. It is defined as actions specified and required by an employee’s job description (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). A sample item is, “I always complete the duties specified in my job description.” The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbach alpha was .77.
4.6. Job satisfaction We measured job satisfaction by using Judge, Parker, Colbert, Heller, and Ilies’s (2001) scale, which includes five items. Job satisfaction is defined as a positive emotional state resulting from the evaluation of individuals’ job experiences (Locke, 1976). A sample item is, “Most days I am enthusiastic about my work.” The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbach alpha was .71. Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables (N¼ 306).
1 2 3 4 5
Gender Proactive personality Self-efficacy Job satisfaction Job performance n
p o .05. p o .01.
nn
M
SD
1
2
3
4
– 5.06 5.06 4.54 5.37
– .93 .91 1.05 .97
– .12n .06 .04 .11
– .74nn .36nn .42nn
– .43nn .54nn
– .48nn
W.C. Lu, C.-C. Kuo / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 18 (2016) 33–41
37
5. Results 5.1. Descriptive analyses Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations) and intercorrelations for the study variables. The results indicated that proactive personality was positively related to self-efficacy (r¼.74, p o.01), job satisfaction (r ¼.36, p o.01), and job performance (r ¼.42, p o.01). Self-efficacy was positively related to job satisfaction (r ¼.43, p o.01) and job performance (r ¼.54, po.01). Additionally, we found that gender was related to proactive personality (r¼ .12, p o.05), suggesting that gender might confound with individual proactivity (Bindl & Parker, 2011). As such, we added gender as the control variable in the regression analysis model. 5.2. Mediation analyses To test our mediation models, a script version of the SPSS PROCESS macro was adopted for simple mediation analysis developed by Preacher and Hayes (2004), and the tests of the estimated indirect effect were also embraced (Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Zacher, Heusner, Schmitz, Zwierzanska, & Frese, 2010). Furthermore, we conducted a bootstrapping analysis (Preacher & Hayes, 2004, 2008) by re-sampling the data set for 1000 times to assure the total indirect effect. Of the criteria for the mediating examination, four steps recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986) was adopted. In the first standard (a path), the independent variable performs a direct effect on the mediator variable. The second standard requires that the mediator variable performs an effect on the outcome variable after controlling for the independent variable (b path). In the third standard (c path), the independent variable performs a total effect on the outcome variable. Finally, the effect of independent variable on outcome variable becomes significantly smaller or non-significant after controlling for mediator (i.e., direct effect; c’ path). The results of the mediation analysis are presented in Table 2 to test the relationship among proactive personality, selfefficacy, and job performance. As shown in Table 2, proactive personality (PP) had a significantly positive effect on selfefficacy (SE) (a path: B¼ .72, SE¼.04, t¼ 19.03, p o.01). Furthermore, self-efficacy (SE) had a significantly positive effect on job performance (JP) (b path: B¼.52, SE¼.08, t¼6.89, po.01), and proactive personality (PP) had a significantly positive effect on job performance (JP) (c path: B ¼.46, SE¼.05, t¼ 8.59, p o.01). Finally, the relationship between proactive personality and job performance became diminished and non-significant when self-efficacy was controlled (c’ path: B ¼.08, SE¼.07, t¼ 1.14, p ¼.255). The results indicate that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between proactive personality and job performance, which illustrates that the Baron and Kenny (1986) conditions for full mediation were fully met. The bootstrap results for indirect effect also confirmed that 95% of the bootstrap estimates were between the values of .26 and .51, excluding zero. Thus, Hypothesis 1 is supported. In other words, the analytic steps reported above represents that (1) students with higher proactive personality would possess higher self-efficacy, (2) when students have higher self-efficacy, they would show better job performance, (3) students with higher proactive personality tend to perform better at their jobs, and (4) overall, students with higher proactive personality would have more self-efficacy, which in turn would lead to better job performance. Table 3 presents the results of the simple mediation analysis to test the relationship among proactive personality, selfefficacy, and job satisfaction. As shown in Table 3, proactive personality (PP) had a significantly positive effect on selfefficacy (SE) (a path: B¼ .72, SE¼.04, t¼ 19.03, p o.01). Furthermore, self-efficacy (SE) had a significantly positive effect on job satisfaction (JS) (b path: B ¼.42, SE¼.09, t¼4.71, p o.01), and proactive personality (PP) had a significantly positive effect Table 2 Indirect effect on job performance. Variables
B
SE
t
p
Direct and total effect SE regressed on PP (a path) JP regressed on SE (b path) JP regressed on PP (c path; total effect) JP regressed on PP, controlling for SE (cʹ path; direct effect) Partial effects of control variables on work performance
.72 .52 .46 .08
.04 .08 .05 .07
19.03nn 6.89nn 8.59nn 1.14
.000 .000 .000 .255
.28
.09
3.01nn
.003
JP regressed on gender
Unstandardized value
SE
LL 95% CI
UL 95% CI
Bootstrap results for indirect effect Effect .38
.06
.26
.51
Note 1: PP ¼ proactive personality; SE ¼self-efficacy; JP¼ job performance. Note 2: LL¼ lower limit; CI ¼ confidence interval; UL ¼upper limit. Bootstrap sample size¼ 1000. nn p o .01.
R2
F
.31
45.89nn
38
W.C. Lu, C.-C. Kuo / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 18 (2016) 33–41
Table 3 Indirect effect on job satisfaction. Variables
B
SE
t
p
Direct and total effect SE regressed on PP (a path) JS regressed on SE (b path) JS regressed on PP (c path; total effect) JS regressed on PP, controlling for SE (cʹ path; direct effect) Partial effects of control variables on job satisfaction
.72 .42 .42 .12
.04 .09 .06 .09
19.03nn 4.71nn 6.93nn 1.36
.000 .000 .000 .173
.15
.11
1.41
.158
JS regressed on gender
Unstandardized value
SE
LL 95% CI
UL 95% CI
Bootstrap results for indirect effect Effect .30
.06
.18
.44
R2
F
.20
24.74nn
Note 1: PP ¼proactive personality; SE ¼ self-efficacy; JS ¼job satisfaction. Note 2: LL¼ lower limit; CI ¼ confidence interval; UL ¼upper limit. Bootstrap sample size¼ 1000. nn p o .01.
on job satisfaction (JS) (c path: B¼ .42, SE¼.06, t¼6.93, p o.01). Finally, the relationship between proactive personality and job satisfaction became smaller and non-significant when self-efficacy was controlled (c’ path: B ¼.12, SE¼ .09, t ¼1.36, p ¼.173). The results indicate that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between proactive personality and job satisfaction, which illustrates that our results met the Baron and Kenny (1986) conditions for full mediation. The bootstrap results for indirect effect also confirmed that 95% of the bootstrap estimates were between the values of .18 and .44, excluding zero. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is supported. In other words, the analytic steps reported above represents that (1) students with higher proactive personality would possess higher self-efficacy, (2) when students have higher self-efficacy, they would show higher job satisfaction, (3) students with higher proactive personality tend to be more satisfied with their jobs, and (4) overall, students with higher proactive personality would have more self-efficacy, which in turn would lead to greater job satisfaction.
6. Discussion Over the past 30 years, internships have been increasingly popular elements of higher education to bridge the transition from school to the workplace (Callanan & Benzing, 2004). It is unique for students to experience workplace learning and prepare their careers while still in school. To advance our understanding of the predictive variables of internship performance and satisfaction, we drew on a conceptualization of the proactive motivation model, which originated from the industrial/organization literature. Our study provided important increment conclusions for the theory. As predicted by the theory, self-efficacy could mediate the relationship between proactive personality and internship performance as well as their satisfaction. The results support the proactive motivation model’s expectations and verify that proactive personality could influence individuals’ job performance and satisfaction through self-efficacy. The research revealed a significant association between proactive personality and self-efficacy. This pattern implies that proactive personality predicts self-efficacy while individuals are in their early career exploration. The results support that the proactive trait plays a positive role in motivational processes (Fuller & Marler, 2009; Lin et al., 2014). Similarly, within the realm of self-efficacy, several studies have connected the personality traits with self-efficacy (e.g., Fuller & Marler, 2009; Judge & Ilies, 2002). As Gist and Mitchell (1992) stated, personal tendency could influence self-efficacy by arousing individuals’ experiences when they encounter a task. It is expected that students with higher proactive traits could display higher self-efficacy across a variety of tasks. Findings for self-efficacy in relation to job performance are therefore reasonably accordant with Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) meta-analysis. It has been suggested that self-efficacy is a strong positive predictor of work performance. According to the social cognitive career theory, self-efficacy beliefs exert a strong effect on career interests, values, activities, and career performance (Hackett & Lent, 1992). When individuals’ perceived efficacy in achieving the requirements of occupational roles is high, they may better prepare themselves for career pursuits (Bandura, Barbarabelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 2001). Corresponding with our findings, past research supported that self-efficacy is not only engaged in objective career outcomes but also in subjective career consequences, such as job satisfaction (Pinquart et al., 2003). Past studies also revealed that job satisfaction has a positive association with occupational self-efficacy (e.g., Erwins, 2001) as well as general self-efficacy (e.g., Pinquart et al., 2003; Vinokur & Schul, 2002). Students with proactive traits gain significant experiences concerning their ability to master task-related demands in a work-experimental program, which results in higher satisfaction with their internships.
W.C. Lu, C.-C. Kuo / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 18 (2016) 33–41
39
The main theoretical contribution of the current study is that it validates the utility of the proactive motivation model in an internship setting. Even across different task contexts (from workplace to education), the relationship still exists. Our results provide empirical support that proactive personality could be captured in college students under a work experimental context. This finding confirms the prior theoretical assertion that proactive personality serves as an antecedent to affect work behavior and further validate the mediating role of self-efficacy during the motivational process. Consistent with previous research (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007), proactivity with traits often connects with greater performance, particularly in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Being proactive is helpful for generating creative ideas and raising one’s selfefficacy, which enables individuals to deal with a changing environment. Overall, based on the present study, these results support the view that a proactive personality plays a vital role in shaping positive motivational processes, and it further manifests itself in individual outcomes. In addition to examining the relationship among traits, motivation mechanisms, and work outcomes of sport internships, this study has several methodological strengths. Past researchers often gathered data at the same time and via the same method, which may inflate the relationships between variables and further threaten internal validity (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). To overcome this shortage, we adopted a two-wave design and mixed methods (on-the-spot survey and e-survey) to collect data. Finally, compared to previous research focusing mainly on business majors in a Western context, this study broadened the varieties of internship by gathering data from Taiwanese students majoring in sports. The results may present a broader picture of internships in an education setting. The results summarized above might provide some practical suggestions for both cooperative enterprise and school training programs. First, managers or superiors in enterprise might consider using proactive personality as a predictor in intern selection, especially in the highly competitive and change-oriented sport industry. If interns are considered to be the future assets of an enterprise, they may be expected to utilize their proactive nature to focus on customers’ needs and to think ahead to provide better service. Thus, interns with the proactivity trait could quickly cope with the changing environment of the sport industry, and they may further prevent the foreseen accident in a professional sport or sport center. Second, a school training program could allow students to reflect on their interests when it comes to choosing an internship (Ayers, 2007). Since proactivity is a future-focused, change-oriented way of behaving (Parker et al., 2010), proactive students may select and create situations that enhance the likelihood of successful career exploration. Once the goals, objectives, strategies, and target internship have been self-selected by students, they are then charged with making their respective internship sites “active” (Ayers, 2007), which may bring about positive outcomes in their internships (Seibert et al., 2001). Third, professors in sport departments should develop more challenging and self-directed development courses to inspire students to bring about changes in the environment as well as to develop the skill of thinking ahead.
7. Limitations and future research directions Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the present results. First, the current study relied on all selfreport measures, which means relationships could be inflated due to single-source bias. However, as Van Yperen and Snijders (2000) argued, self-report measures ignore the shared variance of incumbents, leading to the overestimations of relationships, whereas “objective” measures and ratings by others ignore individual variance, which brings about the underestimation of these relationships. Thus, future research could be strengthened with a multitrait-multimethod approach (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). For example, researchers are encouraged to collect behavioral data (e.g., work performance) with a combination of self-reporting and objective measures (e.g., employer or supervisor ratings). Second, the current study did not examine the contextual variables during internships, so environmental effects could not be controlled for in the present study. Indeed, the environmental factors serve a critical role in how an internship proceeds and is evaluated (Feldman & Weitz, 1990). Future investigators need to consider the influence of contextual factors, such as job demand or job complexity, when determining target behaviors.
Acknowledgment This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST 103-2410-H-253-002- ), Taiwan.
References Aggett, M., & Busby, G. (2011). Opting out of internship: Perceptions of hospitality, tourism and events management undergraduates at a British university. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 10(1), 106–113. Ayers, K. (2007). A strategy for internship-seeking sport management students. The SMART Journal, 4(1), 84–90. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A., Barbarabelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72, 187–206. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
40
W.C. Lu, C.-C. Kuo / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 18 (2016) 33–41
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118. Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2011). Proactive work behavior: Forward‐thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 567–598). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Brooks, L., Cornelius, A., Greenfield, E., & Joseph, R. (1995). The relation of career-related work or internship experiences to the career development of college seniors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 332–349. Callanan, G., & Benzing, C. (2004). Assessing the role of internships in the career-oriented employment of graduating college students. Education þTraining, 46(2), 82–89. Chan, D. (2006). Interactive effects of situational judgment effectiveness and proactive personality on work perceptions and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 475–481. Chanavata, N., & Bodet, G. (2014). Experiential marketing in sport spectatorship services: A customer perspective. European Sport Management Quarterly, 14 (4), 323–344. Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83. Chen, T. L., & Shen, C. C. (2012). Today’s intern, tomorrow’s practitioner?—The influence of internship programmes on students’ career development in the Hospitality Industry. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 11(1), 29–40. Choi, K. H., & Kim, D.-Y. (2013). A cross cultural study of antecedents on career preparation behavior: Learning motivation, academic achievement, and career decision self-efficacy. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 13, 19–32. Clark, S. (2003). Enhancing the educational value of business internships. Journal of Management Education, 27(4), 472–484. Coco, M. (2000). Internships: A try before you buy arrangement. Advanced Management Journal, 65(2), 41–44. Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435–462. Crant, J. M. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 532–537. Crant, J. M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(3), 42–49. Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 63–75. Cushion, C. J., Armour, K. M., & Jones, R. L. (2003). Coach education and continuing professional development: Experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55 (3), 215–230. D’abate, C., Youndt, M., & Wenzel, K. (2009). Making the most of an internship: An empirical study of internship satisfaction. Academy of Management Learning Education, 8(4), 527–539. Demers, G., Woodburn, A. J., & Savard, C. (2006). The development of an undergraduate competency-based coach education program. Sport Psychologist, 20 (2), 162–173. Dieffenbach, K. D., Murray, M., & Zakrajsek, R. (2011). The coach education internship experience: An exploratory study. International Journal of Coaching Science, 5(1), 3–25. Erwins, C. J. (2001). The relationship of women’s role strain to social support, role satisfaction, and self-efficacy. Family Relations, 50, 230–238. Feldman, D. C., & Weitz, B. A. (1990). Summer interns: Factors contributing to positive developmental experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 267–284. Fuller, B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75 (3), 329–345. Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211. Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327–347. Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. M. (2010). Leader vision and the development of adaptive and proactive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 174–182. Hackett, G., & Lent, R. W. (1992). Theoretical advances and current inquiry in career psychology. In S. D. Brown, & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (2nd ed). New York: Wiley. Hsu, M. S. (2012). A study of internship attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and career planning of hospitality vocational college students. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 11(1), 5–11. Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368–384. Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007). Self-efficacy and work related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 107–127. Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 797–807. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relationship between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11, 167–187. Judge, T. A., Parker, S., Colbert, A., Heller, D., & Ilies, R. (2001). Job satisfaction: A cross-cultural review. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (pp. 25-52). London, UK: Sage. Kim, T. Y., Hon, A. H., & Crant, J. M. (2009). Proactive personality, employee creativity, and newcomer outcomes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(1), 93–103. Kim, H. B., & Park, E. J. (2013). The role of social experience in undergraduates’ career perceptions through internships. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 12(1), 70–78. Knouse, S. B., Tanner, J. R., & Harris, E. W. (1999). The relation of college internships, college performance, and subsequent job opportunity. Journal of Employment Counseling, 36(1), 35–43. Koc, E., Yumusak, S., Ulukoy, M., Kilic, R., & Toptas, A. (2014). Are internship programs encouraging or discouraging?—A viewpoint of tourism and hospitality students in Turkey. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 15, 135–142. Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 395–404. Lin, S.-H., Lu, W. C., Chen, M.‐Y., & Chen, L. H. (2014). Association between proactive personality and academic self–efficacy. Current Psychology, 33(4), 600–609. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121. Liu, Y., Xu, J., & Weitz, B. A. (2011). The role of emotional expression and mentoring in internship learning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10, 94–110. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial & organizational psychology (pp.1297-1349). Chicago: Rand-McNally. Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the Big Five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 927–935. Narayanan, V. K., Olk, P. M., & Fukami, C. V. (2010). Determinants of internship effectiveness: An exploratory model. Academy of Management Learning Education, 9(1), 61–80. O’Bryant, C. P., O’Sullivan, M., & Raudensky, J. (2000). Socialization of prospective physical education teachers: The story of new blood. Sport, Education and Society, 5(2), 177–193. Parker, S. K., & Sprigg, C. A. (1999). Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: The role of job demands, job control, and proactive personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 925–939.
W.C. Lu, C.-C. Kuo / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 18 (2016) 33–41
41
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856. Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636–656. Pianko, D. (1996). Power internships. Management Review, 85(December), 31–33. Pinquart, M., Juang, L. P., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2003). Self-efficacy and successful school-to-work transition: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 329–346. Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, S. B. (1989). A second generation measure of organizational citizenship behavior. Working paper. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). The sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research. In A. F. Hayes, M. D. Slater, & L. B. Snyder (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research (pp. 13–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Robinson, L. (2006). Customer expectations of sport organisations. European Sport Management Quarterly, 6(1), 67–84. Ruhanen, L., Robinson, R., & Breakey, N. (2013). A tourism immersion internship: Student expectations, experiences and satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 13, 60–69. Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416–427. Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 845–874. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240–261. Taylor, S. M. (1988). Effects of college internships on individual participants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 393–401. Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journarof Applied Psychology, 90(5), 1011–1017. Van Yperen, N. W., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2000). A multilevel analysis of the demands-control model: Is stress at work determined by factors at the group level or the individual level? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 182–190. Vinokur, A., & Schul, J. (2002). The web of coping resources and pathways to reemployment following a job loss. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 68–83. Wang, Y. F., Chiang, M. H., & Lee, Y. J. (2014). The relationships amongst the intern anxiety, internship outcomes, and career commitment of hospitality college students. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 15, 86–93. Weiss, M. R., Barber, H., Sisley, B. L., & Ebbeck, V. (1991). Developing competence and confidence in novice female coaches: II. Perceptions of ability and affective experiences following a season-long coaching internship. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13(4), 336–363. Wu, C. H., & Parker, S. K. (2011). Proactivity in the work place: Looking back and looking forward. In K. C. G. Spreitzer (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. New York: Oxford University Press. Zacher, H., Heusner, S., Schmitz, M., Zwierzanska, M. M., & Frese, M. (2010). Focus on opportunities as a mediator of the relationships between age, job complexity, and work performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 374–386. Zawel, M.B. (2005). To get a job, get an internship. But first, take a number. New York Times, B7.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhlste
Critical Perspectives
Internship performance and satisfaction in sports: Application of the proactive motivation model Wan Chen Lu a, Che-Chun Kuo b,n a
Department of Athletics, National Taiwan University, Taiwan Department of Recreation and Leisure Industry Management, National Taiwan Sport University, No. 250, Wenhua 1st Rd., Guishan, Taoyuan 33301, Taiwan b
a r t i c l e i n f o
abstract
Article history: Received 20 August 2015 Received in revised form 27 February 2016 Accepted 29 February 2016
Career-related internships are often promoted as important opportunities for college students to explore their career options and gain valuable experience (Brooks, Cornelius, Greenfield, & Joseph, 1995). Despite a reasonably large body of internships in the sport industry each year, little research has been conducted on college internship programs. The present study used the proactive motivation model (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010) as the framework for identifying the antecedents of internship performance and their satisfaction. A total of 306 college students majoring in sports were recruited as participants in the current study. The researcher gathered data from paper questionnaires and electronic surveys (e-surveys) with a two time-point design. The results indicated that self-efficacy mediated the relationship between proactive personality and internship performance as well as satisfaction. In terms of the current findings, the theoretical and practical implications of sport internship and proactivity literature are further discussed. & 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Proactive personality Self-efficacy Career exploration Intern
1. Introduction With the growing number of college institutions and graduates, career preparation has become a significant concern among university students (Choi & Kim, 2013). As such, an internship serves as an important instrument for students’ workplace learning and job searching (Brooks et al., 1995; Liu, Xu, & Weitz, 2011). To assess this resource, cooperating companies who offered internships could receive the benefits of temporary assistance from interns (Narayanan, Olk, & Fukami, 2010) and establish the most effective relationships with students and schools for job recruitment (Knouse, Tanner, & Harris, 1999; Pianko, 1996). Successful internship experiences not only improve students’ competitive advantage in the job market (Aggett & Busby, 2011) but also ease their transition into the workplace (Liu et al., 2011). They can use the internship as a screening device for future jobs (Narayanan et al., 2010) and receive higher evaluations from college recruiters than those without internship experience would receive (Taylor, 1988). These benefits are becoming increasingly relevant as the number of students engaging in internships has risen dramatically (D’abate, Youndt, & Wenzel, 2009). A survey from Zawel (2005) reported that almost 80% of all college seniors have at least one internship experience—that is 25 times the 3% participation rate in 1980. This may be because the high cost of education is increasing the pressure to find a job; thus, internships have become more popular since real-world experience may enhance recent graduates’ employability (Coco, 2000). n
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.-C. Kuo).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2016.02.003 1473-8376/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
34
W.C. Lu, C.-C. Kuo / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 18 (2016) 33–41
Although internships are becoming more widespread, internship research still requires attention when one compares it to other topics in the literature of education. Given that past studies on internships have focused mainly on business (i.e., marketing and financial; Clark, 2003), hospitality (e.g., Aggett & Busby, 2011; Chen & Shen, 2012; Hsu, 2012; Wang, Chiang, & Lee, 2014), and tourism (e.g., Kim & Park, 2013; Koc, Yumusak, Ulukoy, Kilic, & Toptas, 2014; Ruhanen, Robinson, & Breakey, 2013), little is known about internships in other fields, such as sports. In fact, compared with the attributes of internships such as hospitality and tourism, which mainly train students for service work (e.g., administration, housekeeping; Chen & Shen, 2012; Koc, Yumusak, Ulukoy, Kilic, & Toptas, 2014), sport internships often offer not only training in general services but also physical education or coaching practices involving comprehensive skills (e.g., game strategy) and the pedagogical expertise in sports (Cushion, Armour, & Jones 2003; Demers, Woodburn, & Savard 2006; O’Bryant, O’Sullivan, & Raudensky, 2000). In this regard, sport interns need to have higher self-efficacy (Dieffenbach, Murray, & Zakrajsek, 2011; Weiss, Barber, Sisley, & Ebbeck, 1991). As a consequence, internship plays an important and unique role in the sport field. It deserves more attention from both a theoretical and a practical standpoint, as it is relevant to many real-world learning situations. Overall, in recent studies on internships, we have found growing studies grounded in conceptual models in order to explain the systematic assessments of internships (D’abate et al., 2009; Narayanan et al., 2010). To date, the role of interns’ traits in influencing their job performance has received little scholarly attention. It is believed that career success is the result of individual fit between personality and working environment (Callanan & Benzing, 2004). As a result, our study attempted to extend prior research on internship performance by adopting the proactive motivation model proposed by Parker, Bindl, and Strauss (2010), which demonstrates the antecedents and motivation process variables to influence proactive outcomes; in particular, we suggested that self-efficacy is a proactive motivational mechanism between proactive disposition and outcomes. Our study contributes to the existing literature in three main aspects. First, we investigated sport internship from the proactivity perspective, which has been recognized as a beneficial approach to explaining individuals’ career development because of the rise of nonlinear careers that need people to be proactive to actively change their situations and create ideal futures (Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). Second, we introduced a motivational role called self-efficacy, which is a critical indicator in proactivity theory (Bindl & Parker, 2011; Wu & Parker, 2011) as well as in the field of sport internship (Dieffenbach et al., 2011). In addition, the current examination further expanded the external validity of the proactive motivation model in different domains. The below sections further elaborate the proactivity concept, the model of proactive motivation, and the research hypothesis.
2. Individual proactivity in career domain In today’s rapidly changing environment, an organization in the sports industry requires rapid responses to a changing external environment. Specifically, in the sport industry, services play a critical role and are receiving growing attention nowadays; sport organizations are required not only to maintain outstanding service quality but also to deliver satisfactory consumption experiences to fulfill consumers’ expectations (Chanavata & Bodet, 2014; Robinson, 2006). This would allow these organizations to create and maintain a competitive advantage. In other words, organizations would benefit from employees who actively exert the personal initiative to engage in behaviors described as individual proactivity (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). In this regard, being proactive, rather than passive, might be an essential way to develop a personal career path because proactivity concerns making things happen and aspiring and striving to change one’s situation to build an ideal future (Parker et al., 2010). Following the concept of proactivity from a dispositional perspective, proactive personality has been identified as a determinant of individual proactivity (Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008). Proactive personality is defined as a self-initiated, change-oriented, and future-focused personal trait (Griffin, Parker, & Mason, 2010; Parker et al., 2010), which is different from the five-factor model (Crant & Bateman, 2000). For the past two decades, the proactive personality has been widely applied in organizational behavior. A number of studies and meta-analysis reviews support the utility of the proactive personality in predicting work outcomes (Crant, 1995; Fuller & Marler, 2009; Kim, Hon, & Crant, 2009; Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010; Major, Turner, & Fletcher 2006; Parker & Sprigg, 1999; Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). Researchers have found that proactive personality is associated with beneficial outcomes, such as career success (Seibert et al., 1999), innovation (Seibert et al., 2001), entrepreneurship (Crant, 1996), organizational commitment (Chan, 2006), job satisfaction (Pinquart, Juang, & Silbereisen, 2003), and job performance (Crant, 1995; Thompson, 2005). Crant and Bateman (2000) indicated that proactive personality is a stable characteristic attribute across a range of activities and situations in general, including the education setting. As a result, this trait could be captured in diverse fields and be unrelated to context (Lin, Lu, Chen, & Chen, 2014). Yet, surprisingly, little research has investigated how students with proactive traits could influence pre-employment outcomes and its mechanism (Kim et al., 2009; Lin et al., 2014). The evidence of a cross-contextual personality is scarce in empirical studies. In this regard, we adopted the proactive motivation model as a framework for the current study. The proactive motivation model assumes that individual proactivity is a goal-driven process (Parker et al., 2010). It involves setting goals and aspirations and striving to bring about change to achieve a better future (Grant & Ashford, 2008). It consists of individual differences (i.e., personality and life values), contextual variables, motivation and goal processes (i.e., self-efficacy), and work context and outcomes (i.e., job performance and satisfaction) within this model. Accordingly, we suggested that individual traits such as proactive personality could influence proactive outcomes through motivational processes (Parker et al., 2006, 2010). Specifically, drawing on the theoretical and practical reasons above, we further proposed self-efficacy as a potential motivational indicator in the present study.
W.C. Lu, C.-C. Kuo / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 18 (2016) 33–41
35
3. The motivational role of self-efficacy Following the concept of the proactive motivation model, our study tried to investigate links among personality attributes, internship performance, and satisfaction through self-efficacy. Self-efficacy reflects a person’s beliefs about abilities to execute particular tasks (Bandura,1977, 1997). It could enhance an individual’s persistence and strengthen his or her willingness to defeat frustrations and obstacles (Bandura, 1997). Individuals with proactive personality have long-term perspectives and are willing to go further in the allotment of tasks in order to accomplish established goals (Parker et al., 2006). In fulfilling their ambitions, proactive individuals may seek new information and new ways of improving the status quo (Bateman & Crant, 1993), which may eventually lead to higher self-efficacy. Past studies also revealed that individuals with proactive traits could have a strong tendency toward learning, which may result in higher learning self-efficacy (Fuller & Marler, 2009). On the other hand, individuals require the feeling of confidence that comes from pursuing proactive goals and taking the consequences into consideration before they act (Parker et al., 2010). Since self-efficacy often raises one’s perceived level of control and the likelihood of success, it serves as a crucial motivation variable for facilitating individuals’ proactive work behaviors (Parker et al., 2006) and leading to greater job performance (Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott, & Rich, 2007) as well as higher satisfaction (Pinquart et al., 2003). Moreover, meta-analytic evidence from 186 articles suggested that self-efficacy is positively linked to work-related performance (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). As suggested by the “can do” motivational mechanism (Parker et al., 2010), the model of proactive motivation demonstrated that people with high proactive personality tend to believe they are capable of pursuing and achieving personal goals and aspirations, thereby possessing more metal resources in creating more positive work experiences (i.e., job performance and job satisfaction) in relation to career success. According to the above definitions, interns with proactive personality would be expected to reveal higher self-efficacy, and this would eventually lead to better career outcomes (Parker et al., 2010). Hypothesis 1. (H1): Proactive personality has a significant influence on job performance through self-efficacy. Hypothesis 2. (H2): Proactive personality has a significant influence on job satisfaction through self-efficacy. As shown in Fig. 1, we attempted to examine the link among proactive personality, internship performance, and satisfaction among students from a theoretical perspective. Specifically, our aim was to validate the mediating role of selfefficacy to interpret the relationship among proactive personality, internship performance, and satisfaction. To our knowledge, this is the first time the proactive motivation model has been applied with regard to the internship literature, and the results may provide new insights for the work experiential setting, especially in the sport domain, which highly emphasizes the necessity of self-efficacy for individuals.
4. Method 4.1. Participants and procedures The current study was intended to validate the predicted variables of job performance and job satisfaction in internships. Data were collected from surveys given to students majoring in the sport departments of four vocational colleges and universities in Taiwan. Participants joined this study voluntarily, and their confidentiality was guaranteed. Two rounds of surveys were conducted because we would like to identify the antecedents of internship performance and their satisfaction, which suggests that the directional influences between the focal variables are an imperative issue. Therefore, to clarify and confirm the directional effects between variables in this study, we collected data with two different time points instead of a single shot which just indicates the relationships (i.e., positive/negative and strong/weak correlations) between focal variables. Initially, we asked participants to report their demographics, proactive personality, and self-efficacy before internships. In this phrase, a paper survey was used to collect the data in the classrooms after the course. After the participants finished their internships, they were asked to report their expressions about work performance and their satisfaction with the internships at the second stage via e-survey. Participants’ student identification (ID) numbers were used to match the second-wave responses.
Job performance Proactive personality
Selfefficacy
Job satisfaction
Fig. 1. The conceptual model in the present study.
36
W.C. Lu, C.-C. Kuo / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 18 (2016) 33–41
From the initial 354 respondents, 48 were excluded as a result of missing ratings, leading to a final sample of 306 participants who completed both the initial and the follow-up questionnaires. The overall response rate was 86.4%. No significant difference was found between study completers and dropouts. Of the participants (n ¼306), 48.1% were male, and 93.5% were either 21 or 22 years old (M¼21.40, SD ¼.66). All participants were college seniors. They completed their internship programs primarily in sport centers, fitness clubs, athletic organizations, and recreation facilities. The participants performed their internships during the entire semester, which lasted about 6 months and paid between $3.80 and $5.00 per hour.
4.2. Measures The instruments were all translated from English to Chinese, the participants’ native language. Back-translation was also undertaken to ensure that the translation did not alter the meanings of the original measures. In addition, we conducted a pilot study before the formal survey to confirm the instrument’s validity and reliability. Control variable included participants’ gender.
4.3. Proactive personality We assessed proactive personality by using the four highest loading items on the Bateman and Crant, (1993) scale. Proactive personality was defined as the relatively stable personal disposition to effect environmental change (Bateman & Crant, 1993). A sample item is, “No matter what the odds, if I believe in something I will make it happen.” The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbach alpha was .77.
4.4. Self-efficacy We assessed self-efficacy by using Chen, Gully, and Eden’s (2001) general self-efficacy scale, which included eight items. General self-efficacy is defined as individuals’ perceptions of their ability to perform across a wide variety of achievement situations (Chen et al., 2001; Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998). A sample item is, “I am confident that I can perform effectively on many different tasks.” The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbach alpha was .92.
4.5. Job performance We measured job performance by using Podsakoff and MacKenzie’s (1989) in-role job performance scale, which includes five items. It is defined as actions specified and required by an employee’s job description (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). A sample item is, “I always complete the duties specified in my job description.” The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbach alpha was .77.
4.6. Job satisfaction We measured job satisfaction by using Judge, Parker, Colbert, Heller, and Ilies’s (2001) scale, which includes five items. Job satisfaction is defined as a positive emotional state resulting from the evaluation of individuals’ job experiences (Locke, 1976). A sample item is, “Most days I am enthusiastic about my work.” The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbach alpha was .71. Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables (N¼ 306).
1 2 3 4 5
Gender Proactive personality Self-efficacy Job satisfaction Job performance n
p o .05. p o .01.
nn
M
SD
1
2
3
4
– 5.06 5.06 4.54 5.37
– .93 .91 1.05 .97
– .12n .06 .04 .11
– .74nn .36nn .42nn
– .43nn .54nn
– .48nn
W.C. Lu, C.-C. Kuo / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 18 (2016) 33–41
37
5. Results 5.1. Descriptive analyses Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations) and intercorrelations for the study variables. The results indicated that proactive personality was positively related to self-efficacy (r¼.74, p o.01), job satisfaction (r ¼.36, p o.01), and job performance (r ¼.42, p o.01). Self-efficacy was positively related to job satisfaction (r ¼.43, p o.01) and job performance (r ¼.54, po.01). Additionally, we found that gender was related to proactive personality (r¼ .12, p o.05), suggesting that gender might confound with individual proactivity (Bindl & Parker, 2011). As such, we added gender as the control variable in the regression analysis model. 5.2. Mediation analyses To test our mediation models, a script version of the SPSS PROCESS macro was adopted for simple mediation analysis developed by Preacher and Hayes (2004), and the tests of the estimated indirect effect were also embraced (Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Zacher, Heusner, Schmitz, Zwierzanska, & Frese, 2010). Furthermore, we conducted a bootstrapping analysis (Preacher & Hayes, 2004, 2008) by re-sampling the data set for 1000 times to assure the total indirect effect. Of the criteria for the mediating examination, four steps recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986) was adopted. In the first standard (a path), the independent variable performs a direct effect on the mediator variable. The second standard requires that the mediator variable performs an effect on the outcome variable after controlling for the independent variable (b path). In the third standard (c path), the independent variable performs a total effect on the outcome variable. Finally, the effect of independent variable on outcome variable becomes significantly smaller or non-significant after controlling for mediator (i.e., direct effect; c’ path). The results of the mediation analysis are presented in Table 2 to test the relationship among proactive personality, selfefficacy, and job performance. As shown in Table 2, proactive personality (PP) had a significantly positive effect on selfefficacy (SE) (a path: B¼ .72, SE¼.04, t¼ 19.03, p o.01). Furthermore, self-efficacy (SE) had a significantly positive effect on job performance (JP) (b path: B¼.52, SE¼.08, t¼6.89, po.01), and proactive personality (PP) had a significantly positive effect on job performance (JP) (c path: B ¼.46, SE¼.05, t¼ 8.59, p o.01). Finally, the relationship between proactive personality and job performance became diminished and non-significant when self-efficacy was controlled (c’ path: B ¼.08, SE¼.07, t¼ 1.14, p ¼.255). The results indicate that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between proactive personality and job performance, which illustrates that the Baron and Kenny (1986) conditions for full mediation were fully met. The bootstrap results for indirect effect also confirmed that 95% of the bootstrap estimates were between the values of .26 and .51, excluding zero. Thus, Hypothesis 1 is supported. In other words, the analytic steps reported above represents that (1) students with higher proactive personality would possess higher self-efficacy, (2) when students have higher self-efficacy, they would show better job performance, (3) students with higher proactive personality tend to perform better at their jobs, and (4) overall, students with higher proactive personality would have more self-efficacy, which in turn would lead to better job performance. Table 3 presents the results of the simple mediation analysis to test the relationship among proactive personality, selfefficacy, and job satisfaction. As shown in Table 3, proactive personality (PP) had a significantly positive effect on selfefficacy (SE) (a path: B¼ .72, SE¼.04, t¼ 19.03, p o.01). Furthermore, self-efficacy (SE) had a significantly positive effect on job satisfaction (JS) (b path: B ¼.42, SE¼.09, t¼4.71, p o.01), and proactive personality (PP) had a significantly positive effect Table 2 Indirect effect on job performance. Variables
B
SE
t
p
Direct and total effect SE regressed on PP (a path) JP regressed on SE (b path) JP regressed on PP (c path; total effect) JP regressed on PP, controlling for SE (cʹ path; direct effect) Partial effects of control variables on work performance
.72 .52 .46 .08
.04 .08 .05 .07
19.03nn 6.89nn 8.59nn 1.14
.000 .000 .000 .255
.28
.09
3.01nn
.003
JP regressed on gender
Unstandardized value
SE
LL 95% CI
UL 95% CI
Bootstrap results for indirect effect Effect .38
.06
.26
.51
Note 1: PP ¼ proactive personality; SE ¼self-efficacy; JP¼ job performance. Note 2: LL¼ lower limit; CI ¼ confidence interval; UL ¼upper limit. Bootstrap sample size¼ 1000. nn p o .01.
R2
F
.31
45.89nn
38
W.C. Lu, C.-C. Kuo / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 18 (2016) 33–41
Table 3 Indirect effect on job satisfaction. Variables
B
SE
t
p
Direct and total effect SE regressed on PP (a path) JS regressed on SE (b path) JS regressed on PP (c path; total effect) JS regressed on PP, controlling for SE (cʹ path; direct effect) Partial effects of control variables on job satisfaction
.72 .42 .42 .12
.04 .09 .06 .09
19.03nn 4.71nn 6.93nn 1.36
.000 .000 .000 .173
.15
.11
1.41
.158
JS regressed on gender
Unstandardized value
SE
LL 95% CI
UL 95% CI
Bootstrap results for indirect effect Effect .30
.06
.18
.44
R2
F
.20
24.74nn
Note 1: PP ¼proactive personality; SE ¼ self-efficacy; JS ¼job satisfaction. Note 2: LL¼ lower limit; CI ¼ confidence interval; UL ¼upper limit. Bootstrap sample size¼ 1000. nn p o .01.
on job satisfaction (JS) (c path: B¼ .42, SE¼.06, t¼6.93, p o.01). Finally, the relationship between proactive personality and job satisfaction became smaller and non-significant when self-efficacy was controlled (c’ path: B ¼.12, SE¼ .09, t ¼1.36, p ¼.173). The results indicate that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between proactive personality and job satisfaction, which illustrates that our results met the Baron and Kenny (1986) conditions for full mediation. The bootstrap results for indirect effect also confirmed that 95% of the bootstrap estimates were between the values of .18 and .44, excluding zero. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is supported. In other words, the analytic steps reported above represents that (1) students with higher proactive personality would possess higher self-efficacy, (2) when students have higher self-efficacy, they would show higher job satisfaction, (3) students with higher proactive personality tend to be more satisfied with their jobs, and (4) overall, students with higher proactive personality would have more self-efficacy, which in turn would lead to greater job satisfaction.
6. Discussion Over the past 30 years, internships have been increasingly popular elements of higher education to bridge the transition from school to the workplace (Callanan & Benzing, 2004). It is unique for students to experience workplace learning and prepare their careers while still in school. To advance our understanding of the predictive variables of internship performance and satisfaction, we drew on a conceptualization of the proactive motivation model, which originated from the industrial/organization literature. Our study provided important increment conclusions for the theory. As predicted by the theory, self-efficacy could mediate the relationship between proactive personality and internship performance as well as their satisfaction. The results support the proactive motivation model’s expectations and verify that proactive personality could influence individuals’ job performance and satisfaction through self-efficacy. The research revealed a significant association between proactive personality and self-efficacy. This pattern implies that proactive personality predicts self-efficacy while individuals are in their early career exploration. The results support that the proactive trait plays a positive role in motivational processes (Fuller & Marler, 2009; Lin et al., 2014). Similarly, within the realm of self-efficacy, several studies have connected the personality traits with self-efficacy (e.g., Fuller & Marler, 2009; Judge & Ilies, 2002). As Gist and Mitchell (1992) stated, personal tendency could influence self-efficacy by arousing individuals’ experiences when they encounter a task. It is expected that students with higher proactive traits could display higher self-efficacy across a variety of tasks. Findings for self-efficacy in relation to job performance are therefore reasonably accordant with Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) meta-analysis. It has been suggested that self-efficacy is a strong positive predictor of work performance. According to the social cognitive career theory, self-efficacy beliefs exert a strong effect on career interests, values, activities, and career performance (Hackett & Lent, 1992). When individuals’ perceived efficacy in achieving the requirements of occupational roles is high, they may better prepare themselves for career pursuits (Bandura, Barbarabelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 2001). Corresponding with our findings, past research supported that self-efficacy is not only engaged in objective career outcomes but also in subjective career consequences, such as job satisfaction (Pinquart et al., 2003). Past studies also revealed that job satisfaction has a positive association with occupational self-efficacy (e.g., Erwins, 2001) as well as general self-efficacy (e.g., Pinquart et al., 2003; Vinokur & Schul, 2002). Students with proactive traits gain significant experiences concerning their ability to master task-related demands in a work-experimental program, which results in higher satisfaction with their internships.
W.C. Lu, C.-C. Kuo / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 18 (2016) 33–41
39
The main theoretical contribution of the current study is that it validates the utility of the proactive motivation model in an internship setting. Even across different task contexts (from workplace to education), the relationship still exists. Our results provide empirical support that proactive personality could be captured in college students under a work experimental context. This finding confirms the prior theoretical assertion that proactive personality serves as an antecedent to affect work behavior and further validate the mediating role of self-efficacy during the motivational process. Consistent with previous research (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007), proactivity with traits often connects with greater performance, particularly in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Being proactive is helpful for generating creative ideas and raising one’s selfefficacy, which enables individuals to deal with a changing environment. Overall, based on the present study, these results support the view that a proactive personality plays a vital role in shaping positive motivational processes, and it further manifests itself in individual outcomes. In addition to examining the relationship among traits, motivation mechanisms, and work outcomes of sport internships, this study has several methodological strengths. Past researchers often gathered data at the same time and via the same method, which may inflate the relationships between variables and further threaten internal validity (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). To overcome this shortage, we adopted a two-wave design and mixed methods (on-the-spot survey and e-survey) to collect data. Finally, compared to previous research focusing mainly on business majors in a Western context, this study broadened the varieties of internship by gathering data from Taiwanese students majoring in sports. The results may present a broader picture of internships in an education setting. The results summarized above might provide some practical suggestions for both cooperative enterprise and school training programs. First, managers or superiors in enterprise might consider using proactive personality as a predictor in intern selection, especially in the highly competitive and change-oriented sport industry. If interns are considered to be the future assets of an enterprise, they may be expected to utilize their proactive nature to focus on customers’ needs and to think ahead to provide better service. Thus, interns with the proactivity trait could quickly cope with the changing environment of the sport industry, and they may further prevent the foreseen accident in a professional sport or sport center. Second, a school training program could allow students to reflect on their interests when it comes to choosing an internship (Ayers, 2007). Since proactivity is a future-focused, change-oriented way of behaving (Parker et al., 2010), proactive students may select and create situations that enhance the likelihood of successful career exploration. Once the goals, objectives, strategies, and target internship have been self-selected by students, they are then charged with making their respective internship sites “active” (Ayers, 2007), which may bring about positive outcomes in their internships (Seibert et al., 2001). Third, professors in sport departments should develop more challenging and self-directed development courses to inspire students to bring about changes in the environment as well as to develop the skill of thinking ahead.
7. Limitations and future research directions Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the present results. First, the current study relied on all selfreport measures, which means relationships could be inflated due to single-source bias. However, as Van Yperen and Snijders (2000) argued, self-report measures ignore the shared variance of incumbents, leading to the overestimations of relationships, whereas “objective” measures and ratings by others ignore individual variance, which brings about the underestimation of these relationships. Thus, future research could be strengthened with a multitrait-multimethod approach (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). For example, researchers are encouraged to collect behavioral data (e.g., work performance) with a combination of self-reporting and objective measures (e.g., employer or supervisor ratings). Second, the current study did not examine the contextual variables during internships, so environmental effects could not be controlled for in the present study. Indeed, the environmental factors serve a critical role in how an internship proceeds and is evaluated (Feldman & Weitz, 1990). Future investigators need to consider the influence of contextual factors, such as job demand or job complexity, when determining target behaviors.
Acknowledgment This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST 103-2410-H-253-002- ), Taiwan.
References Aggett, M., & Busby, G. (2011). Opting out of internship: Perceptions of hospitality, tourism and events management undergraduates at a British university. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 10(1), 106–113. Ayers, K. (2007). A strategy for internship-seeking sport management students. The SMART Journal, 4(1), 84–90. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A., Barbarabelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72, 187–206. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
40
W.C. Lu, C.-C. Kuo / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 18 (2016) 33–41
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118. Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2011). Proactive work behavior: Forward‐thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 567–598). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Brooks, L., Cornelius, A., Greenfield, E., & Joseph, R. (1995). The relation of career-related work or internship experiences to the career development of college seniors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 332–349. Callanan, G., & Benzing, C. (2004). Assessing the role of internships in the career-oriented employment of graduating college students. Education þTraining, 46(2), 82–89. Chan, D. (2006). Interactive effects of situational judgment effectiveness and proactive personality on work perceptions and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 475–481. Chanavata, N., & Bodet, G. (2014). Experiential marketing in sport spectatorship services: A customer perspective. European Sport Management Quarterly, 14 (4), 323–344. Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83. Chen, T. L., & Shen, C. C. (2012). Today’s intern, tomorrow’s practitioner?—The influence of internship programmes on students’ career development in the Hospitality Industry. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 11(1), 29–40. Choi, K. H., & Kim, D.-Y. (2013). A cross cultural study of antecedents on career preparation behavior: Learning motivation, academic achievement, and career decision self-efficacy. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 13, 19–32. Clark, S. (2003). Enhancing the educational value of business internships. Journal of Management Education, 27(4), 472–484. Coco, M. (2000). Internships: A try before you buy arrangement. Advanced Management Journal, 65(2), 41–44. Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435–462. Crant, J. M. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 532–537. Crant, J. M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(3), 42–49. Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 63–75. Cushion, C. J., Armour, K. M., & Jones, R. L. (2003). Coach education and continuing professional development: Experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55 (3), 215–230. D’abate, C., Youndt, M., & Wenzel, K. (2009). Making the most of an internship: An empirical study of internship satisfaction. Academy of Management Learning Education, 8(4), 527–539. Demers, G., Woodburn, A. J., & Savard, C. (2006). The development of an undergraduate competency-based coach education program. Sport Psychologist, 20 (2), 162–173. Dieffenbach, K. D., Murray, M., & Zakrajsek, R. (2011). The coach education internship experience: An exploratory study. International Journal of Coaching Science, 5(1), 3–25. Erwins, C. J. (2001). The relationship of women’s role strain to social support, role satisfaction, and self-efficacy. Family Relations, 50, 230–238. Feldman, D. C., & Weitz, B. A. (1990). Summer interns: Factors contributing to positive developmental experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 267–284. Fuller, B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75 (3), 329–345. Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211. Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327–347. Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. M. (2010). Leader vision and the development of adaptive and proactive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 174–182. Hackett, G., & Lent, R. W. (1992). Theoretical advances and current inquiry in career psychology. In S. D. Brown, & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (2nd ed). New York: Wiley. Hsu, M. S. (2012). A study of internship attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and career planning of hospitality vocational college students. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 11(1), 5–11. Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368–384. Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007). Self-efficacy and work related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 107–127. Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 797–807. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relationship between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11, 167–187. Judge, T. A., Parker, S., Colbert, A., Heller, D., & Ilies, R. (2001). Job satisfaction: A cross-cultural review. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (pp. 25-52). London, UK: Sage. Kim, T. Y., Hon, A. H., & Crant, J. M. (2009). Proactive personality, employee creativity, and newcomer outcomes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(1), 93–103. Kim, H. B., & Park, E. J. (2013). The role of social experience in undergraduates’ career perceptions through internships. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 12(1), 70–78. Knouse, S. B., Tanner, J. R., & Harris, E. W. (1999). The relation of college internships, college performance, and subsequent job opportunity. Journal of Employment Counseling, 36(1), 35–43. Koc, E., Yumusak, S., Ulukoy, M., Kilic, R., & Toptas, A. (2014). Are internship programs encouraging or discouraging?—A viewpoint of tourism and hospitality students in Turkey. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 15, 135–142. Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 395–404. Lin, S.-H., Lu, W. C., Chen, M.‐Y., & Chen, L. H. (2014). Association between proactive personality and academic self–efficacy. Current Psychology, 33(4), 600–609. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121. Liu, Y., Xu, J., & Weitz, B. A. (2011). The role of emotional expression and mentoring in internship learning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10, 94–110. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial & organizational psychology (pp.1297-1349). Chicago: Rand-McNally. Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the Big Five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 927–935. Narayanan, V. K., Olk, P. M., & Fukami, C. V. (2010). Determinants of internship effectiveness: An exploratory model. Academy of Management Learning Education, 9(1), 61–80. O’Bryant, C. P., O’Sullivan, M., & Raudensky, J. (2000). Socialization of prospective physical education teachers: The story of new blood. Sport, Education and Society, 5(2), 177–193. Parker, S. K., & Sprigg, C. A. (1999). Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: The role of job demands, job control, and proactive personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 925–939.
W.C. Lu, C.-C. Kuo / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 18 (2016) 33–41
41
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856. Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636–656. Pianko, D. (1996). Power internships. Management Review, 85(December), 31–33. Pinquart, M., Juang, L. P., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2003). Self-efficacy and successful school-to-work transition: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 329–346. Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, S. B. (1989). A second generation measure of organizational citizenship behavior. Working paper. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). The sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research. In A. F. Hayes, M. D. Slater, & L. B. Snyder (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research (pp. 13–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Robinson, L. (2006). Customer expectations of sport organisations. European Sport Management Quarterly, 6(1), 67–84. Ruhanen, L., Robinson, R., & Breakey, N. (2013). A tourism immersion internship: Student expectations, experiences and satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 13, 60–69. Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416–427. Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 845–874. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240–261. Taylor, S. M. (1988). Effects of college internships on individual participants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 393–401. Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journarof Applied Psychology, 90(5), 1011–1017. Van Yperen, N. W., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2000). A multilevel analysis of the demands-control model: Is stress at work determined by factors at the group level or the individual level? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 182–190. Vinokur, A., & Schul, J. (2002). The web of coping resources and pathways to reemployment following a job loss. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 68–83. Wang, Y. F., Chiang, M. H., & Lee, Y. J. (2014). The relationships amongst the intern anxiety, internship outcomes, and career commitment of hospitality college students. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 15, 86–93. Weiss, M. R., Barber, H., Sisley, B. L., & Ebbeck, V. (1991). Developing competence and confidence in novice female coaches: II. Perceptions of ability and affective experiences following a season-long coaching internship. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13(4), 336–363. Wu, C. H., & Parker, S. K. (2011). Proactivity in the work place: Looking back and looking forward. In K. C. G. Spreitzer (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. New York: Oxford University Press. Zacher, H., Heusner, S., Schmitz, M., Zwierzanska, M. M., & Frese, M. (2010). Focus on opportunities as a mediator of the relationships between age, job complexity, and work performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 374–386. Zawel, M.B. (2005). To get a job, get an internship. But first, take a number. New York Times, B7.