Employee Retention of Internship Management Trainees for Hospitality Corp.X: A Research Based on Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory
Le résumé fourni par la source
In response to the persistent issue of internship management trainees at Hospitality Corp.X being reluctant to remain employed after completing their internships in recent years. This study investigates the underlying causes through questionnaire surveys, Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory (hygiene factors and motivational factors), and factor analysis. The findings reveal that trainees' overall job satisfaction score averages merely 2.53±0.68 (on a 5-point scale), with key influencing factors including: compensation and benefits (lowest score, mean=2.3579), career development (unclear promotion pathways), work content (repetitive and monotonous tasks), psychosocial environment (ineffective communication and psychological stress), and organizational management (rigid processes and unfair performance evaluations). Comparative analysis demonstrates that the hotel's intern compensation and benefits significantly lag behind local industry peers. To address these issues, recommendations are proposed, such as optimizing compensation structures, restructuring career development frameworks, diversifying job responsibilities, enhancing psychological support systems, and streamlining management processes. These measures aim to improve trainees' retention willingness while ensuring the stability of service quality and competitive advantage for the hotel.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Employee Retention of Internship Management Trainees for Hospitality Corp.X: A Research Based on Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory
- Date Crossref
- 12/06/2025
- Éditeur
- Asia Pacific Science Publications Company Limited
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.