Master’s and Undergraduate Industrial/Organizational Internships

Procedure

We developed two versions of a questionnaire (i.e., one for organizational hosts and one for past interns) to address issues we identify in this article. Demographic data collected include school and/or program, level (master’s or undergraduate), training of host, paid or unpaid, and the type of organization that hosted the intern. Other items addressed how the internship was acquired, setting objectives for the internship, internship supervision, evaluation of the intern, and intern skills at the beginning and end of the internship.

We secured e-mail addresses for alumni and internship hosts of three programs from program databases or contact lists kept by individual faculty members. E-mail messages containing the link to the online survey were sent to program alumni and internship hosts. ¹ We asked hosts to respond in terms of their typical experience with an I/O intern; interns were asked to report their own experiences. We collected data in 2010.

Participants

Identifying Host Sites for Internships

Finding appropriate host organizations for internships presents unique challenges. It is important that individuals in the host organization understand the nature of I/O psychology. Many I/O psychologists have acknowledged that human resource professionals are not often familiar with the knowledge, skills, and abilities I/O psychologists bring to the workplace and the tasks they are capable of performing (Gasser, Butler, Waddilove, & Tan, 2004). A working knowledge of the I/O discipline on the part of a potential organizational host is an advantage in locating internship sites (Shoenfelt, 2003). It is considerably easier to persuade hosts who are or who employ I/O psychologists of the value of the skill set of I/O students; such hosts can assure the placement will provide a proper environment for the student. Our host survey results indicate that 38% of the respondents were alumni of the I/O programs for which they had served as hosts. For those who did not have I/O degrees, 46% personally knew an I/O psychologist, 15% had hired I/O psychologists, 15% were aware of I/O psychologists working in their organizations, and 46% reported familiarity with I/O psychology (responses do not add to 100% because respondents could select more than one option). Only two respondents (15%) reported no previous familiarity with I/O psychology.

For established programs, a primary source of internship sites is alumni contacts, who, in turn, often serve as supervisors for students. Consistent with our expectation, 48% of the hosts reported that interns typically came from an existing relationship with a program; 30% of the hosts indicated that they had initiated the contact with an I/O program to secure interns. For relatively new programs, to make contacts requires considerably more effort—obtaining and scouring information about local businesses and then making follow-up cold calls. Even for established programs, locating appropriate host organizations is an ongoing challenge.

In our experience, other potential sources for locating host organizations include organizations that have had successful interactions with program faculty (e.g., where faculty have completed consulting projects or for whom graduate students have completed course projects), organizations requesting “free” consulting (however, be cautious of the organization’s commitment to a project for which they are not willing to pay), local Society for Human Resource Management chapters or similar organizations, word of mouth, and faculty interactions (Shoenfelt, 2003). In short, acquiring new internships is a mix of salesmanship and “foot-in-the-door” social psychology (Shoenfelt et al., 2008).

Some programs may be geographically located in areas where it is difficult to find appropriate organizations to host interns. If the internship is completed over the summer, it may be possible for the student to relocate temporarily for the internship. Another alternative is to provide applied projects for local organizations that may not be able to host an intern yet have a need for I/O services. For small academic programs with limited resources, partnering with faculty in the college’s business school may permit psychology and business students to work collaboratively on applied projects for local businesses. ² Shoenfelt (2003) provided useful guidelines for developing and supervising applied experiences in organizational settings.

Once placements are secured, it is necessary to ensure students are aware of them. Mechanisms for advertising internships may include word of mouth, periodical ads, company Web sites, and faculty announcements. Intern respondents reported that the most common source by which they became aware of an internship was from a faculty member (54%). Students also learned about internships from other students in the program (34%), Internet sites (20%), and a friend or family member (15%).

Ensuring the Internship Experience Is Appropriate

Securing organizational projects or assignments that can be completed within a relatively short time frame and that provide appropriate experiences for the student’s level of training is critical. The internship should entail meaningful projects that will contribute to a true learning experience, not menial tasks. Examples of such projects include rewriting job descriptions after the passage of a new law (such as the Americans With Disabilities Act), helping collect and prepare data to support a new compensation plan, developing instruments and analyzing data for organizational assessment projects, or conducting training needs analyses.

An initial interview between the intern and on-site supervisor is an excellent opportunity for the potential intern and faculty supervisor to determine if the placement offers appropriate experiences. Together, the intern and on-site supervisor can develop shared expectations that can be recorded in an internship objectives document during the first week of the placement. The objectives should delineate in sufficient detail the planned key projects, such as “writing job descriptions” or “establishing a mentoring program.” Some goals might not be met and others might change depending on the organization’s needs, but the document helps ensure the experience is focused. These objectives can also serve as starting points for status report meetings between the intern and on-site supervisor and/or faculty supervisor. Most interns (87.8%) reported discussing objectives with their site supervisors; fewer (54.7%) discussed objectives with their faculty supervisors.

Organizational Host Responsibilities and Obligations

It is important that organizational hosts understand the nature of the internship, such as whether the internship will be full time during the summer or part time during the school year. Contacts and supervisors within host organizations also need to understand student abilities and competencies. Whereas students likely have some valuable capabilities, they typically lack experience, which is the primary reason they are completing an internship. The host organization must recognize what the students are capable of accomplishing and what may be beyond (or in some cases beneath) their capabilities. Projects and responsibilities should match the student’s competencies while providing a growth experience (Eyler, 1995). For example, students who have training in job analysis should be able to write job descriptions, but they likely will not have the skill to develop a performance evaluation system.

As already noted, we recommend an early meeting between the site supervisor and intern detailing the expectations of the internship. Of the hosts surveyed, 83% reported that they had conducted such a meeting with interns. Comparably, 88% of interns reported that they had discussed objectives with the site supervisor before the start of the internship.

Another aspect of ensuring that the intern is properly treated can be gauged by the internship site’s orientation procedures. Thus, we asked hosts how they oriented students to their internship. The majority (79%) of the hosts indicated that they had provided a specialized, personalized orientation for their interns. Other orientations to the organizations included regular employee orientation (24%) and supplied reading material (e.g., training manual; 17%). Interns reported comparable experiences: 83% indicated they had been given a personalized orientation to their intern duties by their site supervisor and 32% reported having attended regular employee orientations (24% indicated they had attended both types of orientation). Next, we turn to a discussion of intern characteristics that are relevant to fulfilling internship host expectations.

Student Qualifications and Obligations

To participate in an internship, students should have completed relevant course work and demonstrated professionalism (e.g., conscientiousness, hard work, ethical behavior). Requisite coursework can be assessed via a checklist compiled by the program in consultation with hosts. The specific qualifying characteristics of the intern can be assessed best if the student has taken a course from the faculty supervisor; other faculty can also provide recommendations regarding the intern’s suitability for a given internship. In addition, information can be garnered from an internship application and a preinternship interview with the faculty supervisor or program internship coordinator. Program faculty can make a preliminary selection decision, but the intern and on-site supervisor can best determine fit during the initial interview with the organization. Faculty should decline to place a student who lacks the academic standing or professional demeanor to contribute positively to the organization.

Interns who recognize they must make a commitment to the organization will achieve the greatest benefits from their internships (Feldman & Weitz, 1990). Students need to understand the internship is equivalent to a job in responsibility and that the student is representing not only himself or herself but also the academic department and university. This acknowledgement of the requisite commitment can be assessed from faculty references and during the internship application process. Securing commitment from the student contributes to success for the current intern and the academic program’s continued relationship with the organization (Munson et al., 2004).

If a host is happy with the intern’s performance, it typically is willing to provide an internship site again. In the survey results, 100% of hosts agreed (40%) or strongly agreed (60%) that overall they were satisfied with their intern and 87% agreed (28%) or strongly agreed (59%) that they were willing to host another intern. Indeed, satisfaction with the intern was strongly correlated with willingness to host in the future (Spearman’s ρ = .61, p < .001).

Student Competencies Typically Acquired

Once a student commits to a placement, focus shifts to on-site organizational work. The specific competencies students learn from the internship typically include technical writing, oral presentation, organizational skills, and data management (Carducci et al., 1987; Crebert et al., 2004; Kraiger, 1997). Students may collect, analyze, and interpret data as part of their internship experience. Also, being immersed in the organizational setting introduces students to office politics and the realities of implementing classroom techniques by negotiating with busy managers and workers. They develop interpersonal and team skills by working on project teams (cf. Munson et al., 2004; Shaw & Benedict, 1988; Shoenfelt, 2003).

Based on our experiences with intern placements, we identified 12 skills that are likely to be needed and improved in a quality internship placement. In our survey, we asked hosts for their opinions of intern skills needed at entry (see Table 1). Results from the host survey indicate that among the 12 skills assessed on the survey, ethical behavior and integrity, professionalism, and statistical analysis were rated as the top skills required upon entering the internship. It might be noted that data management, interpersonal sensitivity, and time management also were rated highly. The final skills assessed, problem solving, general written communication, critical thinking, technical writing, oral presentation, and organizational savvy, were rated as necessary but not critical. Hosts did not rate any skill as unnecessary upon entry into the internship.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Mean Host Ratings of Master’s Intern Skills Upon Entry and at Completion of the Internship

Skill	M (SD) Upon Entry	M (SD) at End	Wilcoxon Z	2-Tailed Significance	Effect Size (r)
Ethical behavior/integrity	4.00 (0.78)	4.29 (0.78)	2.45	.014	0.53
Professionalism	3.71 (0.78)	4.05 (0.81)	2.65	.008	0.58
Statistical analysis	3.71 (0.99)	4.12 (0.92)	2.33	.020	0.57
Data management	3.53 (0.77)	3.89 (0.88)	2.65	.008	0.61
Interpersonal sensitivity	3.52 (0.81)	3.95 (0.87)	2.46	.014	0.54
Time management	3.52 (0.87)	3.86 (0.79)	2.65	.008	0.58
Problem solving	3.50 (0.89)	3.85 (0.88)	2.07	.038	0.46
General written communication	3.48 (0.81)	3.71 (0.17)	2.24	.025	0.49
Critical thinking	3.48 (0.75)	3.86 (0.85)	2.53	.011	0.55
Technical writing	3.26 (0.73)	3.68 (0.75)	2.83	.005	0.65
Oral presentation	2.94 (0.80)	3.39 (0.14)	2.83	.005	0.67
Organizational savvy	2.86 (0.68)	3.57 (0.81)	3.42	.001	0.75

Data presented are host data for master’s interns only because of limited responses from hosts of undergraduate interns. Ratings were made on a 5-point scale where 1 = unacceptable, 2 = below standard, 3 = meets standard, 4 = exceeds standard, and 5 = excellent.

In addition to requesting expected skills at internship entry, we asked hosts to rate those same skills at internship completion. As seen in Table 1, hosts reported that interns improved over the course of their internships in each of the 12 skills assessed on the survey. Considering the variety of possible duties of an intern, great care must be taken to ensure there is sufficient supervision, to which we turn next.

Faculty and On-Site Supervision of Interns

Students like to work independently on the internship and sometimes need more guidance than they recognize (cf. Kruger & Dunning, 1999). Given the broad range of student skill levels, it is important that the level of faculty supervision accommodates each internship situation. Whether regularly scheduled or on an as-needed basis, communication between the student and the faculty supervisor is important to ensure difficulties do not turn into problems and to answer questions regarding practice issues. Regardless of the frequency of communication, the faculty supervisor should oversee the experience and the student’s performance. Faculty can monitor placements through individual sessions with students, journals (e.g., electronically), and the intern’s written assessment of the placement, which can be shared with the on-site supervisor at completion of the internship.

The on-site supervisor will have the greatest amount of contact with the student on a regular basis, helping the student develop goals for the internship and evaluating the student’s performance. Thus, we believe it is important for faculty to know and communicate with on-site supervisors. Faculty should be particularly careful if the site contact delegates the intern to another supervisor, who should be in the communication loop. Faculty should communicate their expectations for on-site supervision to potential supervisors, meet with them, and ensure they are willing to meet these expectations. A midterm phone conversation with the on-site supervisor and subsequent final written evaluation of the intern’s performance can also provide information about how well the on-site supervisor mentored the intern (Shoenfelt et al., 2008). Our intern survey results indicate that faculty supervision as needed was the most common model (42%); 26% of interns indicated they communicated weekly with their faculty supervisor; and 17% of interns indicated this communication took place on a monthly basis.

Our host survey data indicate that 32% of our hosts met with their interns daily, 36% met every few days, and 21% met weekly; only one host indicated meeting several times a day with the intern, and one host indicated meeting only as needed with the intern. Despite our emphasis on communication between faculty and site supervisors, our survey results indicate that most hosts (48%) communicated with faculty only as needed; 21% communicated once or twice during the academic term; and 20% indicated that they never communicated with the academic supervisor.

Evaluation of Student Internship Performance

Prior to beginning work on the internship, a student may be required to develop a written proposal with deadlines and benchmarks. The proposal may be considered a contract between the faculty supervisor and student, as it relates to student obligations, and as an implied contract between the organization and the student regarding the products the organization can expect (Sweitzer & King, 2009). For example, one common element of the implied contract is that a technical report will be required at the completion of the internship. The report might describe the conditions of the internship, the tasks completed, and any work products that resulted. The report serves as a tangible product for the host organization, the faculty supervisor, and the student.

During the internship, some interns may keep a daily task log that details their responsibilities. The use of task logs or journals can help students reflect on their experiences. Reflection has been found to be related to business interns’ learned adaptability, self-efficacy, interpersonal skills, ability to work under pressure, and enhanced application of class knowledge (Beck & Halim, 2008). At the organization’s request, students may make an oral presentation of projects to interested organizational personnel. Likewise, students may be required to present their internship experience in a colloquium setting to other students and faculty (Hays-Thomas & Kass, 2003). Most interns (94%) reported they were required to submit a written final report of the internship experience; 68% of the interns indicated the report went only to the faculty supervisor, 25% indicated the report went to the site supervisor and the faculty supervisor, and only one intern (1% of all intern responses) indicated that the report went only to the site supervisor.

Finally, the on-site supervisor might complete a structured evaluation that details the intern’s performance and identifies areas for improvement to provide feedback to the student. Our host survey results indicate that on-site supervisors regularly reviewed intern performance during the internship using observation (66%) and review of work products (83%). For a final review of the intern, 84% of hosts indicated they conducted a final evaluation, 52% conducted a formal appraisal and provided the intern with written feedback, 19% conducted a formal review meeting but did not provide written feedback, and 29% used an informal discussion.

As we have noted, numerous products can be used to document and evaluate intern performance. In the final analysis, whatever means is chosen to review the internship experience, the primary objective should include the development of feedback to enhance student learning from the experience.