Current Issues in Tourism

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20

Cruise tourism ‘brain drain’: exploring the role

of personality traits, educational experience and
career choice attributes

Alexis Papathanassis

To cite this article: Alexis Papathanassis (2020): Cruise tourism ‘brain drain’: exploring the role of
personality traits, educational experience and career choice attributes, Current Issues in Tourism,
DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2020.1816930

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1816930

Published online: 07 Sep 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 53

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcit20
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1816930

Cruise tourism ‘brain drain’: exploring the role of personality traits,

educational experience and career choice attributes
Alexis Papathanassis
Tourism and Cruise Management, Bremerhaven University of Applied Sciences, Bremerhaven, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

While tourism in general, and cruise tourism in particular, have been Received 24 June 2020
steadily growing over the last years, industry bodies and associations Accepted 26 August 2020
have reported and warned against the first signs of labour shortages.
KEYWORDS
Indeed, a relatively high proportion of tourism and hospitality students Career choice; corporate
opt out of the tourism sector within the first years after graduation. The social responsibility; cruise
research presented in this paper aims at exploring the factors affecting tourism; HEXACO personality
the career choices of cruise-tourism students (N = 167) and comparing dimensions; hospitality
the findings with those of the wider research in the tourism and education; study satisfaction
hospitality domain. Our findings underline the role of the cruise sector’s
reputation, as well as its perceived growth as central for attracting
‘young talents’. Entry-level employment conditions play a secondary role
and personality profiles do not appear to influence the students’
intention to pursue a career in the cruise sector. Research implications
and practical recommendations (also considering the post-COVID19
implications) are drawn.

Introduction and background

In its 2015 ‘Global Talent Trends and Issues for the Travel and Tourism Sector’, the World Travel &
Tourism Council (abbr. WTTC) reports that:
Travel & Tourism’s Human Capital challenges are significantly higher than those faced in other sectors, with 37 out of
46 countries showing a talent ‘deficit’ or ‘shortage’ in Travel & Tourism over the next ten years, compared with only 6
out of 46 for the economy as a whole. (WTTC, 2015, p. 07).

Tourism and hospitality careers: high rates of ‘graduate-leakage’

Amongst the rather obvious reasons related to uncompetitive pay, career attractiveness, and nega-
tive sector image, losing talent to other sectors and a failure to attract and retain qualified personnel
have been highlighted (WTTC, 2013; 2015, pp. 16–17). In this respect, it is somewhat worrisome that
approximately one-third of tourism and hospitality students opt out of the tourism sector within the
first 10 years following their graduation (Brown et al., 2014). Various other researchers have
attempted to explore this relatively low absorption rate of tourism and hospitality graduates in the
sector (e.g. (Sam) Kim et al., 2016; Nachmias & Walmsley, 2015; Erdinc, 2012; Chuang et al., 2007).
While this issue is by no means novel, with a number of relevant factors consistently resurfacing,
those studies are mainly focused on the hospitality sector. Moreover, the vast majority involve
student samples from the Asia-Pacific region.

CONTACT Alexis Papathanassis apapathanassis@hs-bremerhaven.de

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. PAPATHANASSIS

Cruise tourism careers: relevance and research gap

This study aims at complementing existing research both in terms of domain- and of geographical-
scope. More specifically, we aim at exploring the factors affecting the career intentions of European
undergraduates in cruise tourism. Excluding the occasional cruise-module within a hospitality – or
tourism-management degree, higher education programmes specializing in cruise tourism are less
than a handful. Moreover, research on cruise tourism in general is very limited and does not resemble
the increasing size and impact of the sector (Papathanassis & Beckmann, 2011). In terms of motiv-
ations to pursue a degree and a career in cruise tourism, research is almost non-existent (Papathanas-
sis et al., 2013). The growth rate, the increased intra-sectoral competition and the diffusion of
technologies within the cruise business, all emphasize the need for recruiting and retaining highly
skilled personnel in order to facilitate the future development of the industry (Papathanassis, 2017;
Weeden et al., 2011; Papathanassis & Gibson, 2009). In fact, there are already signs that the industry
is facing (skilled und semi-skilled) labour shortages (Bond, 2017; Terry, 2011). Within this context, and
keeping in mind the small number of cruise tourism programmes, failure to attract graduates and
entice them for a career in the cruise sector could be detrimental in the medium-term. A study of
160 cruise tourism degree alumni (graduating between 2003 and 2010) conducted in 2015 (Milde
& Gebhardt, 2015), revealed that while 71.3% were satisfied with their degree choice, only 19.1%
were working in the cruise-sector and only 15.9% in other tourism-areas. Considering that these stu-
dents had opted for a highly-specialized, business-sector-focused degree programme; only to end up
pursuing careers in unrelated fields, appears surprisingly (or not?) identical to the equivalent ‘gradu-
ate leakage’ rate in the tourism and hospitality sector mentioned above.
The implicit question here is whether a separate examination of graduates’ career choices for the
cruise subdomain is warranted. In other words, does a cruise career choice (i.e. hospitality at sea) differ
substantially enough from that of a hospitality one (i.e. at land) to merit separate/additional research.
Indeed, cruise employment differs from hospitality employment in terms of motives (Matuszewski &
Blenkinsopp, 2011; Sehkaran & Sevcikova, 2011), required competences (Brownell, 2008) and expec-
tations (Gibson, 2008). Thus, the purpose of this research is to examine the transferability and relevance
of existing hospitality research on career perceptions / intentions for the cruise sub-domain. On this basis,
meaningful recommendations are made for both employers and educators; addressing in this way, at
least partially, the emerging challenge of labour and talent shortages in the cruise sector.

Literature review
Over the last years, there have been various studies exploring the career motivations and aspirations
of tourism graduates (Juaneda et al., 2017; Penny Wan et al., 2014; Wu, 2013; Richardson & Butler,
2012; Richardson, 2010; Kim et al., 2010). While not identically worded, those studies apply similar
sets of variables or constructs for their research models.

Tourism and cruise career choice: beyond low salaries and long working hours
While global tourism produces 10% of the global GDP and corresponds to 1 out of 10 jobs worldwide
(UNWTO, 2019), it is no secret that pursuing a hospitality career predicates a particular affinity and ideal-
ism, which compensates for the relatively unattractive pay and working conditions; at least for career-
starters and for those employed in operational / front-office positions. It may therefore be of no surprise
that various researchers have highlighted the role of sector reputation and the perceived social status of
a tourism career as determinants of students’ commitment to the industry (Penny Wan et al., 2014). The
more recent media attention placed on the ecological impact of tourism and sector’s contribution to
global CO2 emissions (Lenzen et al., 2018), could also be a negative influence in this respect.
Nevertheless, those attending a higher education degree in the field, presumably – and perhaps
also justifiably – have the expectation of a decent starting salary, coupled with the possibility of pay
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 3

raise as they gradually move up the career ladder ((Sam) Kim et al., 2016). Maxwell et al. (2010), refer-
ring to their sampled hospitality students, characterize them as ‘self-centered’ and ‘demanding’,
expressing high initial career expectations and ambitions for the long-term. In light of the heightened
career aspirations of hospitality and tourism students, positive developments and expectations of
growth in the tourism sector may well be associated with improved career opportunities and employ-
ability. Amongst others (see Table 1), Wu (2013) underline the importance of a (perceived) ‘promising
future for the industry’ as a topmost reason to take on jobs in hospitality and tourism (p.51).
Over the last years, the cruise sector has promoted and capitalized on the narrative of being the
‘fastest growing sector’ within tourism (Papathanassis, 2019). Amongst the key motives of seeking
employment in the cruise sector are money-saving possibilities (i.e. salary without the costs of
living on land) and the attractive lifestyle of travelling and interacting with different cultures (Seh-
karan & Sevcikova, 2011). An attractive lifestyle and having fun at work acts as a trade-off for relatively
low paid jobs in hospitality and by implication in the cruise sector; especially for the younger gener-
ation (Choi et al., 2013). Yet for many first-time crewmembers, there is a mismatch between the rea-
lities of life on board and their tacit expectations related to it (Matuszewski & Blenkinsopp, 2011).
Internships tend to reveal this type of mismatch (Kim & Park, 2013) and have been frequently
researched topic in the context of tourism and hospitality career choices (see Table 1). The consensus
appears to be that internship experiences are pivotal for shaping and aligning tourism and hospitality
students’ expectations regarding their future careers.

Table 1. Tourism and hospitality career choice: literature review summary.

Independent Variables Short description
Sector Growth Perceptions of expected sector growth are
associated with employability, job opportunities
and job security
Career Prospects Referring ro promotion possibilities, professional
development, and variety of career paths
Work Conditions This dimension refers to employment conditions
such as starting salary, earnings and working
hours, as well as the overall working
environment in terms of relationship with co-
workers (team spirit), management style and
physical surroundings
Work Life Balance Well-being, facilitated by autonomy, responsibility
and intellectual challenge on the job, as well as
the degree of fit with personal and social life
aspirations and plans
Reputation / Sector Reputation and the image of the tourism / cruise
Image sector is associated with the status and
recognition students derive from their social
surroundings
Opportunity to Travel / Reflects a core motivation for those studying and
Cultural Enrichment opting for a career in the tourism sector; the
opportunity to work and travel abroad, whilst
gaining diverse cultural experiences
Self-Actualization / Field This refers to the feeling of doing something
Attractiveness ‘meaningful’ which is in line with one’s own
personal ‘calling’, a natural affinity towards the
this kind of service occupation.
Internship / Previous Previous and / or internship experience is
Experience expected to have an impact on expectations,
exposing the students to the daily realities of
the tourism sector
Educational Background The relationship between the overall educational
/ Satisfaction with experience (perceptions) and attitudes towards
Studies tourism and hospitality careers
Personality Fit / Profile Personality traits / profiles influence on
References
Juaneda et al. (2017), Penny Wan et al. (2014),
Wong & Kong (2014), Wu (2013)
Wu (2013), Erdinc (2012), Richardson (2010),
Maxwell et al. (2010)
(Sam) Kim et al. (2016), Choi et al. (2013), Wu
(2013), Richardson (2010), Maxwell et al. (2010)
Kim and Park (2013), Choi et al. (2013), Wong and
Ko (2009)
Juaneda et al. (2017), Penny Wan et al. (2014),
Brown et al. (2014), Richardson (2010), Wong
and Kong (2009)
(Sam) Kim et al. (2016), Sehkaran and Sevcikova
(2011)
Juaneda et al. (2017)
Farmaki (2018), Robinson et al. (2016), Koc et al.
(2014), Kim and Park (2013), Papathanassis
et al. (2013), Lu and Adler (2009), Teng (2008)
Nachmias et al. (2017), Brown et al. (2014), Xu
(2013)
Yildirim et al. (2016), Wu (2013), Sohn and Lee
(2012), Richardson (2010), Lu and Adler (2009),
Teng (2008)
4 A. PAPATHANASSIS

The internship experience can result to a shift within the tourism industry (e.g. from hospitality to
tour operating); or to a redirection towards another industry altogether (Lu & Adler, 2009). Reflecting
a kind of ‘entry shock’ (Hughes, 1958 in Nachmias et al., 2017) for undergraduates, perceptions of the
tourism industry are presumably affected by the experiences and expectations with their studies. The
practice-theory balance of a tourism degree, as well the overall satisfaction with the educational
experience and contents of the chosen studies may well be projected on the students’ career expec-
tations and attitudes. In which case, satisfaction with a programme of studies can result to negative as
well as positive perceptions; depending on its degree of alignment with the realities of the job (Wu,
2013). For example, a student expressing high satisfaction with their tourism / hospitality programme,
which does not reflect the realities and provide the necessary competences, may experience a higher
‘entry shock’ during their internship. In a similar manner, a degree programme aligned with the
sector’s expectations could dissolve the pre-study expectations and hopes of students, resulting to
dissatisfaction with their study choice and the programme itself.

Personality and tourism careers

The relationship between personality traits, study- and career- choices, as well their influence of
employee performance and satisfaction, has been quite extensively researched; also within the
tourism and hospitality context (see Huang et al., 2014; Sohn & Lee, 2012; Teng, 2008; Kim et al.,
2007). The ‘Big-Five Inventory (abbr. BFI) (Schmitt et al., 2007) or the ‘five-factor personality’ model
(Yildirim et al., 2016), has been widely used to define, categorize and research personality profiles
(Schmitt et al., 2007; John & Srivastava, 1999; Costa, 1992). The model’s (acronym OCEAN) five person-
ality dimensions and their facets (ibid) are:

. Openness to Experience (vs. Closeness to Experience): Curiosity, creativity and imagination, aes-
thetics (artistic), actions (wide interests), feelings (excitable), values (unconventional)
. Conscientiousness (vs. Lack of direction): Competence and efficiency, order and organization,
sense of duty (not careless), achievement-striving, thoroughness / rigour, self-discipline, delibera-
tion (not impulsive)
. Extraversion (vs. Introversion): Gregariousness (sociable), assertiveness (forceful), activity (ener-
getic), Excitement-/adventure-seeking, positive emotions / enthusiasm, warmth (outgoing)
. Agreeableness (vs. Antagonism): Trust (forgiving), straightforwardness (not demanding), altruism
(warm), compliance (not stubborn), modesty, tender-mindedness (sympathetic)
. Neuroticism (vs. Emotional Stability): Anxiety, irritability, depression, self-consciousness / shyness,
impulsiveness, vulnerability

The relationship between the ‘big-five’ personality traits, academic performance and / or major choice
has been extensively researched (see for example: De Feyter et al., 2012; Geramian et al., 2012; Jonason
et al., 2014; Komarraju et al., 2009; Kowalski et al., 2017; Larson et al., 2010; Noël et al., 2016; Sorić et al.,
2017; Vedel, 2014, 2016; Vedel et al., 2015; Vedel & Thomsen, 2017; Zhou, 2015). In the tourism domain,
personality traits have been tested as predictors of a variety of dependent variables such as:

. Job performance and satisfaction (e.g. Yildirim et al., 2016; Sohn & Lee, 2012; Kim et al., 2007)
. Tourists’ decision-making and behaviour (e.g. Servidio, 2015; Kvasova, 2015)
. Locals’ attitudes towards tourism development (e.g. Moghavvemi et al., 2017)
. Students’ attitudes towards tourism-related study and employment (e.g. Tai et al., 2012; Richard-
son, 2010; Teng, 2008)

On a general note, it seems that extraversion and agreeableness are most relevant in terms of job
performance and satisfaction in hospitality, while conscientiousness constitutes a reliable predictor
for academic success and career progression. The BFI, has had its critics and various adaptations /
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 5

extensions of it are available. A more recent variation of the BFI, the HEXACO model proposed by Lee
and Ashton (2004), adds an additional (6th) dimension: Honesty-Humility. This dimension entails
traits such as: sincerity, fairness, greed avoidance, and modesty, adding an ethical-moral component
to the index. Apart from the improved validity and predictive-ability of the HEXACO over the conven-
tional BFI model (Sohn & Lee, 2012), its explicit ethical-moral component is arguably highly relevant
for the context of our study (i.e. cruise tourism), as well as for its respondents (Gen Z).
Over the last years, the cruise sector has been extensively- and publicly-criticized for its poor sus-
tainability performance and negative ecological and socio-cultural impacts on port communities (e.g.
Papathanassis, 2019; Larsen & Wolff, 2019; MacNeill & Wozniak, 2018; Navarro-Ruiz et al., 2019;
Weeden et al., 2011). At the same time, the ‘Fridays for Future’ global movement has drawn more
attention to the hedonistic character and externalities of tourism, negatively affecting its image
and presumably its attractiveness as a career option for the responsibility-conscious younger gener-
ation (Deloitte, 2019; Francis & Hoefel, 2018).

Modelling cruise career intentions of undergraduates

Following the review of scientific literature on tourism and hospitality career choices, a predictive
model (15 predictive variables) was constructed.
The model (Figure 1) consists of three constructs to be tested against the dependent variable
(career intention). Those are: ‘Career choice attributes’, ‘HEXACO personality profile’ and ‘satisfaction
with (chosen) studies’.

Figure 1. Modelling career choices in cruise tourism.

6 A. PAPATHANASSIS

Research method and data collection

Questionnaire design and structure
The model’s constructs were translated into survey items. With the exception of the personality index
scores, the rest of the constructs were measured, using 5-point Likert scales which rated degrees: of
agreement with statements (i.e. 1 – Strongly Disagree, 5 – Strongly Agree), of importance attributed
to characteristics / features (i.e. 1 – Unimportant, 5 – Very Important), and of probability related to
future actions (i.e. 1 – Very Unlikely, 5 – Very Likely). In terms of structure, the questionnaire consisted
of five sections:

(1) Demographics: Age and Gender (2-items)

(2) HEXACO Personality Index: 60-Item standardized questionnaire measuring 6 personality dimen-
sions (Ashton & Lee, 2009)
(3) Career choice attributes: 10-Items measuring 8 variables and derived on our literature review
(Table 2)
(4) Satisfaction with (cruise studies): Asking their respondents the probability of them choosing the
programme again given their current experiences and the extent to which they would rec-
ommend the programme to others (2-items measuring the variable)
(5) Cruise career intention: Asking the respondents about the likelihood of them pursuing a career in
cruise tourism following graduation (1 item)

Sampling and data processing

Following a pre-test of the questionnaire with five respondents, the survey was conducted between
October and November 2019, with the students of a cruise management degree programme in
Germany. The questionnaire was distributed in paper form, yielding 167 completed surveys and
representing a response rate of 52%. Given that the survey consisted of many items, students
were offered an optional personalized HEXACO profile report as an incentive (69 students opted
for this). The relatively high response rate can also be attributed to the readiness of the faculty to
promote this survey to their students and make time available for them to go through it during class.
Regarding the sample’s demographics, 43% of the respondents were in their first year of studies,
28% in their second year and 29% in their final year. Moreover, 32% had already completed at least
one internship. The average age of the respondents was 22.6 years and the majority (81%) were
female. This is representative of the population and comparable to the demographics of tourism
and tourism programmes in general (World Tourism Organization [UNWTO, 2019; Koptyug, 2019;

Table 2. Career choice attributes – questionnaire items.

Variables Survey items (Respondents asked to evaluate the importance of the following for them
personally using a scale from 1 – Unimportant to 5 – Very Important)
Sector Growth ‘Business and / or economic growth of the cruise tourism’
Career Prospects ‘Career prospects (variety of career paths, professional development)’
Work Conditions ‘Working environment (i.e. team spirit, relationship with co-workers, management style) in
the cruise tourism business ’
‘Work conditions (i.e. starting salary and earnings over the length of my career, working
hours) in the cruise tourism business’
Work Life Balance ‘Autonomy, responsibility and intellectual challenge included in my professional life’
‘Fit of career choice with my private and social life future plans and aspirations’
Reputation / Sector Image ‘Wider Image and reputation of the cruise sector and of those working in it’
Opportunity to Travel / Cultural ‘Opportunity to travel as a job and come in contact with different people and cultures’
Enrichment
Self-Actualization / Field ‘Opportunity to do something meaningful in my professional life (i.e. work for making the
Attractiveness world a better place and making people happy)’
Internship / Previous Experience ‘Previous work experience in the cruise and/or tourism business (i.e. had an internship or job
in the past)’
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 7

DeStatis, 2019]). The collected data was manually entered into Excel and then imported to IBMs SPSS
20.0 and SmartPLS 3.0 (Ringle et al., 2015) for statistical analysis. The statistical power of the sample
was estimated applying the GPower software algorithm (Faul et al., 2009). Aiming for a statistical
power of 80% in our SEM-PLS analysis, with a total of 15 predictor variables, a significance level
(alpha) of 5%, and effect size (f2) of 0.15 the minimum sample size was estimated to be 139. Our
sample exceeded this threshold.

Results and discussion

Descriptive statistics
The average HEXACO personality profile of the cruise students / respondents (Table 3) does not
deviate much from the one of the wider population (see Lee & Ashton, 2009).
Somewhat unexpected is that the sample’s extraversion score (32.9) was lower than the popu-
lation average (35.0); despite this dimensions’ stereotypical association with job performance in
tourism (Sohn & Lee, 2012). On this note, Yildirim et al. (2016), reported a negative relationship
between extraversion and job satisfaction amongst hotel employees. The relatively higher conscien-
tiousness score is not surprising, as its association with academic performance is well-documented in
the literature (Sorić et al., 2017; Vedel, 2014, 2016; Vedel et al., 2015; Zhou, 2015; De Feyter et al., 2012;
Geramian et al., 2012; Komarraju et al., 2009).
With respect to career choice, the sample’s results (Table 4) confirm the findings presented in the
literature review. Cruise students placed particular importance on: ‘Career prospects’ (mean = 4,2), the
‘opportunity to travel’ (mean = 4,1) and ‘working conditions’ (mean = 4,0), supporting the importance
of career prospects Maxwell et al. (2010) and attractive lifestyles (Choi, 2013) for the younger gener-
ation. The relatively lower importance placed on ‘reputation / sector image’ (mean = 3,2), while in
agreement with the ‘Honesty-Humility’ dimension results, challenges the stereotype of a highly
responsibility-conscious younger generation (Deloitte, 2019; Francis & Hoefel, 2018); suggesting
that responsible consumption does not necessarily transcend to career choice. An alternative
interpretation could be that cruise tourism students relativize the current negative publicity on the
ecological impacts of cruises, offsetting its impact on their own ethical concerns. Concurrently,
while hospitality service jobs are not reputed for their work conditions and remuneration, the
internationalism and cosmopolitan lifestyle accompanying cruise employment may well compensate
for it.

Model assessment and hypotheses testing

To assess the model, a Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) (Hair et al., 2012)
was used, running a PLS algorithm with the SmartPLS 3.0 software (Ringle et al., 2015). To test the

Table 3. Descriptive statistics – HEXACO personality dimensions.

Min Max % Above Population Mean
HEXACO Personality Possible Possible Mid-point of (Lee & Ashton, T-Test
Dimensions N Score Mean Score St. Deviation score (30.0) 2009) Results
Honesty-Humility 167 10 33. 33,5 50 7.1 73% 32.2 2,33*
33,5
5
Emotionality 167 10 32.8 50 5.8 70% 33.4 −1,38
Extraversion 167 10 32.9 50 5.8 67% 35.0 −4,8**
Agreeableness 167 10 30.9 50 5.1 52% 30.0 2,19*
Conscientiousness 167 10 36.2 50 5.8 86% 34.7 3,4**
Openness to 167 10 33.2 50 7.9 70% 33.1 0,14
Experience
*Significant at the 0,05 level, **Significant at the 0.01 level.
8 A. PAPATHANASSIS

Table 4. Descriptive statistics – career choice, satisfaction with studies and career intention.
Min Possible Max Possible % Above Mid-point of
Career Choice Atributes N Score Mean Score St. Deviation scale (3.0)
Sector Growth 167 1 3.6 5 1.0 65%
Career Prospects 167 1 4.2 5 0.7 91%
Work Conditions 167 1 4.0 5 0.6 96%
Work Life Balance 167 1 3.9 5 0.9 71%
Reputation / Sector Image 167 1 3.2 5 0.9 38%
Opportunity to Travel / Cultural 167 1 4.1 5 0.9 81%
Enrichment
Self-Actualization / Field 167 1 3.9 5 1.0 68%
Attractiveness
Internship / Previous Experience 167 1 3.0 5 1.3 41%
Dependent Variables N Min Possible Mean Max Possible St. Deviation % Above Mid-point of
Score Score scale
Satisfaction with Studies 167 1 3.9 5 0.9 77%
Career Intention 167 1 3.3 5 1.3 50%

proposed model (Figure 1) and estimate the path coefficients (Figure 2), a bootstrapping with 10.000
samples was performed. In terms of its predictive ability the model’s testing resulted to a R 2 of 38%
(R 2Adjusted = 36,9%), which can be described as a moderate to high (Ferguson, 2009).
Addressing construct reliability, the Cronbach’s alpha for ‘Career Choice Attributes’ is 0,63 and
Composite Reliability (CR) value of 0,6. While there is considerable debate on the corresponding
threshold levels, values between 0,6 and 0,7 are regarded as acceptable in terms of internal consist-
ency (i.e. items measuring the same variable). For the HEXACO Index the values are low (Cronbach’s
alpha = 0,176 and CR = 0,118), which is expected, given that the HEXACO Index is a composite con-
struct (i.e. internal consistency is meant to be low). Coming to the aspect of discriminant validity, both
the Hetertrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) and Variance Inflation Values (VIF) meet the acceptable
threshold limits (see Tables 5 and 6).
The test results of the conceptual / hypotheses model are visually depicted in Figure 2 and out-
lined in detail in Table 7. The hypothesized impacts of the HEXACO Personality Index and its dimen-
sions were not confirmed; neither as a predictor of one’s satisfaction with their studies, nor for as a
career intention precursor. With regard to study-satisfaction, this finding is comparable to the con-
clusions of Yildirim et al. (2016) who, deviating from the mainstream association of the ‘Big-Five’
with academic and / or job performance, examined their impact on hospitality-related job satisfac-
tion. It is also supported by the fact that, despite the sample’s relatively high standard deviation
values within the different HEXACO personality traits (Table 3), the vast majority (77%) expressed sat-
isfaction with their own studies (Table 4).
Nonetheless, study-satisfaction emerged as a significant predictor for career choice considerations
(attributes) and the corresponding intention to seek employment in cruise tourism. Intuitively, the
interpretation of this finding could be that the experience of attending an applied science degree
(characterized by a strong sectoral and employability focus) is projected on the expected correspond-
ing career experience. In other words, in the mind of students, enjoying studying to become a cruise
tourism professional leads to the expectation of enjoying actually being one.
Alternatively, it could simply mean that the choice of study is driven by other factors (e.g. university
location, opportunity to travel, internationality), not directly related to the degree programme’s employ-
ment scope ((Sam) Kim et al., 2016). This interpretation could be an explanation for the discrepancy

Table 5. Discriminant validity (HTMT Values).

Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)* Career Choice Attributes Career Intention HEXACO Personality Profile
Career Intention 0.498
HEXACO Personality Profile 0.611 0.242
Satisfaction with Studies 0.363 0.498 0.314
*Values over 0.9 indicate lack of discriminant validity
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 9

Figure 2. Model-testing summary.

between the sample’s high-degree of study-satisfaction (77% of respondents – Table 4) and the
expressed intention to follow a career in the corresponding domain (50% of respondents – Table 4).
Either way, the implication that the subjective experience with one’s studies directly affects sub-
sequent career decisions extends the role and purpose of tourism and cruise degree programmes.

Table 6. Collinearity statistics (VIF Values).

Career Choice Satisfaction with
Inner VIF Values (Model)* Attributes Career Intention Studies
Career Choice Attributes 1.207
HEXACO Personality Profile 1.080 1.000
Satisfaction with Studies 1.000 1.232
Outer VIF Values (HEXACO Outer VIF Values (Career Choice Attributes
Construct)* Construct)*
Agreeableness 1.112 Career Intention 1.000
Conscientiousness 1.046 Career Prospects 1.236
Emotionality 1.112 Internship / Previous Experience 1.216
Extraversion 1.114 Opportunity to Travel / Cultural Enrichment 1.289
Honesty-Humility 1.161 Reputation / Sector Image 1.453
Openness to Experience 1.049 Satisfaction with Study 1.000
Sector Growth 1.497
Self-Actualization / Field Attractiveness 1.213
Work Conditions 1.605
Work Life Balance 1.253
*Variance Inflation factor (abbr. VIF) values over 5 indicate Multicollinearity
10 A. PAPATHANASSIS

Table 7. Hypothesis testing results.

Original Sample Standard Deviation
Model Path / Hypotheses Testing Sample (O) Mean (M) (STDEV) T Statistics P Values
Career Choice Attributes -> Career Intention 0.393 0.402 0.072 5.459 0,000**
HEXACO Personality Profile -> Career Intention 0.022 0.013 0.100 0.219 0.826
HEXACO Personality Profile -> Satisfaction with 0.247 0.200 0.217 1.142 0.254
Studies
Satisfaction with Studies -> Career Choice 0.399 0.413 0.073 5.437 0,000**
Attributes
Satisfaction with Studies -> Career Intention 0.336 0.318 0.079 4.256 0,000**
Outer Loadings Original Sample Standard Deviation T Statistics P Values
Sample (O) Mean (M) (STDEV) (|O/STDEV|)
Agreeableness <- HEXACO Personality Profile 0.218 0.227 0.261 0.836 0.403
Career Prospects <- Career Choice Attributes 0.293 0.271 0.147 1.988 0,046*
Conscientiousness <- HEXACO Personality 0.443 0.300 0.323 1.375 0.169
Profile
Emotionality <- HEXACO Personality Profile −0.659 −0.259 0.523 1.259 0.208
Extraversion <- HEXACO Personality Profile 0.625 0.336 0.451 1.386 0.166
Honesty-Humility <- HEXACO Personality Profile 0.271 0.229 0.280 0.968 0.333
Internship / Previous Experience <- Career 0.544 0.527 0.101 5.388 0,000**
Choice Attributes
Openness to Experience <- HEXACO Personality −0.093 0.053 0.313 0.298 0.765
Profile
Opportunity to Travel / Cultural Enrichment <- 0.438 0.419 0.130 3.376 0,001**
Career Choice Attributes
Reputation / Sector Image <- Career Choice 0.737 0.717 0.068 10.808 0,000**
Attributes
Sector Growth <- Career Choice Attributes 0.849 0.835 0.046 18.335 0,000**
Self-Actualization / Field Attractiveness <- 0.069 0.055 0.154 0.447 0.655
Career Choice Attributes
Work Conditions <- Career Choice Attributes 0.333 0.308 0.174 1.912 0.056
Work Life Balance <- Career Choice Attributes −0.275 −0.277 0.142 1.945 0.052
*Significant at the 0,05 level.
**Significamt at the 0,01 level.

Within the context of competing for young talents, the contribution of higher education institutions
(HEIs) could be beyond that of a mere HR supplier and productivity catalyst, to one of sector-rep-
resentation and employer-branding.
Coming to the career choice factors extracted from the literature review, ‘Reputation / Sector
Image’ and ‘Sector Growth’ had the highest factor loadings and were significant at the 0,01 level.
Those were followed by ‘Internship Experience’ and ‘Opportunity to Travel / Cultural enrichment’.
The remaining factors, reflecting more concrete employment conditions, were less significant and
appeared to play a secondary role in terms of the motivation and intention to pursue a career in
cruise tourism. These findings contradict the notion of ‘self-centered’ and ‘demanding’ hospitality stu-
dents with high initial career expectations (Maxwell et al., 2010).
In fact, it seems that the younger generation of aspiring (or not) tourism and cruise professionals
pay particular attention to the reputation of their employer and image of their chosen industry. In
which case, corporate social responsibility and ethical practices are becoming a critical success
factor for the cruise sector; not only for demand, but also for the supply-side.
Observed / perceived, as well as expected, ‘Sector Growth’ is understandably the most decisive
factor for predicting career intentions. Here our findings correspond to those by previous studies in
the hospitality sector (e.g. Wu, 2013). Engaging with a growing sector justifies trading-off unattrac-
tive entry-level conditions with an attractive life style and career prospects in the longer-term.
Nevertheless, for cruise tourism students, this ‘growth-promise trade-off’ needs to be accompanied
by the adjectives ‘sustainable’ and ‘responsible’; more so now, when the growth potential of the
tourism and cruise industry is detrimentally hindered by the COVID-19 outbreak and its expected
economic consequences. The qualitative aspects of growth have now taken the centre-stage over
its quantification, reinforcing the wisdom that crises test characters. The kind of character the
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 11

cruise industry exhibits will ultimately determine its attraction for young talents and recovery from
the COVID-19 outbreak.

Implications and limitations

The aim of this paper has been to compare the transferability of general hospitality research findings
for the cruise sector. This ultimately translates to exploring the influence of different factors on the
cruise tourism students’ decisions to pursue a career in their chosen industry / sector. The relevance
of this piece of research lies in the emerging signs of labour and talent shortages in the hospitality
and cruise sector. Apart from synthesizing and transferring existing hospitality-research findings to
the cruise domain, the aspect of personality has been included as a potential influencing factor.

Theoretical implications
While previous hospitality research has sporadically associated personality traits with career choice,
job performance and study or job satisfaction, we were not able to confirm those findings for our
chosen domain. In terms of the HEXACO personality index, the profile of the sample (cruise
tourism students) represented the wider (human) population; with the exception of the scores for
‘emotionality’ and ‘openness to experience’. All the tested personality dimensions revealed no signifi-
cant effects on either ‘study satisfaction’ or ‘career intention’. While one may be tempted to attribute
this to the sample’s limitations, it is worth noting that the chosen statistical method (i.e. PLS-SEM)
performs well with small samples and the current size meets and exceeds the methodological
requirements (Faul et al., 2009; Hair et al., 2012; Hair et al., 2013). Moreover, it is worth considering
that the target population (i.e. students of cruise tourism) is presumably rather small, as there is
less than a handful of university degree programmes specializing in cruise tourism worldwide.1 At
the end of the day, the primary character of this study is an exploratory one (rather than a predictive
one). The sampling frame used is also subject to limitations as it reflects a single, German university.
Obviously, this further limits the generalizability of the study’s results. In order to account for this
limitation and increase the relevance of our findings, we consistently framed and discussed the
findings in the wider hospitality context; comparing our findings to the comparable and relatively
extensive research available. Moreover, we specifically aimed for maximum methodological transpar-
ency and standardization regarding our measurement scales. This was expected to enable and ulti-
mately encourage direct replications of this study in other institutional / educational contexts.
Perhaps, the main implication here is that personality typologies and indexes need to be critically
reflected upon and offer limited value for research in the cruise and tourism domain. For one, our
research suggests that their effect, if any, is indirect and relatively small compared to other, career-
related factors. Setting aside the inherent challenges of personality research, it is also worth considering
that personality traits are not static (at least in terms of their expression). Therefore, the utilization of
personality tests for recruiting purposes may be counter-productive; particularly for selecting young
talents. Finally, and from an ethical viewpoint, personality evaluation, in the form of tests or otherwise,
carries the risks of discrimination and stereotyping. Considering the lack of effects on career motiv-
ations, both of those risks are detrimental for cruise hospitality and tourism in general.

Managerial implications
Coming to the rest, non-personality-related factors, our findings do not support the career expectation
stereotypes of the younger hospitality-student generation. Rather than focusing their decision on short-
term employment-focused aspects such as: ‘work conditions’, ‘work-life balance’ and ‘career-prospects’,
they place particular emphasis on longer-term and somewhat idealistic considerations. ‘reputation /
sector image’, ‘sector growth’ and ‘opportunity to travel / cultural enrichment’ emerged as the most
important aspects predicting an intention to pursue a career in cruise tourism. This has considerable
12 A. PAPATHANASSIS

implications for the cruise sector, as the sector’s current recruitment narrative may prove insufficient to
compensate for the negative publicity regarding sustainability and corporate social responsibility:
‘Being paid to travel the world and getting stripes along the way’ may not be enough to attract –
not mentioning retain – young talents in the near future. Here, it is important to underline an additional
limitation of this study. Our sample consisted of European (mainly German) students, posing a cultural –
and zeitgeist- limitation to the generalizability of our conclusions. In this respect, it would be valuable to
reproduce the research presented here in other, highly cruise-labor-relevant, cultural (e.g. Philippines,
India) and educational (i.e. vocational) contexts.
As this paper is being written, the globe is finding itself amidst the COVID-19 outbreak and its
unprecedented implications for our societies and economies in general and for tourism in particular.
While the aftermath of this crisis and business realities of the ‘day-after’ and not yet visible, one thing
is arguably certain. The ‘givens’ of tourism and cruising are expected to permanently change, render-
ing innovation crucial for business recovery and continuity. In the post-COVID19 ‘new normal’,
attracting well-qualified and motivated personnel will be more vital than ever before for the cruise
sector. In this sense, the research presented here supports the principle of prioritizing people over
profits as this crisis envelops (and not only then). The crisis management actions of cruise operators
are being filtered through the ‘people-over-profit’ lenses, hallmarking the sectors’ reputation and ulti-
mately affecting their capacity for attracting the required human resources for the further, post-
COVID19, evolution of the business. At the end of the day, it is not the students’ personality
profiles influencing career intentions, but the character demonstrated by their future employers
during this crisis (i.e. reputation and image).

Educational implications
Finally, the findings presented here, underline to relevance and importance of educational pro-
grammes, not just as competence-developers and skill-providers, but also as indirect recruiters
and employer-branders for the cruise sector: ‘Study-satisfaction’, and ‘internship experience’, which
is often an integral part of degree programmes (Papathanassis et al., 2013), were both found to
have a significant impact on the students’ career intentions. This is a key argument for supporting
an intensified cooperation between cruise operators and higher-education institutions. Concretely,
and beyond the incorporation of internship / placement phases in undergraduate degree pro-
grammes, this also underlines the relevance and potential of dual-education programmes,
whereby the students study while working at the same time for partner companies. Bridging the
gap between professional training and higher education is both an organizational and didactical
challenge for mainstream educational institutions; yet it can be seen as an opportunity to reduce
dropout rates for universities, whilst limiting employee turnover and talent loss for cruise operators.
Sharing the costs and efforts for cruise education with the private sector is also an underlying
issue, as the public’s investment required (government- or fee-funding) does not readily translate
to tax revenue; Cruise companies sail under flags of convenience and are subject to very limited taxa-
tion. This means that developing and running educational programmes for cruise tourism may well
be a lower priority for the public sector and at the same time too expensive for students to fund it
themselves. Vogel (2016, p. 232) states that: ‘To deserve public financial support, cruise management
programmes must provide an education that conveys a strong and lasting sense of responsibility
towards the public interest and that qualifies graduates to work successfully also outside the cruise indus-
try’. This may well explain the scarcity of cruise tourism degree programmes worldwide, despite an
evident need for qualified human resources in the business.

Final word and further research

This paper extracted the career choice factors of tourism and hospitality literature and assessed their
relevance in the context of cruise tourism. The aim of the chosen methodology was explorative rather
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 13

than deterministic (i.e. focused on prediction). Moreover, the methodology and instruments pre-
sented in this paper enable its straightforward replication in other educational contexts (cruise- or
hospitality-specific). Summarizing, it can be stated that the existing research on the career choices
of hospitality graduates is not readily transferable to the cruise context. This supports the repeatedly
expressed need for more domain-focused research in cruise tourism (e.g. Papathanassis & Klein, 2015;
Papathanassis & Beckmann, 2011; Weeden et al., 2011). Last, but not least, our research suggests that
the cruise sector may benefit from shifting its recruiting focus from ‘finding the right staff for the job’
to ‘being the right employer for talented staff’.

Note
1. e.g. Johnson & Wales University (Miami – US), University of Plymouth (UK), Bremerhaven University of Applied
Sciences (Germany), Winchester City University (Lichtenstein).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Alexis Papathanassis http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9370-1161

References
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO–60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902935878
Bond, M. (2017, June 9). Demand for cruise personnel ‘almost outstripping supply’. Seatrade-Cruise.Com. https://www.
seatrade-cruise.com/news-headlines/demand-cruise-personnel-almost-outstripping-supply
Brown, E. A., Arendt, S. W., & Bosselman, R. H. (2014). Hospitality management graduates’ perceptions of career factor
importance and career factor experience. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37, 58–67. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.10.003
Brownell, J. (2008). Leading on land and sea: Competencies and context. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
27(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.11.003
Choi, Y. G., & Kwon, J. (2013). Effects of workplace fun on employee behaviors: Focused on generation Y in the hospitality
industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25, 410–427.
Choi, Y. G., Kwon, J., & Kim, W. (2013). Effects of workplace Fun on employee behaviors: Focused on generation Y in the
hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(3), 410–427. https://doi.org/10.
1108/09596111311311044
Chuang, N.-K., Goh, B. K., Stout, B. L., & Dellmann-Jenkins, M. (2007). Hospitality undergraduate students’ career choices
and factors influencing commitment to the profession. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 19(4), 28–37. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2007.10696902
Costa, P. J. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory and NEO five-factor inventory. Professional Manual. https://ci.nii.ac.
jp/naid/10014968990/
De Feyter, T., Caers, R., Vigna, C., & Berings, D. (2012). Unraveling the impact of the Big five personality traits on academic
performance: The moderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy and academic motivation. Learning and Individual
Differences, 22(4), 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.013
Deloitte. (2019). Global Millennial Survey 2019: Societal discord and technological transformation create a “generation
disrupted”. Deloitte. https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/millennialsurvey.html
DeStatis. (2019). Hochqualifizierende Bildung und Bildungsstand – wo stehen die Bundesländer im OECD-Vergleich?
Statistisches Bundesamt. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressekonferenzen/2019/Bildung/statement-bildung.
html
Erdinc, S. B. (2012). Determining of college students’ trends about tourism sector: A case study at akdeniz university.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1573–1577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.864
Farmaki, A. (2018). Tourism and hospitality internships: A prologue to career intentions? Journal of Hospitality, Leisure,
Sport & Tourism Education, 23, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2018.06.002
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*power 3.1: Tests for correlation
and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
14 A. PAPATHANASSIS

Ferguson, C. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 40(5), 532–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015808
Francis, T., & Hoefel, F. (2018). Generation Z characteristics and its implications for companies. McKinsey & Company.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/true-gen-generation-z-and-its-
implications-for-companies
Geramian, S. M., Mashayekhi, S., & Ninggal, M. T. B. H. (2012). The relationship between personality traits of international
students and academic achievement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4374–4379. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.sbspro.2012.06.257
Gibson, P. (2008). Cruising in the 21st century: Who works while others play? International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 27(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.07.005
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-
SEM). Sage Publications.
Hair, J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C., & Mena, J. (2012). An assessment of the Use of partial least squares structural equation
modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11747-011-0261-6
Huang, L., Gursoy, D., & Xu, H. (2014). Impact of personality traits and involvement on prior knowledge. Annals of Tourism
Research, 48, 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.05.010
Hughes, E. C. (1958). Men and their Work. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In: L. A.
Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102–138). Guilford Press.
Jonason, P. K., Wee, S., Li, N. P., & Jackson, C. (2014). Occupational niches and the dark triad traits. Personality and
Individual Differences, 69, 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.024
Juaneda, C., Herranz, R., & Montaño, J. J. (2017). Prospective student’s motivations, perceptions and choice factors of a
bachelor’s degree in tourism. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 20, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jhlste.2017.02.001
Kim, B. P., McCleary, K. W., & Kaufman, T. (2010). The New generation in the industry: Hospitality/tourism students’ career
preferences, sources of influence and career choice factors. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 22(3), 5–11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2010.10696979
Kim, H., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2012.11.003
Kim, H. J., Shin, K. H., & Umbreit, W. T. (2007). Hotel job burnout: The role of personality characteristics. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(2), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2006.03.006
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2014.10.001
Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., & Schmeck, R. R. (2009). Role of the Big five personality traits in predicting college students’
academic motivation and achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lindif.2008.07.001
Koptyug, E. (2019). University graduates: Average age Germany 2003-2018. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/
584325/first-degree-university-graduates-age-germany/
Kowalski, C. M., Vernon, P. A., & Schermer, J. A. (2017). Vocational interests and dark personality: Are there dark career
choices? Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.029
Kvasova, O. (2015). The Big five personality traits as antecedents of eco-friendly tourist behavior. Personality and Individual
Differences, 83, 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.011
Larsen, S., & Wolff, K. (2019, February 11-14). Aspects of the unsustainability of cruise tourism. CAUTHE 2019: Sustainability
of tourism, hospitality & events in a disruptive digital age: Proceedings of the 29th annual conference, 574.
Larson, L. M., Wu, T. F., Bailey, D. C., Gasser, C. E., Bonitz, V. S., & Borgen, F. H. (2010). The role of personality in the selection
of a major: With and without vocational self-efficacy and interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(2), 211–222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.10.007
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 39(2), 329–358. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2009). The HEXACO Personality Inventory—Revised. The HEXACO Personality Inventory - Revised.
http://hexaco.org/hexaco-online.
Lenzen, M., Sun, Y.-Y., Faturay, F., Ting, Y.-P., Geschke, A., & Malik, A. (2018). The carbon footprint of global tourism. Nature
Climate Change, 8(6), 522–528. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0141-x
Lu, T. Y., & Adler, H. (2009). Career goals and expectations of hospitality and tourism students in China. Journal of Teaching
in Travel & Tourism, 9(1–2), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220903041972
MacNeill, T., & Wozniak, D. (2018). The economic, social, and environmental impacts of cruise tourism. Tourism
Management, 66, 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.11.002
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 15

Matuszewski, I., & Blenkinsopp, J. (2011). ‘New kids on the ship’: Organisational socialisation and sensemaking of New
entrants to cruise ship employment. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 18(1), 79–87. https://doi.org/
10.1375/jhtm.18.1.79
Maxwell, G. A., Ogden, S. M., & Broadbridge, A. (2010). Generation Y’s career expectations and aspirations: Engagement
in the hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 17(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1375/jhtm.
17.1.53
Milde, P. C., & Gebhardt, A. (2015). Outreach projekt—alumni: abschlussbericht (p. 55) [project]. Bremerhaven University of
Applied Sciences.
Moghavvemi, S., Woosnam, K. M., Paramanathan, T., Musa, G., & Hamzah, A. (2017). The effect of residents’ personality,
emotional solidarity, and community commitment on support for tourism development. Tourism Management, 63,
242–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.06.021
Nachmias, S., & Walmsley, A. (2015). Making career decisions in a changing graduate labour market: A Hospitality per-
spective. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 17, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2015.09.
001
Nachmias, S., Walmsley, A., & Orphanidou, Y. (2017). Students’ perception towards hospitality education: An anglo-
Cypriot critical study. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 20, 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jhlste.2017.04.007
Navarro-Ruiz, S., Casado-Díaz, A. B., & Ivars-Baidal, J. (2019). Cruise tourism: The role of shore excursions in the overcrowd-
ing of cities. International Journal of Tourism Cities, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-04-2018-0029
Noël, N. M., Trocchia, P., & Luckett, M. (2016). A predictive psychometric model to identify personality and gender differ-
ences of college majors. The International Journal of Management Education, 14(3), 240–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijme.2016.05.004
Papathanassis, A. (2017). Cruise tourism management: State of the art. Tourism Review, https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-01-
2017-0003
Papathanassis, A. (2019). The growth and development of the cruise sector: A perspective article. Tourism Review, https://
doi.org/10.1108/TR-02-2019-0037
Papathanassis, A., & Beckmann, I. (2011). Assessing the ‘poverty of cruise theory’ hypothesis. Annals of Tourism Research,
38(1), 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2010.07.015
Papathanassis, A., & Gibson, P. (2009). Cruise sector futures: Exploring growth-related opportunities and challenges, 1st
international cruise conference, 26–27 September 2008, Bremerhaven. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(1),
105–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.707
Papathanassis, A., & Klein, R. (2015). Introduction: “long tail” or “fairy tale”? The case for scientific publishing on cruise
tourism. Tourism in Marine Environments, 10(3), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.3727/154427315X14181438892603
Papathanassis, A., Matuszewski, I., & Havekost, K. (2013). ‘Short of a picnic?’: Reconsidering sandwich-programmes in
cruise education. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 13, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.
2013.05.001
Penny Wan, Y. K., Wong, I. A., & Kong, W. H. (2014). Student career prospect and industry commitment: The roles of indus-
try attitude, perceived social status, and salary expectations. Tourism Management, 40, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2013.05.004
Richardson, S. (2010). Tourism and hospitality students’ perceptions of a career in the industry: A comparison of domestic
(Australian) students and international students studying in Australia. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
17(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1375/jhtm.17.1.1
Richardson, S., & Butler, G. (2012). Attitudes of Malaysian tourism and hospitality students’ towards a career in the indus-
try. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 17(3), 262–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2011.625430
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt. http://www.smartpls.com
Robinson, R. N. S., Ruhanen, L., & Breakey, N. M. (2016). Tourism and hospitality internships: Influences on student career
aspirations. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(6), 513–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.1020772
(Sam) Kim, S., Jung, J., & Wang, K.-C. (2016). Hospitality and tourism management students’ study and career preferences:
Comparison of three asian regional groups. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 19, 66–84. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2016.05.002
Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big five personality traits:
Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 173–212.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297299
Sehkaran, S. N., & Sevcikova, D. (2011). ‘All aboard’: Motivating service employees on cruise ships. Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Management, 18(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1375/jhtm.18.1.70
Servidio, R. (2015). Images, affective evaluation and personality traits in tourist behaviour: An exploratory study with
Italian postcards. Tourism Management Perspectives, 16, 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.08.003
Sohn, H., & Lee, T. J. (2012). Relationship between HEXACO personality factors and emotional labour of service providers
in the tourism industry. Tourism Management, 33(1), 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.02.010
Sorić, I., Penezić, Z., & Burić, I. (2017). The Big five personality traits, goal orientations, and academic achievement.
Learning and Individual Differences, 54, 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.01.024
16 A. PAPATHANASSIS

Tai, C.-L., Chen, L.-C., Chang, C.-M., & Hong, J.-Y. (2012). The impact of individual characteristics, personality traits, per-
ceived risk on young people’s intention to participate in overseas working holiday. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 57, 388–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1202
Teng, C. (2008). The effects of personality traits and attitudes on student uptake in hospitality employment. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(1), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.07.007
Terry, W. C. (2011). Geographic limits to global labor market flexibility: The human resources paradox of the cruise indus-
try. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences, 42(6), 660–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geoforum.2011.06.006
Vedel, A. (2014). The Big five and tertiary academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Personality and
Individual Differences, 71, 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.07.011
Vedel, A. (2016). Big five personality group differences across academic majors: A systematic review. Personality and
Individual Differences, 92, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.011
Vedel, A., & Thomsen, D. K. (2017). The dark triad across academic majors. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 86–
91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.030
Vedel, A., Thomsen, D. K., & Larsen, L. (2015). Personality, academic majors and performance: Revealing complex patterns.
Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.030
Vogel, M. P. (2016). Who should Pay for higher education in cruise management? In A. Papathanassis (Ed.), Cruise business
development: Safety, product design and human capital (pp. 215–235). Spinger Verlag.
Weeden, C., Lester, J.-A., & Thyne, M. (2011). Cruise tourism: Emerging issues and implications for a maturing industry.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 18(1), 26–29. https://doi.org/10.1375/jhtm.18.1.26
Wong, S. C., & Ko, A. (2009). Exploratory study of understanding hotel employees’ perception on work–life balance issues.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(2), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.07.001
World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2019). Global report on women in tourism – second edition. https://doi.org/10.
18111/9789284420384.
WTTC. (2013). A career in travel and tourism: Undergraduate perceptions. World Travel and Tourism Council Report.
Retrived March 3, 2019, from https://www.wttc.org/priorities/sustainable-growth/future-of-work/undergraduate-
perceptions
WTTC. (2015). Global talent trends and issues for the travel and tourism sector. World Travel and Tourism Council Report.
Retrived March 3, 2019, from https://www.wttc.org/priorities/sustainable-growth/future-of-work/global-talent-trends
Wu, M.-Y. (2013). “I would love to work in tourism, but … ”: Exploring the outcomes of an ethnic tourism education initiat-
ive. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 12(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2012.11.001.
Xu, Y. J. (2013). Career outcomes of STEM and Non-STEM college graduates: Persistence in majored-field and influential
factors in career choices. Research in Higher Education, 54(3), 349–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-012-9275-2
Yildirim, B. I., Gulmez, M., & Yildirim, F. (2016). The relationship between the five-factor personality traits of workers and
their job satisfaction: S study on five star hotels in alanya. Procedia Economics and Finance, 39, 284–291. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S2212-5671
Zhou, M. (2015). Moderating effect of self-determination in the relationship between Big five personality and academic
performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 385–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.005