See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284273633

Impact of Job Burnout on Satisfaction and Turnover

Intention: Do Generational Differences Matter?

Article  in  Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research · January 2013

DOI: 10.1177/1096348013495696

CITATIONS READS

260 6,564

2 authors, including:

Allan Cheng Chieh Lu

National Taiwan Normal University
15 PUBLICATIONS   1,217 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Allan Cheng Chieh Lu on 21 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research http://jht.sagepub.com/

Impact of Job Burnout on Satisfaction and Turnover Intention: Do

Generational Differences Matter?
Allan Cheng Chieh Lu and Dogan Gursoy
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research published online 15 July 2013
DOI: 10.1177/1096348013495696

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jht.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/07/10/1096348013495696

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education

Additional services and information for Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jht.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jht.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jul 15, 2013

What is This?
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY on October 20, 2013
495696
research-article2013
JHTXXX10.1177/1096348013495696Journal of Hospitality & Tourism ResearchLu, Gursoy / JOB BURNOUT AND GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES

IMPACT OF JOB BURNOUT ON

SATISFACTION AND TURNOVER
INTENTION: DO GENERATIONAL
DIFFERENCES MATTER?

Allan Cheng Chieh Lu

Dogan Gursoy
Washington State University

This study examines possible moderating effects of generational differences (Baby

Boomers, Generation X, Millennials) on the relationship between job burnout
(emotional exhaustion, cynicism, reduced professional efficacy) and employee
satisfaction and turnover intention, as well as its moderating effects on the relationship
between employee satisfaction and turnover intention using data collected from
employees of a midscale chain hotel. Findings indicate that generational differences
between Baby Boomers and Millennials have significant moderating effects on the
relationship between emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction and turnover intention,
and on the relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intention.

KEYWORDS: burnout; job satisfaction; turnover intention; generational differences;

Baby Boomers; Millennials; Generation X

INTRODUCTION

The hospitality industry is a service-oriented industry where workers are

always required to behave politely and display appropriate emotions when serv-
ing customers. Such work environments have been reported to be stressful for
employees because of the amount of time spent with customers and the intensity
of those interactions (Chuang & Lei, 2011; Kim, 2008). Schaufeli and Enzmann
(1998) have argued that burnout is one of the most important dimensions of
employees’ well-being, as it could impair employees’ social relations and health.
As with other service workers such as teachers, nurses, social workers, and health
care professionals who have been reported to exhibit high job burnout rates (e.g.,
Acker, 1999; Martin & Schinke, 1998), hospitality workers also tend to exhibit
signs of high burnout rates (Buick & Thomas, 2001; Pienaar & Willemse, 2008).
Given that employees are widely considered as the most important asset for

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. XX, No. X, Month 2013, 1­–26
DOI: 10.1177/1096348013495696
© 2013 International Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education

1
2   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

organizations (Dalci & Kosan, 2012), job burnout is no doubt a critical issue
demanding considerable attention from managers and researchers.
The antecedents and consequences of job burnout have been extensively
studied (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Kim, Shin, &
Swanger, 2009). Generally, burnout has been correlated with a variety of nega-
tive responses to the job, including job dissatisfaction, low organizational
commitment, and high job turnover intention (Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998). A
number of studies (e.g., Jackson & Maslach, 1982; Leiter, 1988) have sug-
gested burnout results in substantial cost for both organizations and workers
because of high job turnover, absenteeism, and reduced productivity. Clearly,
job burnout is one of the most important predictors of job satisfaction and
turnover intention.
While the majority of prior burnout studies have mainly focused on identify-
ing individual- and organizational-level antecedents (e.g., Leiter & Maslach,
1988; Pretty, McCarthy, & Catano, 1992) and outcomes (e.g., Jackson &
Maslach, 1982; Jackson, Schwab, & Schuler, 1986) of burnout, limited attention
has been paid to factors that are likely to moderate the relationship between
burnout and its antecedents or outcomes. Studies suggested that several factors
such as the generational cohort employees belong to are likely to influence
employees’ workplace attitudes, their satisfaction, and turnover intention (Solnet
& Kralj, 2011). Generational differences, therefore, might be an important mod-
erating force for the impact of burnout on its consequences (e.g., job satisfac-
tion, turnover intention).
People of the same generation generally share some common characteristics
derived from shared historical experiences (Schuman & Scott, 1989). Those dis-
tinct shared characteristics of different generations may cause differences on
how employees perceive and value their jobs, and such differences may lead to
variations of burnout as well as its impact on work-related outcomes such as job
satisfaction and turnover intention. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to
examine possible moderating effects of generational differences on the relation-
ship between burnout and employees’ satisfaction and turnover intention, as
well as its moderating effects on the relationship between satisfaction and turn-
over intention.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Job Burnout, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intention

Maslach and Jackson (1981) developed the Maslach Burnout Inventory

(MBI) by categorizing burnout into three dimensions (emotional exhaustion,
depersonalization, and personal accomplishment). According to them, emo-
tional exhaustion is interpreted as the emotional depletion due to excessive psy-
chological and physical demands. Depersonalization refers to the treatment of
others as objects rather than people due to negative, cynical attitudes and feel-
ings. Diminished personal accomplishment represents people’s tendency of
 Lu, Gursoy / JOB BURNOUT AND GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES 3

negative assessment and dissatisfaction about themselves because of unfulfilled

performance or responsibilities.
Later, Schaufeli, Leiter, Maslach, and Jackson (1996) developed the MBI–
General Survey (MBI-GS) to overcome issues associated with MBI scale’s
restricted focus on human service professionals. They also replaced MBI’s three
dimensions with exhaustion, cynicism, and professional efficiency. Compared
with MBI, MBI-GS uses broader definitions for three subcategories. Exhaustion
includes any sources that can lead to an individual’s fatigue, whereas cynicism
means apartness and indifferent attitude toward work in general. Professional
efficacy includes both social and nonsocial aspects of job accomplishment.
In the hospitality literature, earlier research has identified numerous factors
such as role ambiguity, role conflict, poor management, poor communication,
demanding customers, low job autonomy, excessive work load, and task char-
acteristics as antecedents of job burnout (Brymer, Perrewe, & Johns, 1991;
Law, Pearce, & Woods, 1995; Pizam & Neumann, 1988; Zohar, 1994). Over the
past decade, the continual research interest on burnout in the hospitality indus-
try has made significant contributions to the understanding of burnout as well
as its antecedents and outcomes. For example, Gill, Flaschner, and Shachar’s
(2006) study found that hospitality managers can mitigate stress and burnout
among their employees by implementing transformational leadership. Kim,
Shin, and Umbreit (2007) investigated the effect of the Big Five personality
dimensions on hotel employees’ job burnout. They reported that personality
attributes explain significant proportions of three burnout factors. A year later,
Kim (2008) further examined the relationship between emotional labor and its
antecedents, and the impact of two typical acting strategies (surface and deep
acting) adopted by employees on job burnout. Results showed that surface
actors are more exhausted and cynical than deep actors, and emotional labor
only partially mediates the relationship between burnout and job and personal-
ity characteristics.
Two attitudinal work outcomes, job satisfaction and turnover intention, have
been frequently examined along with burnout in various fields (e.g., Acker,
1999; Martin & Schinke, 1998) and are considered as two important outcomes
of burnout (Kahill, 1988). Job satisfaction can be conceptualized as “the plea-
surable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or
facilitating the achievement of one’s job values” (Locke, 1969, p. 316), whereas
job turnover intention can be defined as “the last in a sequence of withdrawal
cognitions, a set to which thinking of quitting and intent to search for alternative
employment also belongs” (Tett & Meyer, 1993, p. 262). Job satisfaction is
widely recognized as beneficial for organizations because it is generally associ-
ated with positive work outcomes such as low turnover intention (e.g., Muchinsky
& Tuttle, 1979; Porter & Steers, 1973) and high organizational commitment (Lo
& Lam, 2002; Wanous, Reichers, & Malik, 1984). In contrast, job turnover
intention, an important predictor of actual turnover (Mobley, Horner, &
Hollingsworth, 1978), is what managers and leaders strive to prevent as
4   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

employees’ actual turnover would generate extensive cost to both the individual
and the organization (Karatepe & Ngeche, 2012; T. W. Lee, Mitchell, Sablynski,
Burton, & Holtom, 2004).
Reduced job satisfaction and increased turnover intention are likely to occur
as a result of burnout (Kahill, 1988). Conservation of resources theory estab-
lishes a framework to better understand the impact of burnout on job satisfaction
and turnover intention. According to this theory, resources are those entities that
either are centrally valued in their own right (e.g., self-esteem, close attach-
ments, health, and inner peace) or act as a means to obtain centrally valued ends
(e.g., money, social support, and credit; Hobfoll, 2002). The conservation of
resources theory posits that individuals will seek to obtain, retain, protect, and
foster resources (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002), and if the potential or actual loss of
resources takes place, it will lead to emotional exhaustion, which in turn will
cause job dissatisfaction and intention to leave. Concurring with this theoretical
argument, a number of earlier studies have empirically identified burnout’s
direct impact on turnover intention (e.g., Jackson & Maslach, 1982; R. T. Lee &
Ashforth, 1993) and negative impact on job satisfaction (e.g., Jayaratne, Chess,
& Kunkel, 1986; Wolpin, Burke, & Greenglass, 1991).

Generational Differences

Kupperschmidt (2000) defined a generation as an identifiable group sharing

birth years and significant life events at critical developmental stages such as
common historical or social life experiences, the effects of which are relatively
stable over their lives. In the context of the workplace, these shared experiences
and core values affect a person’s feelings toward authority and organizations,
what a person desires from work, and how he or she plans to satisfy those desires
(Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998). The influence of generational characteristics has
been examined primarily within organizational contexts, focusing on work-
related constructs such as work-related values, attitudes, and preferences (Chi,
Maier, & Gursoy, 2013; Gursoy, Chi, & Erdem, 2013; Twenge, 2010). However,
the impact of generational differences on employees work values, attitudes, and
behaviors has received little attention from hospitality researchers. One excep-
tion would be Gursoy, Maier, and Chi’s (2008) study that examined generational
differences and similarities of work values between hospitality employees and
managers in regard to developing proper management and leadership strategies
to lead employees from different generations. Another exception is Chen and
Choi’s (2008) study that identified differences in work values perceived by hos-
pitality managerial workforce across three different generations. Recently,
Gursoy et al. (2013) identified seven dimensions of hospitality frontline employ-
ees’ work values across three generations. A series of one-way analysis of vari-
ance tests indicated that there are significant differences among three generations
of employees’ work values. Although these empirical studies have provided a
comprehensive understanding of distinct work values perceived by three
 Lu, Gursoy / JOB BURNOUT AND GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES 5

generations, further knowledge on this issue can be achieved by operationalizing

generational differences as a moderating variable for the relationships among
other variables. This study thus intends to identify possible moderating effects
of generational differences on the relationships among burnout, job satisfaction,
and turnover intention.
There are three generational groups dominating today’s work force: Baby
Boomers (Boomers), Generation X (Gen-Xers), and Millennials. However,
according to Smola and Sutton (2002), there is little agreement on the years
encompassing each generation because researchers used different birth years to
define the Boomers generation, beginning anywhere from 1940 to 1946 and
ending anywhere between 1960 and 1964. There is even less consistency on the
Gen-Xers’ birth years, reported to begin somewhere in the early 1960s and end
in either 1975, 1980, 1981, or 1982 (Adams, 2000; Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998).
Millennials’ birth years begin somewhere around 1980 and generally end in
2000 (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008). Given that the literature has such wide varia-
tion in the use of year range to determine three different generations, this study
uses birth years of three generations used in Gursoy et al.’s (2008) study, which
also investigated generational differences in the context of hospitality
workforce.

Impact of Job Burnout on Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention:

Generational Differences as Moderator

According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), the impact of stressors on peo-

ple’s well-being depends on how people perceive stressors. Therefore, burnout
may yield different levels of impact on its successors if people hold different
interpretations of their state of burnout. This study suggests that distinct work
values, preferences, and expectations of three different generations will make
workers interpret and perceive burnout differently, and these differences are
likely to result in different levels of job satisfaction and turnover intention across
three generations.
Generally, Baby Boomer (1943-1960) employees stress the importance of job
security and stability (Smola & Sutton, 2002). They are service-oriented, good
team players, good at socializing, and value good work ethics with many taking up
a number of middle and upper positions in today’s workplace (Salahuddin, 2011).
A number of researchers (e.g., Gursoy et al., 2013; Twenge, 2010) have indicated
that Boomers place much more importance on work and consider their job as
being more central to their lives than younger generations do (i.e., Gen-Xers and
Millennials; Park & Gursoy, 2012). In addition, compared with Gen-Xers and
Millennials, Boomers are more loyal and attached to their organizations and
believe that hard work will pay off (Gursoy et al., 2008, 2013; Hart, 2006). Also,
as the Families and Work Institute (2006) reported, Boomers are more driven by
goals and rewards in the workplace, showing a higher desire to land positions with
greater responsibility than younger generations. In addition, as career stage theory
6   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

(Super, 1980) suggests, people in the maintenance stage (older than 44 years) are
well settled in their career patterns, strive to maintain their status at work, and hold
onto their positions. People in the maintenance stage are more likely to be risk
averse (McGill, 1980) and are reluctant to move between companies (Slocum &
Cron, 1985). Their tendency to maintain current positions and their reluctance to
move around might mitigate job dissatisfaction and turnover intention derived
from burnout, either because they are already satisfied with the standard of living
that their current job provides or because they may think it is too risky to start a
new job in a new work environment. Because they are more likely to consider
work as a central part of their lives, remaining loyal to their organizations, Boomers
are less likely to think of burnout as negatively as younger employees do. Their
hard working spirit and willingness to take greater responsibility would make
them view this syndrome as part of their demanding job environment. Therefore,
compared with younger employees, Boomers may be less likely to attribute burn-
out symptoms to the job itself, which might result in relatively lower job dissatis-
faction and turnover intention compared with younger generations. Based on the
preceding discussion, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1: When experiencing job burnout (as measured by [a] emotional exhaus-
tion, [b] cynicism, and [c] reduced professional efficacy), Boomers will report
significantly higher job satisfaction than Millennials do.
Hypothesis 2: When experiencing job burnout (as measured by [a] emotional exhaus-
tion, [b] cynicism, and [c] reduced professional efficacy), Boomers will report
significantly higher job satisfaction than Gen-Xers do.
Hypothesis 3: When experiencing job burnout (as measured by [a] emotional exhaus-
tion, [b] cynicism, and [c] reduced professional efficacy), Boomers will report
significantly lower turnover intention than Millennials do.
Hypothesis 4: When experiencing job burnout (as measured by [a] emotional exhaus-
tion, [b] cynicism, and [c] reduced professional efficacy), Boomers will report a
significantly lower turnover intention than Gen-Xers do.

Generation X employees (1961-1980) are seen to be more adaptable, inde-

pendent, creative, and more likely to be skeptical and unimpressed with author-
ity (Salahuddin, 2011). They are individualistic and place more importance on
their own careers over being loyal to organizations (Beutell & Wittig-Berman,
2008). Moreover, they value extrinsic rewards such as increased pay and mate-
rial possessions (Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, & Lance, 2010). Therefore, they
are likely to change jobs frequently to search for more challenging positions
with a higher pay or better benefits (Hays, 1999). Because they value autonomy
and freedom from supervision in their workplace (Jurkiewicz, 2000), flexible
work hours, informal work environment, and adequate supervision can motivate
them to perform their job better (Salahuddin, 2011). Compared with Boomers,
Gen-Xers are less work-centric and value work–life balance (Gursoy et al.,
2013) and leisure (Twenge et al., 2010).
 Lu, Gursoy / JOB BURNOUT AND GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES 7

Similar to Baby Boomers, Millennial (1981-2000) employees are character-

ized as driven and demanding of the work environment (Gursoy et al., 2013).
They show confidence, voice their opinions, enjoy collective action, and have
a strong appetite for work (Hart, 2006). Similar to Gen-Xers, Millennials value
freedom and work–life balance more than Boomers do (Cennamo & Gardner,
2008; Twenge, 2010). Highly emphasizing the value of leisure, Millennials pre-
fer a job that provides more vacation time (Twenge et al., 2010). Despite lower
work centrality, Millennials have higher expectations about rapid promotions,
pay raises (Ng, Schweitzer, & Lyons, 2010), instant feedback, and praise
(Gursoy et al., 2008) from their workplace. They emphasize skill development
and enjoy looking for new opportunities and challenges (Wong, Gardiner,
Lang, & Coulon, 2008).
The preceding overview of Gen-Xers and Millennials shows that these two
generations share some commonalities in their work-related values such as low
work centrality, low loyalty toward organizations, and high leisure values. These
similarities in work-related values may result in similar levels of job satisfaction
and turnover intention under burnout conditions for both Gen-Xers and
Millennials. For these two groups of generational employees, work is just as or
even less important than their personal life. As such, when they start suffering
from burnout, they are less likely to take such symptom as part of their job and
are more likely to blame this psychological pain on the job itself and their orga-
nizations. Also, as career stage theory (Super, 1980) argues, people in the trail
stage (younger than 31 years) show a higher level of mobility and willingness to
leave their current organization because of their tentative commitment to their
current occupation and the desire to explore different options. People in the
advanced to stabilization stage (31-44 years old) usually have chosen an occupa-
tion and have set their personal and career goals, which usually includes rapid
career advancements. Since Millennials (mostly in the trail stage) are not typi-
cally very committed to their current job and willing to try other options, burn-
out could easily stimulate strong dissatisfaction and intention to leave. Even
though Gen-Xers’ (mostly in the stabilization stage) propensity to leave their
current job might be decreasing, burnout could also generate high job dissatis-
faction and turnover intention since they may be willing to change their work-
place for career advancement (Iverson & Deery, 1997). Taken together, the
impact of burnout on job satisfaction and turnover intention should not be sig-
nificantly different between Gen-Xers and Millennials. Therefore, the following
hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 5: When experiencing job burnout (as measured by [a] emotional exhaus-
tion, [b] cynicism, and [c] reduced professional efficacy), the level of job satisfac-
tion will not be significantly different between Gen-Xers and Millennials.
Hypothesis 6: When experiencing job burnout (as measured by [a] emotional exhaus-
tion, [b] cynicism, and [c] reduced professional efficacy), the level of turnover
intention will not be significantly different between Gen-Xers and Millennials.
8   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

METHOD

Sample and Procedure

Participants of the present study were employees from 29 mid- or upscale

hotels owned or managed by a North American branded hotel management com-
pany. Human resource managers of each hotel distributed self-administrated
questionnaires to managers of each department. During regular staff meetings,
managers of each department encouraged frontline employees who have fre-
quent contact with customers to actively participate in this study. Employees
who voluntarily participated returned the completed questionnaire using an
attached return envelope. Out of a total of 1,577 distributed questionnaires, 677
usable responses were collected, yielding a 42.9% response rate.

Measurements

For measures of burnout, the present study adopted the MBI-GS (Schaufeli
et al., 1996) rather than the original MBI scale (Maslach & Jackson, 1981)
because of two reasons. First, three components of MBI-GS assess respon-
dents’ burnout symptoms through a general work perspective, whereas sub-
scales of MBI directly refer to other people as the major source of those
burnout feelings (Schutte, Toppinen, Kalimo, & Schaufeli, 2000). Compared
with MBI, MBI-GS is a more appropriate measure to evaluate burnout condi-
tions of hospitality workforce since employees’ burnout symptoms can be gen-
erated from a number of different sources. Second, as argued by Barnett,
Brennan, and Gareis (1999), MBI scale has two drawbacks: (a) items purport
to assess feelings, but half do not directly address feelings and (b) response
categories are not mutually exclusive, making it difficult to interpret results
and inflating the measurement error. Barnett et al. (1999) argued that MBI-GS
corrects flaws of MBI scale while retaining its strengths. The MBI-GS scale is
composed of three subdimensions, with five items in exhaustion (α = .87;
sample item: “I feel emotionally drained from my work”), five items in cyni-
cism (α = .80; sample item: “I just want to do my job and not be bothered”),
and six items in professional efficacy (α = .78; “I have accomplished worth-
while things in this job”). For measures of job satisfaction, Hartline and
Ferrell’s (1996) six-item scale was used with slight modification. As for turn-
over intention, a three-item scale from Boshoff and Allen (2000) was used. All
items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
Considering length of tenure might be significantly associated with employ-
ees’ turnover intention (e.g., Robinson, 1972) and job satisfaction (e.g., Sarker,
Crossman, & Chinmeteepituck, 2003), this study included employee tenure in
the analysis as a control variable. The employee tenure variable was measured
using the single item “Length of time with current hotel,” and was measured
in years.
 Lu, Gursoy / JOB BURNOUT AND GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES 9

Data Analysis

First, a chi-square test was performed to examine whether significant differ-

ences in gender and length of tenure exist across three generational employees.
Afterward, three hierarchical regression analyses were carried out to investigate
the moderating effect of generational differences on the relationships among
burnout, job satisfaction, and turnover intention, as well as on the relationship
between job satisfaction and turnover intention. Since hierarchical regression is
a frequently used statistical technique and is widely considered appropriate to
estimate moderating effects (Phillips & Jang, 2007; Yang & Peterson, 2004), it
was considered an appropriate approach for this study.
A summated scale for each of the three subconstructs of job burnout (exhaus-
tion, cynicism, professional efficacy), and job satisfaction and turnover inten-
tion were created by summing up all the items used to measure each and then
averaging them to form individual composite scores for analysis. Three dummy-
coded variables denoting three individual comparisons of two generations were
also created for testing the moderating effect of generation (1 = Millennials and
0 = Gen-Xers; 1 = Millennials and 0 = Baby boomers; 1 = Gen-Xers and 0 =
Baby boomers). For every hierarchical regression analysis, length of tenure was
included in the model as a control variable first; each subdimension of burnout
and three dummy-coded variables were entered into the equation second; and
job burnout × generation interaction terms were added last.

RESULTS

Profile of Sample

Table 1 presents profiles of respondents. Respondents were composed of 193

Millennials (28.4%), 248 Gen-Xers (36.6%), and 236 Baby boomers (35%) with
a mean age of 36 years. There were 225 (33.2%) males and 440 (65%) females.
Average tenure of respondents with the company was 4.2 years. Around 70% of
respondents had been with their current company for less than 5 years.
Table 2 reports results of chi-square tests on the gender and length of tenure
across three generational employees. Findings indicated that the three genera-
tions of employees are not significantly different in terms of gender, χ2(2, N =
665) = 4.25, p > .05, but are significantly different in length of tenure, χ2(6, N =
659) = 108.77, p < .01.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 3 presents means, standard deviations, and correlations among three

dimensions of burnout, job satisfaction, and turnover intention. Findings indi-
cated that exhaustion and cynicism both have significant negative relationships
with job satisfaction (r = −.38, p < .01; r = −.35, p < .01, respectively), and posi-
tive relationships with turnover intention (r = .46, p < .01; r = .52, p < .01,
respectively). Professional efficacy showed a significant positive relationship
10   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Table 1
Profile of Respondents

Total (N = 677)

  N Percentage

Gender
 Male 225 33.2
 Female 440 65.0
  No responses 12 1.8
Generation
 Millennials 193 28.4
 Gen-Xers 248 36.6
  Baby boomers 236 35.0
Age (years)
  ≤20 82 12.1
 21-30 171 25.3
 31-40 161 23.8
 41-50 150 22.2
  ≥51 113 16.7
Tenure (years)
  ≤5 495 73.1
 6-10 92 13.6
 11-15 34 5.0
  ≥16 38 5.6
  No responses 18 2.7

Table 2
Chi-Square Test on Gender and Tenure of Three Generations

Generation (N = 677)

  Baby Boomers Gen-Xers Millennials Total

Gender
 Male 91 (41) 77 (34) 57 (25) 225 (100)
 Female 143 (33) 165 (37) 132 (30) 440 (100)
  No responses 2 (17) 6 (50) 4 (33) 12 (100)
df = 2; χ2 = 4.25; p = .12
Tenure (years)
  ≤5 122 (25.3) 180 (37.3) 180 (37.3) 482 (100.0)
 6-10 49 (51.0) 39 (40.6) 8 (8.3) 96 (100.0)
 11-15 28 (65.1) 15 (34.9) 0 (0.0) 43 (100.0)
  ≥16 31 (81.6) 7 (18.4) 0 (0.0) 38 (100.0)
  No responses 5 (27.8) 8 (44.4) 5 (27.8) 18 (100.0)
df = 6; χ2 = 108.77; p = .00

Note: Values are presented as number (percentage).

 Lu, Gursoy / JOB BURNOUT AND GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES 11

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Coefficients, and Correlations Among the
Variables

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Exhaustion 2.59 0.88 (.87)  

2. Cynicism 2.52 0.80 .64* (.80)  
3.  Professional efficacy 3.96 0.62 −.07 −.16* (.78)  
4.  Job satisfaction 3.60 0.66 −.38* −.35* .32* (.80)  
5.  Turnover intention 2.27 0.91 .46* .52* −.24* −.55* (.77)

Note: Numbers in parentheses denote reliability coefficients.

*p < .01.

with job satisfaction (r = .32, p < .01) and negative relationship with turnover
intention (r = −.24, p < .01). Results also suggest a significant negative relation-
ship between job satisfaction and turnover intention (r = −.55, p < .01).

Moderated Regression Results

Table 4 reports the results of regression analyses for the moderating effect of
generation on the relationship between burnout and job satisfaction. Consistent
with results of correlation analyses, three dimensions of job burnout showed
significant effects on job satisfaction across three generations. Exhaustion was
negatively related to job satisfaction (Millennials vs. Gen-Xers: b = −.43, p <
.01; Millennials vs. Boomers: b = −.43, p < .01; Gen-Xers vs. Boomers: b =
−.36, p < .01). Cynicism showed a significant negative relationship with job
satisfaction (Millennials vs. Gen-Xers: b = −.38, p < .01; Millennials vs.
Boomers: b = −.40, p < .01; Gen-Xers vs. Boomers: b = −.36, p < .01).
Professional efficacy also showed significant positive effects on job satisfaction
(Millennials vs. Gen-Xers: b = .31, p < .01; Millennials vs. Boomers: b = .29,
p < .01; Gen-Xers vs. Boomers: b = .28, p < .01).
The exhaustion × generation interaction term for Millennials versus Gen-Xers
added only marginally significant incremental variance (ΔR2 = .006, p < .10),
and both the cynicism × generation (ΔR2 = .004, p > .10) and professional effi-
cacy × generation (ΔR2 = .003, p > .10) interaction terms for Millennials versus
Gen-Xers did not add any significant incremental variance. Therefore,
Hypotheses 5a, 5b, and 5c were all supported. Whereas generation significantly
moderated the effect of exhaustion on job satisfaction, adding 1% of incremental
variance for Millennials versus Boomers (ΔR2 = .010, p < .05), the cynicism ×
generation (ΔR2 = .003, p > .10) and professional efficacy × generation (ΔR2 = .001,
p > .10) interaction terms for Millennial versus Boomers did not add any signifi-
cant incremental variance. Therefore, findings provided support for Hypothesis
1a whereas both Hypothesis 1b and Hypothesis 1c were not supported. In addi-
tion, findings further indicated that generation did not significantly moderate the
12
Table 4
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Moderating Effect of Generation on the Relationship Between Burnout and Job
Satisfaction

Burnout Variables Exhaustion Cynicism Professional Efficacy

Millennials Millennials Gen-Xers Millennials Millennials Gen-Xers Millennials Millennials Gen-Xers

Generation Variables vs. Gen-Xers vs. Boomers vs. Boomers vs. Gen-Xers vs. Boomers vs. Boomers vs. Gen-Xers vs. Boomers vs. Boomers

Step 1
  Length of employment −.04 .10* .06 −.04 .10* .06 −.04 .10* .06
  R2 .00 .01* .00 .00 .01* .00 .00 .01* .00
Step 2
  Burnout variables −.43** −.43** −.36** −.38** −.40** −.36** .31** .29** .28**
  Generation variablesa .03 .01 −.07 .06 .01 −.09† .02 −.03 −.09†
 ΔR2 .18** .19** .14** .14** .16** .14** .10** .10** .09**
Step 3
  Burnout × Generation −.10 −.18 −.04 −.08 −.07 .01 .07 .08 .02
 ΔR2 .006† .01* .001 .004 .003 .000 .003 .001 .000
F 25.20** 25.61** 19.27** 18.15** 21.44** 19.03** 11.85** 11.55** 11.86**
Total R2 .19** .20** .14** .15** .17** .14** .10** .10** .10**

Note: Dependent variable = Job satisfaction. Values other than R2 and F statistics are standardized regression coefficients.
a. Generation variables were dummy-coded: Millennials = 1 versus Gen-Xers = 0 / Millennials = 1 versus Boomers = 0 / Gen-Xers = 1 versus Boomers = 0.
†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
 Lu, Gursoy / JOB BURNOUT AND GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES 13

respective effect of exhaustion (ΔR2 = .001, p > .10), cynicism (ΔR2 = .000,
p > .10), and professional efficacy (ΔR2 = .000, p > .10) on job satisfaction
between Gen-Xers and Boomers. Thus, Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c were not
supported.
Table 5 presents the results of regression analyses for moderating effects of
generation on the burnout–turnover relationship. Exhaustion and cynicism were
found to be positively related to turnover intention, and professional efficacy was
found to have a negative relationship with turnover intention. Generation showed
a significant positive relationship with turnover intention after controlling for
length of tenure and exhaustion for Millennials versus Gen-Xers (b = .13, p < .01)
and for Millennials versus Boomers (b = .18, p < .01), indicating that Millennials
reported significantly higher turnover intention than Gen-Xers and Boomers.
After controlling for length of tenure at Step 1 and cynicism at Step 2, generation
also showed significant effects on turnover intention (Millennials vs. Gen-Xers:
b = .10, p < .05; Millennials vs. Boomers: b = .17, p < .01; Gen-Xers vs. Boomers:
b = .09, p < .05), indicating that younger employees tend to have higher turnover
intention than older generations. Generation was also found to be significantly
related to turnover intention while controlling for length of tenure and professional
efficacy (Millennials vs. Gen-Xers: b = .14, p < .01; Millennials vs. Boomers: b =
.23, p < .01; Gen-Xers vs. Boomers: b = .10, p < .05). The exhaustion × generation
interaction term added significant incremental variance at Step 3 for Millennials
vs. Boomers (ΔR2 = .009, p < .05). However, the cynicism × generation interaction
term for Millennials versus Boomers did not add any significant incremental vari-
ance (ΔR2 = .001, p > .10), and the professional efficacy × generation interaction
term for Millennials versus Boomers added only marginally significant incremen-
tal variance (ΔR2 = .006, p < .10). Hence, Hypothesis 3a was supported but both
Hypotheses 3b and 3c were not supported.
Findings also indicated that generation did not significantly moderate the
impact of exhaustion (ΔR2 = .004, p > .10), cynicism (ΔR2 = .000, p > .10), and
professional efficacy (ΔR2 = .000, p > .10) on turnover intention for Gen-Xers
versus Boomers comparison. Therefore, Hypotheses 4a, 4b, and 4c were not
supported. Whereas both the exhaustion × generation (ΔR2 = .002, p > .10) and
cynicism × generation (ΔR2 = .001, p > .10) interaction terms for Millennial
versus Gen-Xers did not add any significantly incremental variance, the profes-
sional efficacy × generation interaction term added only marginally significant
incremental variance (ΔR2 = .007, p < .10). Thus, Hypotheses 6a, 6b, and 6c
were all supported.
As shown in Table 6, job satisfaction was found to have significant negative
effects on turnover intention. After controlling for length of tenure and the effect
of job satisfaction, generation was found to have a positive relationship with
turnover intention for Millennials versus Gen-Xers (b = .15, p < .01) and for
Millennials versus Boomers (b = .21, p < .01). The job satisfaction × generation
interaction term showed additional significant incremental variance for
Millennials versus Boomers (ΔR2 = .01, p < .05).
14
Table 5
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Moderating Effect of Generation on the Relationship Between Burnout and Turnover
Intention

Burnout Variables Exhaustion Cynicism Professional Efficacy

Millennials Millennials Gen-Xers Millennials Millennials Gen-Xers Millennials Millennials Gen-Xers

Generation Variables vs. Gen-Xers vs. Boomers vs. Boomers vs. Gen-Xers vs. Boomers vs. Boomers vs. Gen-Xers vs. Boomers vs. Boomers

Step 1
  Length of employment −.02 −.10* −.01 −.02 −.10* −.01 −.02 −.10* −.01
  R2 .00 .01* .00 .00 .01* .00 .00 .01* .00
Step 2
  Burnout variables .49** .43** .44** .50** .51** .53** −.25** −.26** −.23**
  Generation variablesa .13** .18** .07 .10* .17** .09* .14** .23** .10*
 ΔR2 .25** .23** .20** .26** .30** .29** .08** .11** .06**
Step 3
  Burnout × Generation .05 .12* .09 .04 .04 −.003 −.10† −.10† .01
 ΔR2 .002 .009* .004 .001 .001 .000 .007† .006† .000
F 35.52** 33.65** 29.97** 38.22** 45.84** 47.47** 9.89** 15.12** 7.88**
Total R2 .25** .25** .21** .27** .31** .29** .09** .13** .06**

Note: Dependent variable = Turnover intention. Values other than R2 and F statistics are standardized regression coefficients.
a. Generation variables were dummy-coded: Millennials = 1 versus Gen-Xers = 0 / Millennials = 1 versus Boomers = 0 / Gen-Xers = 1 versus Boomers = 0.
†p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.
 Lu, Gursoy / JOB BURNOUT AND GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES 15

Table 6
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Moderating Effect of Generation
on the Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention

Millennials Millennials Gen-Xers

Generation Variables vs. Gen-Xers vs. Boomers vs. Boomers

Step 1  
  Length of employment −.02 −.10* −.01
  R2 .00 .01* .00
Step 2  
  Job satisfaction −.59** −.54** −.53**
  Generation variablesa .15** .21** .06
 ΔR2 .37** .34** .29**
Step 3  
  Job satisfaction × Generation −.07 −.13* −.08
 ΔR2 .003 .01* .003
F 62.49** 56.93** 48.70**
Total R2 .37** .36** .30**

Note: Dependent variable = Turnover intention. Values other than R2 and F statistics are
standardized regression coefficients.
a. Generation variables were dummy-coded: Millennials = 1 versus Gen-Xers = 0 /
Millennials = 1 versus Boomers = 0 / Gen-Xers = 1 versus Boomers = 0.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This study found a significant moderating effect of generation (Millennials

vs. Boomers) on the relationship between emotional exhaustion and job satisfac-
tion (Figure 1) and turnover intention (Figure 2), as well as on the relationship
between job satisfaction and turnover intention (Figure 3). As expected,
Millennials reported significantly lower job satisfaction and higher turnover
intention than Boomers when they are exhausted. These findings may be because
of differences in perceptions and interpretations of the state of emotional exhaus-
tion across three generations, and the difference between Boomers’ and
Millennials’ work centrality (Twenge, 2010). Placing much more emphasis on
work–life balance and leisure, Millennials could easily attribute their emotional
exhaustion to their job itself since the value of their work does not outweigh
their personal life and leisure. Boomer employees, on the other hand, might be
more willing to tolerate such emotional depletion rather than blaming it on their
job because of the strong emphasis they place on their job. In addition, as career
stage theory (Super, 1980) suggests, Boomers (mostly in the maintenance stage)
may consider maintaining their current status and holding their current job as a
top priority, whereas Millennials (mostly in the trail stage) may be willing to try
other occupations to figure out their ideal career. Emotional exhaustion can,
therefore, become a much stronger facilitator of job dissatisfaction and turnover
16   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Figure 1
Moderating Effect of Generational Differences in the Impact of Exhaustion on Job
Satisfaction

4.5

4
Job Satisfaction

3.5

2.5

1.5

1
-1 SD +1 SD
Exhaustion
Boomers
Millennials

intention for Millennials because of their weaker commitment toward their job
compared with Boomers. Therefore, taken together, it is not surprising to find
that Millennial employees are likely to exhibit higher job dissatisfaction and
turnover intention than Boomer employees.
Although no significant moderating effects of generational differences for
Millennials and Gen-Xers on the relationship between exhaustion and job satis-
faction, and between exhaustion and turnover intention, were hypothesized, it
was surprising to find that generational differences between Boomers and Gen-
Xers did not have any significant moderating effect on the relationship between
exhaustion and job satisfaction, and between exhaustion and turnover intention.
This might be explained by the fact that Gen-Xers share distinct similarities with
both Millennials and Boomers. For example, both Gen-Xers and Millennials
highly value work–life balance and are not very loyal. On the other hand, as sug-
gested by the career stage theory (Super, 1980), Gen-Xers who are mostly in the
stable career stage tend to have their career path planned. In other words, even
though Gen-Xers have been reported to be similar to Millennials regarding low
loyalty toward organizations, there is also evidence suggesting that Gen-Xers
are more serious and attached to their current careers than Millennials.
 Lu, Gursoy / JOB BURNOUT AND GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES 17

Figure 2
Moderating Effect of Generational Differences in the Impact of Exhaustion on
Turnover Intention

4.5

4
Turnover intention

3.5

2.5

1.5

1
-1 SD +1 SD
Exhaustion
Boomers
Millennials

Gen-Xers’ approach to their careers, to some extent, is similar with Boomers’

approach to their careers. As such, sharing particular commonalities on work-
related attitudes with both Boomers and Millennials, Gen-Xers might be less
likely to yield attitudinal and behavioral outcomes that are substantively differ-
ent from those of Boomers and Millennials when encountering the same occur-
rences. This might help explain why Gen-Xers yield a similar level of job
satisfaction and turnover intention with Boomers and Millennials when all three
generations experience emotional exhaustion.
Findings did not indicate any moderating effect of generational differences
on the relationship between the two other burnout dimensions, and job satisfac-
tion and turnover intention. This finding might be explained by Leiter and
Maslach’s (1988) burnout model, which suggests emotional exhaustion is the
first phase of burnout, given it is a response to the emotional stressors of the job.
They also argue that emotional exhaustion is the predictor of depersonalization,
and depersonalization further predicts decreased personal accomplishment.
Similarly, an effort by Koeske and Koeske (1989) to examine the construct
validity of the three dimensions of burnout also leads to a conclusion that deper-
sonalization and diminished personal accomplishment are consequences of
emotional exhaustion. In line with this rationale, emotional exhaustion can be
viewed as the first stage of burnout and, if handled inappropriately, this first
18   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Figure 3
Moderating Effect of Generational Differences in the Impact of Job Satisfaction on
Turnover Intention

6
5.5
5
Turnover intention

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
-1 SD +1 SD
Job Satisfaction
Boomers
Millennials

stage could advance to the next two levels of symptoms. Accordingly, when
burnout advances from emotional exhaustion to cynicism and reduced profes-
sional efficacy, it might affect both older and younger employees at similar mag-
nitudes. That is, although Boomers might still be able to handle emotional
exhaustion with a better mind-set than younger employees do, it might not be the
case when Boomers also start experiencing cynicism and reduced professional
efficacy.
For Boomers, when everything at work becomes meaningless and negative
(i.e., cynicism), they are likely to suffer badly because they view their job as the
center of their lives. In addition, losing the sense of professional accomplish-
ment and competence (i.e., reduced professional efficacy) in the workplace
could hurt their belief that hard work and their willingness to take greater
responsibility will pay off. Under these circumstances, dissatisfaction with their
current job could easily occur and could force them to seek a new workplace. On
the other hand, younger employees emphasize skill development and value
extrinsic rewards such as increased pay and material possessions. When
 Lu, Gursoy / JOB BURNOUT AND GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES 19

becoming cynical toward work, younger employees may lose their trust in their
current job and start to doubt that their preferences and expectations will be
satisfied in the current organization. Furthermore, studies (e.g., Twenge &
Campbell, 2001; Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell, & Bushman, 2008) exam-
ining generational differences in psychological traits reported that younger gen-
erations have higher narcissism and self-esteem than older generations.
Narcissism and self-esteem are two highly correlated personality traits (Emmons,
1984) and people with high levels of narcissism are found to react to negative
feedback with more anger and aggression than people with low narcissism (e.g.,
Kernis & Chien-Ru, 1994; Rhodewalt, Madrian, & Cheney, 1998). In other
words, narcissistic and high self-esteem individuals are pleased with the way
they are and see little room for improvement (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007).
Having these two traits more salient than older generations, younger employees
are unlikely to be comfortable with accepting frequent self-negative assessment
because of unfulfilled performance or responsibilities (i.e., reduced professional
efficacy). In this situation, younger workers could easily become dissatisfied
with their current job and begin to search for another workplace to reestablish
self-confidence and satisfy their work expectations. All this might explain why
this study could find only moderating effects of generational differences in the
impact of emotional exhaustion, but not in the impact of cynicism and dimin-
ished professional efficacy, on job satisfaction and turnover intention.
In conclusion, given that most scholarly efforts addressing job burnout in
hospitality academia focus on the work environment and its conditions (Kim
et al., 2007), this study enriches the body of hospitality literature by empirically
illustrating that hospitality employees’ job burnout significantly predicts reduced
job satisfaction and increased turnover intention, and reduced job satisfaction
also significantly predicts increased turnover intention. In addition, building on
the generational differences literature, this study bridges the gap between burn-
out and generational differences by identifying the moderating effect of genera-
tional differences on the impact of emotional exhaustion on its two attitudinal
outcomes, and on the impact of job satisfaction on turnover intention.

Managerial Implications

Developing strategies to decrease employees’ burnout rate in the first place is

the most important task for hospitality practitioners. Reducing job demand for
employees sometimes might be impractical or even impossible since maximiz-
ing customer satisfaction is always the top priority and a difficult task that
demands substantial effort from employees. Instead, improving job resources
for employees might be a preferable and more efficient strategy. For these strate-
gies to be effective, distinct work values from three different generations should
also be taken into consideration.
Findings suggest that employers should develop a customized incentive
structure for employees from each generation. For example, giving Boomer
20   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

workers a 3.5% raise at the end of the year might make a Boomer employee
happy, whereas having a pay raise of 1% three times a year could be more ade-
quate for Millennial employees as they desire more rapid feedback and rewards.
Similarly, providing a sense of job security for Boomers is more critical as they
view work as one of the most important parts of their life, whereas offering
Millennial employees plenty of opportunities for work variety, challenge, and
even decision making might be more appropriate since they value personal
development and like to voice their opinions. In addition, work–life balance
should be the most important aspect demanding considerable attention from
hospitality practitioners, as it could be beneficial for all three generational
employees in decreasing the chance of burnout, especially helping mitigate the
negative impacts of burnout on Millennial employees.
Given that younger employees, especially Millennials, have lower job satis-
faction and higher turnover intention compared with older employees under
emotional exhaustion, managers might need to consider developing corporate-
wide strategies to address work–life balance. For example, providing flexible
work hours and adequate supervision might enable younger workers to organize
their work and leisure time with more freedom and autonomy. It would give
younger employees a sense of control over their professional careers, which may
contribute to a sense of fulfillment and pride. As such, aligning the organiza-
tion’s values and operations with younger employees’ work values would help
manifest and strengthen younger employees’ identity toward the job and the
organization. This might help improve employees’ loyalty and satisfaction and
lower turnover intentions of younger workers under emotional exhaustion
(Nunkoo, Gursoy, & Ramkissoon, 2013). All these benefits could also apply to
older employees.

Limitations

There are a few limitations associated with this study. Data for this study
were collected from employees of a North American branded hotel management
company, which may limit the generalizability of the findings reported. Future
studies should be conducted on a larger sample of hospitality employees, prefer-
ably a national sample including several large chains. In addition, although this
study found a significant moderating effect of generational differences between
Boomers and Millennials for the relationships among burnout, job satisfaction,
and turnover intentions, the reported R2 change of adding an interaction term in
the hierarchical regression model was small, which may limit the practicality of
the findings. Therefore, readers should be very cautious about interpreting the
findings. Another limitation is that the sample of this study included signifi-
cantly more female respondents than male respondents. When interpreting the
results, readers should consider the possibility of gender bias in responses.
Common method bias is also a limitation that should be noted. Data used
were self-reported and all independent and dependent variables were obtained
 Lu, Gursoy / JOB BURNOUT AND GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES 21

from the same raters (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). This
study did not separate the source of independent and dependent variables due to
great difficulties in linking the data together while protecting subjects’ anonym-
ity. Protecting respondents’ anonymity and reducing evaluation apprehension
were more critical for this study to ensure that subjects could answer the ques-
tions as honestly as possible, given that measures for independent and dependent
variables of this study were very likely to cause socially desirable responses. To
control common method bias, this study used some of the possible remedies
suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003) during the development of the survey
instrument and data collection stages. For example, this study created psycho-
logical separation by using a number of irrelevant items to make it appear that
the measurement of the independent variable is not connected with or related to
the measurement of the dependent variable, counterbalanced the order of mea-
surements of independent and dependent variables, and used well-established
scale items to avoid ambiguous and complicated questions. However, it is
strongly recommended that future studies should set stricter research procedures
to minimize this issue, preferably obtaining measures of independent and depen-
dent variables from different raters while also protecting respondents’
anonymity.
In addition, the cross-sectional design used in this study is limited in the abil-
ity to observe the changing patterns of subjects across time, which may have
caused misidentification of the causal relationship between independent and
dependent variables. Future studies should address these shortcomings by using
longitudinal analysis to detect and monitor variations and trends among sub-
jects. The present research analyzed each generation as a homogeneous group;
however, studies have pointed out that there may be more heterogeneity within
generations than between generations (e.g., Dencker, Joshi, & Martocchio,
2008). Other sociodemographic variables such as race, ethnicity, or culture of
workers within the same generation might play critical roles in predicting sig-
nificant differences of work values (Parry & Urwin, 2011). Therefore, future
studies should include these sociodemographic variables in the analysis to
ensure more accurate effects of generational differences on the variations of
employees’ work values.

REFERENCES
Acker, G. M. (1999). The impact of clients’ mental illness on social workers’ job satis-
faction and burnout. Health Social Work, 24, 112-119.
Adams, S. J. (2000). Generation X: How understanding this population leads to better
safety programs. Professional Safety, 45, 26-29.
Barnett, R. C., Brennan, R. T., & Gareis, K. C. (1999). A closer look at the measurement
of burnout. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 4, 65-78.
Beutell, N. J., & Wittig-Berman, U. (2008). Work-family conflict and work-family syn-
ergy for generation X, baby boomers, and matures: Generational differences, predic-
tors, and satisfaction outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 507-523.
22   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Boshoff, C., & Allen, J. (2000). The influence of selected antecedents on frontline
staff’s perceptions of service recovery performance. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 11, 63-90.
Brymer, R. A., Perrewe, P. L., & Johns, T. R. (1991). Managerial job stress in the hotel
industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 10, 47-58.
Buick, I., & Thomas, M. (2001). Why do middle managers in hotels burn out?
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13, 304-309.
Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work values, out-
comes and person-organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23,
891-906.
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It’s all about me: Narcissistic chief execu-
tive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 52, 351-386.
Chen, P. J., & Choi, Y. (2008). Generational differences in work values: A study of hospi-
tality management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
20, 595-615.
Chi, C. G., Maier, T., & Gursoy, D. (2013). Employees’ perceptions of younger and
older managers by generation and job category. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 34, 42-50.
Chuang, N. K., & Lei, S. A. (2011). Job stress among casino hotel chefs in a top-tier tour-
ism city. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 20, 551-574.
Dalci, I., & Kosan, L. (2012). Theory of constraints thinking-process tools facilitate goal
achievement for hotel management: A case study of improving customer satisfaction.
Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 21, 541-568.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job
demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512.
Dencker, J. C., Joshi, A., & Martocchio, J. J. (2008). Towards a theoretical framework
linking generational memories to workplace attitudes and behaviors. Human Resource
Management Review, 18, 180-187.
Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 291-300.
Families and Work Institute. (2006). Generation and gender in the workplace (Issue
brief). Waltham, MA: American Business Collaboration. Retrieved from http://fami-
liesandwork.org/site/research/reports/genandgender.pdf
Gill, A. S., Flaschner, A. B., & Shachar, M. (2006). Mitigating stress and burnout by
implementing transformational-leadership. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 18, 469-481.
Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G., & Erdem, E. (2013). Generational differences in work values and
attitudes among frontline and service contact employees. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 32, 40-48.
Gursoy, D., Maier, T. A., & Chi, C. G. (2008). Generational differences: An examina-
tion of work values and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 448-458.
Hart, K. (2006). Generations in the workplace: Finding common ground. Medical
Laboratory Observer, 38, 26-27.
Hartline, M. D., & Ferrell, O. C. (1996). The management of customer-contact service
employees: An empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 60, 52-70.
Hays, S. (1999). Generation X and the art of reward. Workforce, 78, 44-48.
 Lu, Gursoy / JOB BURNOUT AND GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES 23

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing

stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513-521.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of
General Psychology, 6, 307-324.
Iverson, R. D., & Deery, M. (1997). Turnover culture in the hospitality industry. Human
Resource Management Journal, 7, 71-82.
Jackson, S. E., & Maslach, C. (1982). After-effects of job-related stress: Families as
victims. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 3, 63-77.
Jackson, S. E., Schwab, R. L., & Schuler, R. S. (1986). Toward an understanding of the
burnout phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 630-640.
Jayaratne, S., Chess, W. A., & Kunkel, D. A. (1986). Burnout: Its impact on child welfare
workers and their spouses. Social Work, 31, 53-58.
Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2000). Generation X and the public employee. Public Personnel
Management, 29, 55-74.
Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Brown, R. G. (1998). Generational comparisons of public employee
motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18, 18-37.
Kahill, S. (1988). Symptoms of professional burnout: A review of the empirical evi-
dence. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 29, 284-297.
Karatepe, O. M., & Ngeche, R. N. (2012). Does job embeddedness mediate the effect
of work engagement on job outcomes? A study of hotel employees in Cameroon.
Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 21, 440-461.
Kernis, M. H., & Chien-Ru, S. (1994). Narcissism and reactions to interpersonal feed-
back. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 4-13.
Kim, H. J. (2008). Hotel service providers’ emotional labor: The antecedents and effects
on burnout. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 151-161.
Kim, H. J., Shin, K. H., & Swanger, N. (2009). Burnout and engagement: A compara-
tive analysis using the Big Five personality dimensions. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 28, 96-104.
Kim, H. J., Shin, K. H., & Umbreit, W. T. (2007). Hotel job burnout: The role of person-
ality characteristics. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26, 421-434.
Koeske, G. F., & Koeske, R. D. (1989). Construct validity of the Maslach Burnout
Inventory: A critical review and reconceptualization. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 25, 131-144.
Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: Strategies for effective man-
agement. Health Care Manager, 19, 65-76.
Law, J., Pearce, P. L., & Woods, B. A. (1995). Stress and coping in tourist attraction
employees. Tourism Management, 16, 277-284.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY:
Springer.
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1993). A further examination of managerial burnout:
Toward an integrated model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 3-20.
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Sablynski, C. J., Burton, J. P., & Holtom, B. C. (2004). The
effects of job embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job performance, volitional
absences, and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 711-722.
Leiter, M. P. (1988). Burnout as a function of communication patterns. Group &
Organization Management, 13, 111-128.
Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (1988). The impact of interpersonal environment on burnout
and organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 297-308.
24   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Lo, A., & Lam, T. (2002). The relationship between demographic characteristics and
socialization outcomes among new employees in Hong Kong hotels. Journal of
Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 1, 1-14.
Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 4, 309-336.
Martin, U., & Schinke, S. P. (1998). Organizational and individual factors influencing
job satisfaction and burnout of mental health workers. Social Work in Health Care,
28, 51-62.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 2, 99-113.
McGill, M. E. (1980). The 40- to 60-year-old male: A guide for men—and the women in
their lives—to see them through the crises of the male middle years. New York, NY:
Simon & Schuster.
Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. (1978). An evaluation of precursors
of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 408-414.
Muchinsky, P. M., & Tuttle, M. L. (1979). Employee turnover: An empirical and meth-
odological assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 43-77.
Ng, E. S. W., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. (2010). New generation, great expectations:
A field study of the millennial generation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25,
281-292.
Nunkoo, R., Gursoy, D., & Ramkissoon, H. (2013). Developments in hospitality mar-
keting and management: Social network analysis and research themes. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management, 22, 269-288.
Park, J. D., & Gursoy, D. (2012). Generational effects on work engagement among U.S.
hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31, 1195-1202.
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of
theory and evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13, 79-96.
Phillips, W., & Jang, S. (2007). Destination image and visit intention: Examining the
moderating role of motivation. Tourism Analysis, 12, 319-326.
Pienaar, J., & Willemse, S. A. (2008). Burnout, engagement, coping and general
health of service employees in the hospitality industry. Tourism Management, 29,
1053-1063.
Pizam, A., & Neumann, Y. (1988). The effect of task characteristics on hospitality
employees’ job satisfaction and burnout. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
12, 99-105.
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 recom-
mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in
employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 151-176.
Pretty, G. M. H., McCarthy, M. E., & Catano, V. M. (1992). Psychological environments
and burnout: Gender considerations within the corporation. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13, 701-711.
Rhodewalt, F., Madrian, J. C., & Cheney, S. (1998). Narcissism, self-knowledge organi-
zation, and emotional reactivity: The effect of daily experiences on self-esteem and
affect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 75-87.
Robinson, D. D. (1972). Prediction of clerical turnover in banks by means of a weighted
application blank. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 282.
 Lu, Gursoy / JOB BURNOUT AND GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES 25

Salahuddin, M. M. (2011). Generational differences impact on leadership style and orga-

nizational success. Journal of Diversity Management, 5, 1-6.
Sarker, S. J., Crossman, A., & Chinmeteepituck, P. (2003). The relationships of age
and length of service with job satisfaction: An examination of hotel employees in
Thailand. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 745-758.
Schaufeli, W., & Enzmann, D. (1998). The burnout companion to study and practice: A
critical analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). The Maslach Burnout
Inventory: General Survey (MBI-GS). In C. Maslach, S. E. Jackson & M. P. Leiter
(Eds.), Maslach Burnout Inventory manual (pp. 19-26). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Schuman, H., & Scott, J. (1989). Generations and collective memories. American
Sociological Review, 54, 359-381.
Schutte, N., Toppinen, S., Kalimo, R., & Schaufeli, W. (2000). The factorial validity
of the Maslach Burnout Inventory–General Survey (MBI-GS) across occupational
groups and nations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73,
53-66.
Slocum, J. W., & Cron, W. L. (1985). Job attitudes and performance during three career
stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26, 126-145.
Smola, K., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational
work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,
363-382.
Solnet, D., & Kralj, A. (2011). Generational differences in work attitudes: Evidence from
the hospitality industry. FIU Hospitality Review, 29, 37-54.
Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 16, 282-298.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel
Psychology, 46, 259-293.
Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in
work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 201-210.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Age and birth cohort differences in self-
esteem: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
5, 321-344.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational dif-
ferences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic
values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36, 1117-1142.
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Keith Campbell, W., & Bushman, B. J.
(2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality, 76, 875-902.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Malik, S. (1984). Organizational socialization and
group development: Toward an integrative perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 9, 670-683.
Wolpin, J., Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (1991). Is job satisfaction an antecedent or a
consequence of psychological burnout? Human Relations, 44, 193-209.
Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W., & Coulon, L. (2008). Generational differences in
personality and motivation: Do they exist and what are the implications for the work-
place? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 878-890.
 26   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Yang, Z., & Peterson, R. T. (2004). Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty:
The role of switching costs. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 799-822.
Zohar, D. (1994). Analysis of job stress profile in the hotel industry. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 13, 219-231.

Submitted April 7, 2012

Accepted May 10, 2013
Refereed Anonymously

Allan Cheng Chieh Lu (e-mail: allan.lu@wsu.edu) is a doctoral student in the School of

Hospitality Business Management at Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.
Dogan Gursoy, PhD (e-mail: dgursoy@wsu.edu), is the Taco Bell Distinguished
Professor in the School of Hospitality Business Management at Washington State
University, Pullman, Washington.

View publication stats