Week 8 Article Summary

G

J S

a

K G W T M

1

i o ( w t w v p w c w

m 2 v t 2 f m S e a z e t

0 d

International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1195– 1202

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / i j h o s m a n

eneration effects on work engagement among U.S. hotel employees

eongdoo Park ∗, Dogan Gursoy chool of Hospitality Business Management, College of Business, Washington State University, Todd Hall 342, PO Box 644736, Pullman, WA 99164-4736, USA

r t i c l e i n f o

eywords: enerational differences ork engagement

a b s t r a c t

Drawing upon generational differences in work values and attitudes, this article examines work engage- ment of three generational cohorts using survey data collected from 677 customer contact employees in

urnover intention oderating role

the hotel industry. Results of ANOVA and a series of moderated regression analyses indicate that levels of work engagement significantly differ depending on the generational membership of the employees. The effects of work engagement on turnover intention were significantly moderated by generational dif- ferences. Millennials were found to be a more distinct cohort from Gen Xers and Baby Boomers in terms of their level of work engagement as well as the relationship between work engagement and turnover intention.

© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Employee well-being has been a critical human resources issue n business organizations because it is closely related to work utcomes such as organizational commitment and satisfaction Schaufeli et al., 2008). Among the factors associated with employee ell-being, work engagement has recently garnered great atten-

ion from both academia and industry, since it represents positive ork experience and affect in organizational life, which generates

arious benefits to the organization (Sonnentag, 2003). For exam- le, Bakker and Demerouti (2009) found that engaged employees ere highly rated for both in- and extra-role performance by their

oworkers. Harter et al. (2002) also showed that work engagement as positively related to business-unit level performance.

Work engagement has been considered as a relatively stable otivational and individual difference variable (Salanova et al.,

000). Previous research has mainly focused on identifying indi- idual and organizational level antecedents and their relationships o employees’ varying degrees of work engagement (e.g., Kim et al., 009; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Few studies have turned their ocus to factors affecting the relationships between work engage-

ent and its antecedents and outcomes (e.g., Bakker et al., 2007; alanova et al., 2005). Bakker et al. (2007) examined the moderating ffects of job resources on the relationships between job demands nd work engagement. Salanova et al. (2005) found that organi-

ational service climate mediated the relationship between work ngagement and employee performance. In this study, we expand his line of research and fill a gap in the literature by examining

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 509 335 5609; fax: +1 509 335 3857. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Park), [email protected] (D. Gursoy).

278-4319/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. oi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.02.007

differential work engagement among groups of individuals, called generations.

Generational characteristics are formed by shared historical experiences among a group of people of a similar age (Schuman and Scott, 1989). In an organizational context, generational charac- teristics may lead to formulating distinct generational perceptions and values. Given that work engagement is predicted by various job resources (Bakker et al., 2007), it is inevitably influenced by the way employees perceive such resources in the workplace. As such, it is also expected that work engagement may have differential impacts on its outcomes among employees of different genera- tional cohorts, because generational differences in work values (e.g., work centrality or work leisure values) may further qualify the meaning of one work-related variable to another.

To this end, this study examined varying degrees of work engagement among employees of three generational cohorts (i.e., Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials) and the moderat- ing roles that generation plays in the relationships between work engagement and its outcomes. This study contributes to the liter- ature on work engagement and generational differences in several ways. First, previous research suggests that work engagement is a relatively stable, individual-level motivational construct (Mauno et al., 2007), and thus mainly focused on individual variations in work engagement. This study, in contrast, examines group-level variations in work engagement and their impacts on practically important work-related outcome variables from a generational perspective. Second, drawing upon research on generational differ- ences in the workplace, this study argues that distinct work values

shared by a generational cohort play a central role in moderating the effects of work engagement on proposed outcome variables. This could assist researchers to shift their focus to individual or group-level factors that potentially influence the relationships

1 f Hosp

b F g c n s c w

1

2

2

2

r p b o A s S m o e s a d o e

s 2 2 t d c w p d

t w s i j W t t j S e p a e i w m c w

196 J. Park, D. Gursoy / International Journal o

etween work engagement and its antecedents and outcomes. inally, this study examines a customer contact employees of three enerational cohorts in regard to their work engagement. With the urrent influx of younger employees into the workplace, managers ow face significant challenges in the hospitality industry. This tudy provides managers with important information to help them ope with generational differences in today’s multigenerational orkplace. This study sought to answer the following questions:

. Does work engagement significantly differ among three gener- ational cohorts?

. Does the influence of work engagement on job satisfaction and turnover intention differ depending on generational cohorts?

. Literature review

.1. Work engagement

The concept of work engagement emerged as a result of a esearch shift to the antipodes of burnout. Schaufeli et al. (2002, . 74) saw engagement as an independent construct from job urnout, and defined it as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state f mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption.” s the definition indicates, work engagement has three dimen- ions that have been widely validated (e.g., Demerouti et al., 2001; alanova et al., 2005). Vigor refers to “high levels of energy and ental resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort in

ne’s work and persistent even in the face of difficulties” (Schaufeli t al., 2002, p. 74). Dedication is described as having “a sense of ignificance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge,” while bsorption is defined as “state of being fully concentrated and eeply engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly, and ne has difficulties with detaching oneself from work” (Schaufeli t al., 2002, p. 74).

Prior research has mainly investigated the antecedents and con- equences of work engagement (Bakker et al., 2007; Salanova et al., 005). The JD-R model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Bakker et al., 004; Demerouti et al., 2001) suggests that two sets of organiza- ional level factors are significantly related to work engagement. Job emands that require employees’ sustained physical and/or psy- hological efforts have a negative impact on work engagement, hile job resources (e.g., career opportunities, supervisory sup- ort, skill variety) are positive working conditions that reduce job emands and foster work engagement (Bakker et al., 2007).

Practitioners and academics have paid considerable attention o work engagement, possibly due to the positive outcomes of ork engagement for organizations. Work engagement has been

hown to significantly affect work-related attitudinal and behav- oral outcomes, such as job satisfaction, turnover intention, and ob performance (e.g., Harter et al., 2002; Salanova et al., 2005).

hen workers have positive workplace experiences that make hem feel happy, involved, and in full vigor, they are more likely o work hard and with a positive state of mind, leading to superior ob performance (Halbesleben and Wheeler, 2008). For example, alanova et al. (2005) demonstrated that business-unit level work ngagement was positively related to customer-rated employee erformance, resulting in increased customer loyalty. Saks (2006) lso found that work engagement had a positive relationship to mployees’ job satisfaction and a negative relationship to turnover ntention. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) further demonstrated that

ork engagement was negatively related to turnover intention by ediating the relationship with job resources. Our study repli-

ates previous research that examined the relationship between ork engagement, and job satisfaction and turnover intention, but

itality Management 31 (2012) 1195– 1202

expands the scope of the research by including important genera- tional differences.

2.2. Generational differences

A generation can be defined as a group of individuals of a similar age who share historical experiences within the same time period (Ryder, 1965). Members of a generational cohort share important life experiences such as starting school, entering the workforce, and retiring at similar age, and they also experience memorable historical events at a similar developmental stage (Kowske et al., 2010). People perceive and interpret such historical events differ- ently depending on what developmental stages they experience such events (Duncan and Agronick, 1995). Shared experience dur- ing formative years (i.e., late childhood and early adulthood) guides formation of identifiable generational characteristics, which in turn affect an individual’s attitudes and values in one’s social life (Schuman and Scott, 1989). The influences of generational char- acteristics have been examined primarily within organizational contexts, focusing on work-related constructs such as work-related values, attitudes and preferences.

Baby Boomers (Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964) grew up in the economic prosperity of the post-World War II, and lived through the most dramatic changes in American history, including the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, Watergate, and assas- sinations of Kennedy and King (Dries et al., 2008; Twenge et al., 2010). Previous research reported that Boomers value work more than do younger generations. Boomers see work as being more cen- tral to their lives than younger generations (Meriac et al., 2010; Twenge et al., 2010). Smola and Sutton (2002) found that Boomers perceive work to be much more important part of life than younger generations do. Boomers have also been found to be loyal and com- mitted to their organizations, expecting a corresponding reward from their workplace compared to younger generations, because they believe hard work pays off (Gursoy et al., 2008; Smola and Sutton, 2002). Similarly, Boomers are more driven by goals and rewards in the workplace, showing a higher desire to land positions with greater responsibility than younger generations (Families and Work Institute, 2006).

Gen Xers, born from 1965 to 1980, are currently dominant in the workforce as Boomers retire. The generational characteristics of this cohort have been shaped by critical political events such as the end of the Cold War and a series of economic recessions in early and late 1970s and early 1980s. This generation witnessed high unem- ployment and family relocations caused by economic instability (Twenge et al., 2010). As a result, Gen Xers tend to be independent and individualistic, placing more value on their own careers over being loyal to organizations (Beutell and Wittig-Berman, 2008) and on extrinsic rewards such as increased pay and material posses- sions (Twenge et al., 2010). Instead of seeking job security, they pursue challenging jobs and better opportunities to develop their own careers (Kupperschmidt, 2000). They also tend to value auton- omy and freedom from supervision in the workplace (Jurkiewicz, 2000). Although Gen Xers have a stronger desire for rapid job advancement than Baby Boomers, they are not work-centric and more likely than the older generation to value work–life balance (Smola and Sutton, 2002; Twenge, 2010) and leisure (Twenge et al., 2010). Similarly, the findings of Highhouse et al’s (2010) longitu- dinal study suggest that the work ethic of Gen Xers was steadily declining compared to that of older generations.

Millennials (Generation Y or GenMe, born between 1981 and 1999) are the youngest generation cohort replacing Baby Boomers

in the workplace. The Millennial generation has been characterized by economic prosperity, advancement of instant communication technologies through the Internet, social networking, and glob- alization. Similar to Gen Xers, Millennials value freedom and

Hosp

w G h v t a P M i s r i w 2 l

2

a a w p w o s m o 2 i m t s t r l y

e c n c o D e t i w e i p C y e

q n p g f y w w m n e

J. Park, D. Gursoy / International Journal of

ork–life balance more than Baby Boomers do (Cennamo and ardner, 2008; Smola and Sutton, 2002; Twenge, 2010). They also ave high leisure work values, preferring a job that provides more acation time than older generations (Twenge et al., 2010). Despite heir lower work centrality, Millennials have higher expectations bout promotions and pay raises in the workplace (Ng et al., 2010). rior research has also reported a salient discrepancy between what illennials expect and what they are actually capable of achiev-

ng (Hill, 2002). In regard to their intrinsic work values, previous tudies showed somewhat inconsistent results. While anecdotal eports suggest that Millennials place a greater value on mean- ngful and fulfilling work and are not tolerant of less challenging

ork (Corporate Leadership Council, 2005; Lancaster and Stillman, 002), recent empirical research found that Millennials had slightly

ower intrinsic work values (Twenge et al., 2010).

.3. Generational effects on work engagement

Literature on generational differences views generational char- cteristics as derived from shared experiences of historical events s the main driver for the development of distinct generational ork values. Work values concern the importance that individuals lace on their work outcomes (Elizur, 1984). It is likely that distinct ork values among different generations underlie the perceptions

f meaningfulness of the work itself, which is an important precur- or to work engagement (Christian et al., 2011; Kahn, 1990). As a otivational construct, work engagement can be seen as the result

f individuals’ positive experiences of work tasks (Christian et al., 011). Individuals’ perceptions of work experiences are inevitably

nfluenced by what work itself means to their life. Although the eaningfulness of work closely relates to certain job characteris-

ics or work environment such as task significance, feedback, or kill variety (Hackman and Oldham, 1976), work values are likely o influence the translation of such job characteristics into work- elated motivations. Given that younger generations hold high eisure work values and low work centrality, it is expected that ounger generations are less likely to be engaged in work itself.

Furthermore, job demands have negative impacts on work ngagement when they go beyond the employees’ adaptive apabilities (Bakker et al., 2007). Millennial employees may be vul- erable to job demands because their work values (e.g., low work entrality, high leisure work values) constrain them from devel- ping strong adaptive capabilities to cope with the job demands. rawing upon a conservation of resources theory, Halbesleben t al. (2009) found that work engagement was significantly related o work interference with family. Employees who expend signif- cant amounts of physical and/or psychological resources in the

orkplace (i.e., work engagement) are more likely to have less nergy and resources at home (Halbesleben et al., 2009). Consider- ng younger generations’ low work centrality and priority to their ersonal life and family over their work (Corporate Leadership ouncil, 2005; Twenge et al., 2010), these findings suggest that ounger employees may not expend as much their resources and nergy in their work as older generations, and are thus less engaged.

Similarly, it is expected that generational differences further ualify the effects of work engagement on work-related attitudi- al outcomes. Along with low work centrality, varying work values, references, and psychological characteristics may act as drivers for enerating differential impacts of work engagement on job satis- action and turnover intention among different generations. When ounger generations lose their motivation to be engaged in their ork, finding their jobs less meaningful or perceiving ill-fitting

ork environments, their low work centrality and weak loyalty ay dampen their desire to remain with their organizations sig-

ificantly more than older generations. Conversely, when younger mployees are engaged in their work, it is expected that their

itality Management 31 (2012) 1195– 1202 1197

psychological characteristics, such as high self-esteem and opti- mism, may drive them to feel more psychologically present at work (Kowske et al., 2010; Twenge and Campbell, 2003), thus leading to stronger satisfaction and lower turnover intention than older gen- erations. Therefore, it is expected that younger generations who are high in work engagement will show higher job satisfaction and less turnover intention than older generations.

3. Method

3.1. Sample and procedure

With the support of a North American branded hotel manage- ment company, a total of 29 mid or upscale hotel properties owned or managed by the company were invited to participate in this study. Human resource managers of each property distributed a self-administered questionnaire to managers of each department, and customer contact employees were encouraged to participate voluntarily during scheduled staff meetings of each department. Employees voluntarily filled in the questionnaire during work time and returned the completed questionnaire using an attached return envelope. Of the 1577 survey questionnaires distributed, a total of 677 usable responses were returned for a 42.9% response rate. Respondents were comprised of 192 Millennials (28.4%), 248 Gen Xers (36.6%), and 236 Baby Boomers (35%). They were 225 (33.2%) males and 440 (65%) females with a mean age of 36 years. Respon- dents had been working for an average of 4.2 years in the current company. Almost 70% of the respondents had been with the current company for less than 5 years.

3.2. Measures

The measures used in this study have been well-validated in pre- vious studies. Work engagement was assessed using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2002), which has three dimensions: vigor ( ̨ = 0.80), dedication ( ̨ = 0.83), and absorption ( ̨ = 0.74). Examples of the items of each dimension include “When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work”, “I am enthusi- astic about my job”, and “When I am working, I forget everything else around me.” Job satisfaction was measured using a six-item scale ( ̨ = 0.80) that was slightly modified from the work of Hartline and Ferrell (1996). Turnover intention was measured with a three- item scale ( ̨ = 0.77) from Boshoff and Allen (2000). All items were measured on a five-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

3.3. Analysis of data

Composite scores of each dimension of work engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover intention by averaging the items of the constructs were used for analyses. Correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between work engage- ment, job satisfaction, and turnover intention. One-way ANOVA and regression analysis were employed to assess generational dif- ferences in work engagement. Moderated regression analyses were performed to test the moderating effects of generation on work engagement–satisfaction and work engagement–turnover inten- tion relationships. The nature of interactions was further illustrated by interaction plots. Three generation variables were created and dummy-coded for analyses: 1 = Millennials and 0 = Gen Xers, 1= Millennials and 0 = Baby Boomers, and 1 = Gen Xers and 0 = Baby

Boomers. In the first step, each of sub-dimensions of work engage- ment and dummy-coded generation variables were entered. In the second step, work engagement × generation interaction terms were entered.

1198 J. Park, D. Gursoy / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1195– 1202

Table 1 Descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and correlations among the variables.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Vigor 3.58 0.66 (0.80) 2. Dedication 3.57 0.76 0.62* (0.83) 3. Absorption 3.30 0.65 0.53* 0.58* (0.74) 4. Job satisfaction 3.60 0.66 0.43* 0.50* 0.42* (0.80)

4

fi s b p ( t (

t a a e e e g t a

T O

N

T M

N V

5. Turnover intention 2.27 0.91 −0.41* * p < 0.01.

. Results

Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, reliability coef- cients, and correlation coefficients for the study variables. As hown, the three dimensions of work engagement were found to e positively related to job satisfaction (r = 0.43, 0.50, and 0.42,

< 0.01, respectively) and negatively related to turnover intention r = −0.41, −0.46, and −0.25, p < 0.01, respectively). Job satisfac- ion had a significant negative relationship with turnover intention r = −0.55, p < 0.01).

Although previous research using a time-lag design found that he generation effect on work-related constructs was more salient nd greater than the age effect (e.g., Smola and Sutton, 2002), given

cross-sectional research design of the current study, it is acknowl- dged that the generation effect may be confounded with the age ffect. This study thus examined the relationships between work

ngagement and age as well as between work engagement and eneration. Regression analyses were first conducted, regressing hree dimensions of work engagement on age. Results showed that ge was significantly related to vigor ( ̌ = 0.10, p < 0.01), dedication

able 2 ne-way ANOVA for mean difference in work engagement for three generations.

Work engagement N Me

Vigor Baby Boomersa 192 3.6 Gen Xersa,b 248 3.5 Millennialsb 237 3.4 Total 677

Dedication Baby Boomersa 192 3.8 Gen Xersb 248 3.5 Millennialsc 237 3.3 Total 677

Absorption Baby Boomersa 192 3.3 Gen Xersa,b 248 3.3 Millennialsb 237 3.1 Total 677

ote: Different superscript indicates significant mean differences. * p < 0.05.

** p < 0.01.

able 3 oderated regression analyses for moderating effect of generation on the relationship be

Engagement variables Vigor Dedication

Generation variables Millennials vs. Gen Xers

Millennials vs. Boomers

Gen Xers vs. Boomers

Millennials Gen Xers

(Step 1) Engagement variables 0.42** 0.44** 0.42** 0.51**

Generation variablesa 0.06 −0.02 −0.08 0.09 R2 0.17** 0.19** 0.19** 0.26**

(Step 2) Engagement × Generation 0.05 0.04 −0.01 0.00 �R2 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 F 34.30** 34.30** 37.20** 50.59**

Total R2 0.17** 0.19** 0.19** 0.29**

ote: Dependent variable = job satisfaction. alues other than R2 and F statistics are standardized regression coefficients. ** p < 0.01. a Generation variables were dummy coded: Millennials = 1 versus Gen Xers = 0/Millenn

−0.46* −0.25* −0.55* (0.77)

(ˇ = 0.23, p < 0.01), and absorption ( ̌ = 0.13, p < 0.01), suggesting that older employees tend to be more engaged. From the per- spective of generational differences, ANOVA with post hoc tests (Turkey’s HSD) were conducted and showed that Baby Boomers had significantly higher scores on the vigor dimension of work engage- ment than Gen Xers and Millennials (F (2, 674) = 3.59, p < 0.05), and also on the dedication dimension of work engagement. Gen Xers scored significantly higher on dedication than Millennials (F (2, 674) = 19.50, p < 0.01). Baby Boomers scored significantly higher on absorption than Gen Xers and Millennials (F (2, 674) = 5.46, p < 0.01) (see Table 2). Overall, the results suggest that employees in the older generations are likely to be more dedicated to, engrossed in, and even vigorous at work.

Table 3 presents the results of regression analyses for the mod- erating effects of generation on the relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction. Consistent with the results of cor-

relation analyses, each dimension of engagement was found to be significantly related to job satisfaction across the three generations, but no work engagement–generation interaction effect was found. First, vigor resulted in a significant positive effect on job satisfaction

an (SD) df F-value

5 (0.70) Between groups 2 3.59*

9 (0.67) Within groups 674 8 (0.59) Total 676

0 (0.74) Between groups 2 19.50**

7 (0.74) Within groups 674 4 (0.74) Total 676

9 (0.66) Between groups 2 5.46**

1 (0.67) Within groups 674 7 (0.61) Total 676

tween work engagement and job satisfaction.

Absorption

vs. Millennials vs. Boomers

Gen Xers vs. Boomers

Millennials vs. Gen Xers

Millennials vs. Boomers

Gen Xers vs. Boomers

0.52** 0.50** 0.42** 0.43** 0.40**

0.07 −0.02 0.07 −0.01 −0.08 0.26** 0.25** 0.18** 0.18** 0.17**

0.02 0.02 0.06 0.05 −0.01 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.000

48.46** 53.67** 31.93** 33.08** 32.83**

0.26** 0.25** 0.18** 0.18** 0.17**

ials = 1 versus Boomers = 0/Gen Xers = 1 versus Boomers = 0.

J. Park, D. Gursoy / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1195– 1202 1199

Table 4 Moderated regression analyses for moderating effect of generation on the relationship between work engagement and turnover intention.

Engagement variables Vigor Dedication Absorption

Generation variables Millennials vs. Gen Xers

Millennials vs. Boomers

Gen Xers vs. Boomers

Millennials vs. Gen Xers

Millennials vs. Boomers

Gen Xers vs. Boomers

Millennials vs. Gen Xers

Millennials vs. Boomers

Gen Xers vs. Boomers

(Step 1) Engagement variables −0.39** −0.43** −0.37** −0.46** −0.47** −0.39** −0.28** −0.24** −0.18** Generation variablesa 0.10* 0.18** 0.09* 0.07 0.10* −0.05 0.10* 0.19** 0.10* R2 0.17** 0.24** 0.15** 0.23** 0.26** 0.19** 0.10** 0.11** 0.04**

(Step 2) Engagement × generation −0.14** −0.12* 0.03 −0.12* −0.15* 0.02 −0.13* −0.18** −0.06 �R2 0.013** 0.009* 0.001 0.008* 0.011* 0.000 0.010* 0.019** 0.002 F 32.04** 46.30** 28.34** 44.50** 51.66** 30.12** 17.03** 21.12** 32.83**

Total R2 0.18** 0.25** 0.15** 0.24** 0.27** 0.19** 0.11** 0.13** .05**

Note: Dependent variable = turnover intention. Values other than R2 and F statistics are standardized regression coefficients.

illenn

f v B s ( p p o p l B

o a n a v B g G ( p y t i t B v

o X ( ( a m o a B f l s G �

i M G

* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. a Generation variables were dummy coded: Millennials = 1 versus Gen Xers = 0/M

or Millennials versus Gen Xers ( ̌ = 0.42, p < 0.01), for Millennials ersus Baby Boomers ( ̌ = 0.44, p < 0.01), and for Gen Xers versus aby Boomers ( ̌ = 0.42, p < 0.01), respectively. Dedication also had ignificant effects on job satisfaction for Millennials versus Gen Xers

̌ = 0.51, p < 0.01), for Millennials versus Baby Boomers ( ̌ = 0.52, < 0.01), and for Generation Xers versus Baby Boomers ( ̌ = 0.50,

< 0.01) respectively. Lastly, absorption showed significant effects n job satisfaction across the three generation variables ( ̌ = 0.42,

< 0.01 for Millennial versus Gen Xers; ˇ = 0.43, p < 0.01 for Mil- ennial versus Baby Boomers; ̌ = 0.40, p < 0.01 for Gen Xers versus aby Boomers).

Moderated regression analyses revealed significant main effects f three dimensions of work engagement and generation vari- bles on turnover intention (see Table 4). Vigor had significant egative effects on turnover intention for the three generation vari- bles (Millenials versus Gen Xers, ̌ = −0.39, p < 0.01; Millennials ersus Baby Boomers, ̌ = −0.43, p < 0.01; Gen Xers versus Baby oomers, ̌ = −0.37, p < 0.01). There were significant main effects of eneration variables on turnover intention for Millennials versus en Xers ( ̌ = 0.10, p < 0.05), for Millennials versus Baby Boomers

̌ = 0.18, p < 0.01), and for Gen Xers versus Baby Boomers (ˇ = 0.09, < 0.05) after controlling for the effect of vigor. This indicates that ounger generations showed significantly higher turnover inten- ion than older generations. As seen in Step 2, the vigor–generation nteraction term had significant effects on turnover inten- ion for Millenials versus Gen Xers and for Millennials versus aby Boomers, adding 1.3% and 0.9% to the overall explained ariance.

Dedication was found to have significant negative effects n employees’ turnover intention for Millennials versus Gen ers ( ̌ = −0.46, p < 0.01), for Millennials versus Baby Boomers

̌ = −0.47, p < 0.01), and for Gen Xers versus Baby Boomers ̌ = −0.39, p < 0.01). The generation variable denoting Millenni-

ls versus Baby Boomers ( ̌ = 0.10, p < 0.05) revealed a significant ain effect on turnover intention while controlling for the effect

f dedication on turnover intention. This indicates that Millenni- ls reported significantly higher scores on turnover intention than aby Boomers. The effect of dedication on turnover intention was

ound to be moderated by the generation variables denoting Mil- ennials versus Gen Xers and Millennials versus Baby Boomers with ignificant increments in explained variance (Millennials versus en Xers: �R2 = 0.008, p < 0.05; Millennials versus Baby Boomers: R2 = 0.011, p < 0.05).

Lastly, absorption had significant main effects on turnover

ntention for Millenials versus Gen Xers ( ̌ = −0.28, p < 0.01), for illennials versus Baby Boomers ( ̌ = −0.24, p < 0.01), and for en Xers versus Baby Boomers, ̌ = −0.18, p < 0.01), respectively.

ials = 1 versus Boomers = 0/Gen Xers = 1 versus Boomers = 0.

Generation variables also showed significant main effects on turnover intention. Younger employees reported significantly higher scores on turnover intention than older generations (Mil- lennials versus Gen Xers: ̌ = 0.10, p < 0.05; Millennials versus Baby Boomers: ̌ = 0.19, p < 0.01; Gen Xers versus Baby Boomers: ̌ = 0.10, p < 0.05). Significant interaction effects between absorption and generation for Millennials versus Gen Xers and for Millennials versus Baby Boomers were found, adding 1% and 1.9% to the total variance, respectively.

5. Discussion

This study focused on the generational differences in work engagement and the moderating effects of generation on the rela- tionships between work engagement, job satisfaction and turnover intention. Previous research on work engagement has mainly examined varying antecedents and outcomes (Bakker et al., 2007; Harter et al., 2002; Saks, 2006), and little is known about group- level variation in work engagement and its effects on work-related outcome variables (Harter et al., 2002; Salanova et al., 2005).

Drawing upon literature on generational differences in the workplace, this study found that levels of work engagement are likely to vary based on the generational membership of employ- ees. These findings indicate that employees of younger generations, in particular Millennial employees, have a lower level of work engagement than do older generations. Kahn (1990) argued that people should have sufficient physical, emotional, and psycholog- ical resources in order to be engaged at work. Those with limited resources available have difficulty sustaining a high level of work engagement (Macey and Schneider, 2008). In this regard, younger generations are less likely to allocate personal resources and energy to work tasks because of their low work centrality as well as the greater value they place on work–life balance and personal life.

Person–environment fit may provide another explanation. When employees see their work as consistent with their values and preferences, they should be engaged in their work (Macey and Schneider, 2008). Previous research suggests that work char- acteristics or job conditions are important forces that motivate employees to be willing to invest their personal resources in work tasks (Christian et al., 2011; Kahn, 1990). Based on social exchange theory, Saks (2006) argued that such desirable work conditions as providing challenging or meaningful tasks drive employees to respond with high level of work engagement. Prior research also

suggests that job characteristics of the hotel industry such as less rewarding and challenging work are not aligned with younger gen- erations’ work preferences and expectations (Chen and Choi, 2008; Gursoy et al., 2008). Therefore, Millennial employees may not find

1200 J. Park, D. Gursoy / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1195– 1202

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

+ 1 SD1 SD-

T ur

no ve

r i nt

en tio

n

Boomers Xers

Vigor

t p

p t w w r w a i e m (

t h a r s e s H t e a e l fi t m

5

t w t c w

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

+1 SD-1 SD

T ur

no ve

r i nt

en tio

n

Boomers Xers

Dedication

acteristics are important precursors to work engagement (Bakker et al., 2007; Christian et al., 2011; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004), the potential interactions between external antecedents (i.e. job resources) and psychological drivers of work engagement such

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

+1 SD-1 SD

T ur

no ve

r i nt

en tio

n

BoomersAbsorption

Millennials

Fig. 1. Interaction of vigor and generation for turnover intention.

he job conditions in the hotel industry fitting with their work references, and thus tend to be less engaged in their work.

Furthermore, a series of moderated regression and interaction lot analyses indicate that generation is likely to have consis- ent pattern of moderating effects on the relationships between ork engagement and turnover intention. While work engagement as found to have equally significant effects on job satisfaction

egardless of the generation, the moderating effects of generation ere noticeable on the relationship between work engagement

nd turnover intention. Insignificant job satisfaction–generation nteraction may be explained by the fact that the concept of work ngagement (in particular, the affective aspects of work engage- ent) are closely linked to and even equated with job satisfaction

Macey and Schneider, 2008). Although vigor positively influences employee retention across

he three generations, Millennial employees have significantly igher intention to leave their organizations than do older gener- tions when experiencing a lack of energy and difficulty in mental esilience in the workplace (see Fig. 1). Similarly, results also uggest that if Millennial employees lose a sense of significance, nthusiasm, and challenge in their work, their intention to leave ignificantly increases as compared to Baby Boomer employees. owever, when they find their jobs fulfilling and significant and are

hereby deeply dedicated to their work roles, Millennial employ- es are less likely to leave their organizations than engaged Gen X nd Baby Boomer employees (see Fig. 2). Furthermore, Millennial mployees are more likely to leave their organizations if they are ess engrossed and absorbed in their work (see Fig. 3). Overall, the ndings of this study suggest that engaging employees is impor- ant to enhance employees’ job satisfaction, and this is particularly

ore instrumental in retaining Millennial employees.

.1. Implications

The findings provide important implications for researchers. To he best of our knowledge, no research has empirically examined

ork engagement among employees of three different genera-

ional cohorts. This study limited research subjects into customer ontact employees, and found that employees of three generations orking in the similar job conditions presented different levels

Millennials

Fig. 2. Interaction of dedication and generation on turnover intention.

of work engagement. Work-related values shared by a group of employees may impact their work-related experiences and state of mind by determining their psychological presence at and sig- nificance of work. However, it is also possible that work values as enduring inner standards essentially guide employees’ interpreta- tion and perceptions of varying work resources and environments. This argument suggests that job resources and conditions may have differential effects on work engagement depending on individuals’ psychological factors.

Although previous research has found that job resources or char-

Xers Millennials

Fig. 3. Interaction of absorption and generation on turnover intention.

Hosp

a e i e c

p e B l h e c t M j c p t M M g w t i m

6

e c g o t e d m a d i t

R

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of

J. Park, D. Gursoy / International Journal of

s personal resources (e.g., self-efficacy, organizational-based self- steem) and work values are undefined. Future research should nvestigate whether psychological factors directly influence work ngagement or whether they do so by qualifying the effects of job haracteristics on work engagement.

These findings also have managerial implications. Although revious research in the hospitality and tourism industry has xamined a variety of aspects of generational differences (e.g., eldona et al., 2009; Francese, 1993; Patterson and Pegg, 2009),

ittle research has examined generational differences from the uman resources perspective (e.g., Chen and Choi, 2008; Gursoy t al., 2008). This study suggests that engaging employees is ritically important to Millennial employees in order to retain hem relative to older employees. Managers should incorporate

illennials’ work preferences such as meaningful and fulfilling obs as well as their work values into human resources poli- ies to retain younger employees. Previous research suggests that ersonal resources such as optimism or self-esteem are posi- ively related to work engagement (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008).

anagers should understand that generational characteristics of illennials can be a double-edged sword for organizations. Their

enerational characteristics may be a challenge for organizations ith poor human resource practices. However, if managers fos-

er Millennials’ unique psychological characteristics along with mproving their work environment and resources, they may be

ore successful in engaging younger employees in their work.

. Conclusion

Due to its positive impacts on the organization and employ- es, work engagement is an important work-related motivational onstruct in organization research. Building on the literature on enerational differences, the research reported here extends previ- us work that examined the antecedents of work engagement and he contextual factors determining the relationships between work ngagement and its outcomes. Our results are notable because they emonstrate the impact of the generational differences on work otivation or state of mind in the workplace. The work values that

re characterized by generational differences play a critical role in etermining the levels of employee engagement in work and the

mpacts of employees’ work motivation on behavioral outcomes in he workplace.

eferences

akker, A.B., Demerouti, E., 2007. The job demands–resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology 22 (3), 309–328.

akker, A.B., Demerouti, E., 2008. Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International 13 (3), 209–223.

akker, A.B., Demerouti, E., 2009. The crossover of work engagement between working couples: a closer look at the role of empathy. Journal of Managerial Psychology 24 (3), 220–236.

akker, A.B., Demerouti, E., Verbeke, W., 2004. Using the job demands–resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management 43 (1), 83–104.

akker, A.B., Hakanen, J.J., Demerouti, E., Xanthopoulou, D., 2007. Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology 99 (2), 274.

eldona, S., Nusair, K., Demicco, F., 2009. Online travel purchase behavior of gen- erational cohorts: a longitudinal study. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 18 (4), 406–420.

eutell, N.J., Wittig-Berman, U., 2008. Work–family conflict and work-family syn- ergy for generation X, baby boomers, and matures. Journal of Managerial Psychology 23 (5), 507–523.

oshoff, 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 (1), 63–90.

ennamo, L., Gardner, D., 2008. Generational differences in work values, outcomes and person–organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology 23 (8), 891–906.

itality Management 31 (2012) 1195– 1202 1201

Chen, P.J., Choi, Y., 2008. Generational differences in work values: a study of hospitality management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20 (6), 595–615.

Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S., Slaughter, J.E., 2011. Work engagement: a quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology 64 (1), 89–136.

Corporate Leadership Council, 2005. HR Considerations for Engaging Generation Y Employees. Corporate Executive Board, Washington, DC.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., Schaufeli, W.B., 2001. The job demands–resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (3), 499–512.

Dries, N., Pepermans, R., De Kerpel, E., 2008. Exploring four generations’ beliefs about career: is satisfied the new successful? Journal of Managerial Psychology 23 (8), 907–928.

Duncan, L.E., Agronick, G.S., 1995. The intersection of life stage and social events: personality and life outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69 (3), 558–568.

Elizur, D., 1984. Facets of work values: a structural analysis of work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 69 (3), 379–389.

Families and Work Institute, 2006. Generation and gender in the work- place. American Business Collaboration. Retrieved August 29, 2010 from http://familiesandwork.org/site/research/reports/genandgender.pdf.

Francese, P.A., 1993. Rising stars in the consumer constellation: a peer personal- ity profile of the post-baby-boom generation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 17 (1), 17–27.

Gursoy, D., Maier, T.A., Chi, C.G., 2008. Generational differences: an examination of work values and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (3), 448–458.

Hackman, J.R., Oldham, G.R., 1976. Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16 (2), 250–279.

Halbesleben, J.R.B., Harvey, J., Bolino, M.C., 2009. Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work inter- ference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology 94 (6), 1452–1465.

Halbesleben, J.R.B., Wheeler, A.R., 2008. The relative roles of engagement and embe- dedness in predicting job performance and intention to leave. Work & Stress 22 (3), 242–256.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., Hayes, T.L., 2002. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta- analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (2), 268–279.

Hartline, M.D., Ferrell, O.C., 1996. The management of customer-contact service employees: an empirical investigation. The Journal of Marketing 60 (4), 52–70.

Highhouse, S., Zickar, M.J., Yankelevich, M., 2010. Would you work if you won the lottery? Tracking changes in the American work ethic. Journal of Applied Psy- chology 95 (2), 349–357.

Hill, R.P., 2002. Managing across generations in the 21st century: important lessons from the ivory trenches. Journal of Management Inquiry 11 (1), 60–66.

Jurkiewicz, C.L., 2000. Generation X and the public employee. Public Personnel Man- agement 29 (1), 55–74.

Kahn, W.A., 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and dis- engagement at work. The Academy of Management Journal 33 (4), 692–724.

Kim, H.J., Shin, K.H., Swanger, N., 2009. Burnout and engagement: a comparative analysis using the Big Five personality dimensions. International Journal of Hos- pitality Management 28 (1), 96–104.

Kowske, B.J., Rasch, R., Wiley, J., 2010. Millennials’ (lack of) attitude problem: an empirical examination of generational effects on work attitudes. Journal of Busi- ness and Psychology 25 (2), 265–279.

Kupperschmidt, B.R., 2000. Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective man- agement. The Health Care Manager 19 (1), 65–76.

Lancaster, L.C., Stillman, D., 2002. When Generations Collide: who they are, why they Clash how to Solve the Generational Puzzle at Work. Harper Collins Publishers, Inc, New York, NY.

Macey, W.H., Schneider, B., 2008. The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1 (1), 3–30.

Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., Ruokolainen, M., 2007. Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: a longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior 70 (1), 149–171.

Meriac, J.P., Woehr, D.J., Banister, C., 2010. Generational differences in work ethic: an examination of measurement equivalence across three cohorts. Journal of Business and Psychology 25 (2), 315–324.

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 (2), 281–292.

Patterson, I., Pegg, S., 2009. Marketing the leisure experience to baby boomers and older tourists. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 18 (2–3), 254–272.

Ryder, N.B., 1965. The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological Review 30, 843–861.

Saks, A.M., 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology 21 (7), 600–619.

Salanova, M., Agut, S., Peiro, J.M., 2005. Linking organizational resources and work

service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (6), 1217–1227. Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W.B., Llorens, S., Peiro, J.M., Grau, R., 2000. Desde el burnoutal

engagement:? una nueva perspectiva. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y las Organizaciones 16 (2), 117–134.

1 f Hosp

S

S

S

S

S

and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management 36 (5), 1117–

202 J. Park, D. Gursoy / International Journal o

chaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., 2004. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25 (3), 293–315.

chaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., Bakker, A.B., 2002. The measure- ment of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies 3 (1), 71–92.

chaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W., Van Rhenen, W., 2008. Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied Psychology 57 (2), 173–203.

chuman, H., Scott, J., 1989. Generations and collective memories. American Socio- logical Review 54 (3), 359–381.

mola, K.W., Sutton, C.D., 2002. Generational differences: revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23 (4), 363–382.

itality Management 31 (2012) 1195– 1202

Sonnentag, S., 2003. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (3), 518–528.

Twenge, J.M., 2010. A review of the empirical evidence on generational dif- ferences in work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology 25 (2), 201–210.

Twenge, J.M., Campbell, S.M., Hoffman, B.J., Lance, C.E., 2010. Generational differences in work values: leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social

1142. Twenge, J.M., Campbell, W.K., 2003. Isn’t it fun to get the respect that we’re going

to deserve? Narcissism, social rejection, and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29 (2), 261–272.