RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOB SATISFACTION AND BURNOUT: AN ANALYSIS IN
HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY
Assoc.Prof.Dr. Ozkan Tutuncu, Dokuz Eylul University, Center for Quality and Excellence, Saglik
Kampus,Hemsirelik Y.O., Inciralti, Izmir, 35340, Turkey, ozkan.tutuncu@deu.edu.tr
Research Assist. Erdogan Ekiz, Cyprus International University, School of Tourism and Hospitality,
Lefkosa, Cyprus, erdogan@ciu.edu.tr
Research Assist. Deniz Kucukusta, Dokuz Eylul University, Center for Quality and Excellence, Saglik
Kampus,Hemsirelik Y.O., Inciralti, Izmir, 35340, Turkey, deniz.kucukusta@deu.edu.tr
Abstract
The hotels involved in tourism industry and which forms the framework of industry are based on physical
data and success of the facilities is wholly based on efficiency of human force. Depending on this,
improvement of the employee and burnout reduction is becoming important in hotels where face to face
relationships are lived intensively and the labor turnover is high. Job satisfaction concept, examined from
frame, has great impacts on withdrawal, absenteeism, and looking for job alternatives which affects the
organization’s service quality as well as the individual’s life quality. This study has been conducted in
hotels in Cyprus. The positions of employees in point of burnout and job satisfaction have been analyzed.
Research was conducted through a survey instrument consisting of a Burnout Questionnaire (Maslach
Burnout Inventory) with 3 factors, Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (JDI-Job Descriptive Index) with 5
factors and demographic factors. Data obtained in the study has been analyzed at the base of multivariate
data analysis with SAS 9.0 statistical program and the results show that the canonical correlation between
job satisfaction and burnout was significant. It was found out that burnout was perceived more important
than job satisfaction among employees. Besides, variables of job satisfaction don’t have high correlation
with burnout variables. There is a high positive correlation between personal accomplishment and the
factors of job satisfaction. On the other hand emotional exhaustion and depersonalization have high
negative correlation with other variables. This study could help hospitality managers how to satisfy their
needs of employees and how to make them committed in order to improve productivity and create happier
guests.
Key Words: Job Satisfaction, Burnout, Hospitality Industry
1
Introduction
Studies generally find a negative relationship between burnout and work satisfaction, and they are
strongly determined by organizational structures and processes (Burisch, 2002; Kalliath & Morris, 2002;
Stechmiller & Yarandi, 1993; Thomsen et al., 1999). According to Maslach, burnout is a physical,
emotional and mental exhaustion syndrome which derives from chronic physical exhaustion, feelings of
helplessness and hopelessness, and development of a negative self-concept as well as negative attitudes
towards the profession, the life and other people (Jones, 1981; Maslach & Jackson, 1981, 1986). Physical
indicators of burnout include chronic fatigue, insomnia, headaches and hypertension (Farber, 1990; Pines
& Aronson, 1981) and emotional indicators are usually reported as feeling of hopelessness, futility and
despair (Kestnbaum, 1984), boredom and cynicism (Friedman, 1985), anxiety, withdrawal, loss of
morale, feeling of isolation, depression and suicidal tendency.
The aim of this study is to determine the factors that affect job satisfaction and burnout in hospitality in
Cyprus, when the determinants of these concepts are evaluated together. The two sets of variables are
canonically correlated and dimensions of the sets appoint the most important factors for job satisfaction
and burnout.
Literature Review
Burnout is a kind of employee response to job-related stress factors, and therefore, it has a special
significance in healthcare where staff experience both psychological–emotional and physical stress
(Beckstead, 2002; Shamian et al., 2001; Wheeler and Riding, 1994). There is also an important cultural
context for occupational stress processes (Schwartz, 1999). Various social, political and economic factors
shape the health care environment, e.g., changes in public policy, cutbacks in government funding, etc.
(Maslach & Goldberg, 1998; Murray, 2002). One important organizational factor that influences
psychosocial work climate and generates job-related stress is role conflict (Fenlason & Beehr, 1994;
Kalliath & Morris, 2002). Lack of equal expectations and demands from other people in the workplace
are psychologically uncomfortable and may induce negative emotional reactions, diminish effectiveness
2
and job satisfaction, and decrease the employee’s intent to remain a member of the organization (Allen &
Mellor, 2002).
Workplace stress, if not resolved, eventually leads to burnout and employee turnover. Corporate
downsizings demand for shorter product cycle times and increased attention to R&D budgets are several
conditions that create varying levels of stress in the employees. Some stress inducing conditions, such as
challenge and technological uncertainty, are beneficial if they give rise to conditions that motivate
creativity. However, other stress contributors, such as technical obsolescence, lack of autonomy, poor
feedback, locus of control, and low job involvement can lead to eventual burnout and employee turnover.
According to Maslach, burnout is a physical, emotional and mental exhaustion syndrome which derives
from chronic physical exhaustion, feelings of helplessness and hopelessness, and development of a
negative self-concept as well as negative attitudes towards the profession, the life and other people (Jones,
1981; Maslach & Jackson, 1981, 1986)
Job satisfaction is defined as “the extent to which people like or dislike their jobs” (Spector, 1997). Job
satisfaction can also be defined as pleasantness or unpleasantness of employees while working (Davis,
1981). The literature evidences that the term job satisfaction is interrelated with the term ‘attitude’ due to
the difficulty of giving a proper definition widely accepted in the literature (Robinson & Head, 1983;
Yukl & Wexley, 1971). According to this approach, job satisfaction appears if expectations are met or
fulfilled; otherwise dissatisfaction would be the outcome of any working experience.
In addition, there are researchers who view that job satisfaction is a result of both employees' expectations
and aspirations and their existing status or as multi-dimensional attitudes towards their jobs and working
places (Hamermesh, 2001; Clark & Oswald, 1996). From this argument, it seems reasonable that the level
of job satisfaction changes based upon working conditions, demographic characteristics, and expectations
in the future career or the type of work being carried out.
3
In a number of research studies completed in the 1970s, the most significant factors influencing the level
of job satisfaction included gender, age, experience, well-paid salary, promotion opportunities, and
context of jobs, control and education (Sousa & Poza, 2000; Clark, 1997; Clark & Oswald, 1996; Clark,
Oswald & War, 1996). As a result of various studies carried out subsequently, some new dimensions
were outlined. These are security, skills and qualifications, knowledge, management policy, atmosphere,
reliability of labor unions, culture, expectations, and motivations (Ferrie et al.., 2005; Furnham, 2002;
Heywood, Siebert & Wei, 2002). It appears that the findings of such studies also support those of earlier
studies. Based upon these factors, one could suggest that some job satisfaction-related variables appear to
be objective values as some others are subjective or psychosocial values (Marsden & Cook, 1993).
As a result of researches on job satisfaction, some sorts of models have been developed like Porter Need
and Satisfaction Questionnaire – NSQ which is based on the requirements’ hierarchy of Maslow
(Strawser, 2001); Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire which has been developed in the year of 1967 by
Weiss et al. in which the work conditions and job satisfaction are correlated with each other (Nagy,
2001); and Job Descriptive Index which is one of the analytical methods, mostly used. This scale was put
forward in the year of 1969 by Smith, Kendal and Hulin (1969) and the method was developed in the year
of 1985 by JDI Research Group. The subscales such as qualities of work, wage, promotional
opportunities, communication with people, monitoring etc are involved in this index (Barrows & Wesson,
2001). There is another method which has been put forward by the researchers who have developed Job
Descriptive Index, called Job In General – JIG. Just as if in Job Descriptive Index the trio answering
format consisting of yes-no and question mark in this method and while the individual appraises his work
he gives opportunity for some expressions and adjectives to be used up. However, unlike Job Descriptive
Index, not the definitions of individual concerned with work but his opinions about his work are taken as
the base in the method of Job In General. When all the other methods are considered Scarpello and
Campell (2001) have emphasized that the most appropriate universal appraisal is a method consisting of
one question and five alternatives and which generally questions their satisfaction for work.
4
In the JDI, the factors used to evaluate the level of job satisfaction focus on specific work elements that
an employee counts important. The factors like supervision and companionship are taken into
consideration in this model. However, the conducted job satisfaction analysis obstructs the employee to
consider other factors. In order to overcome this issue, a summary question is utilized: measuring an
overall level of job satisfaction. This question is represented by the statement as “overall, I enjoy doing
my job”. With the inclusion of this statement, other omitted slots are filled and a comparative analysis is
expected to result. Thereupon, global indexes provide better results while evaluating job performance and
inspecting organizational outputs like non-attendance (Bruck et al., 2002). The JDI was restructured with
this question and reached at a broader conclusion.
Burnout was measured by emotional exhaustion from the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). MBI
(Maslach & Jackson, 1986) was used to measure job burnout. The MBI contains three subscales:
emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment. The nine items in the emotional
exhaustion subscale describe feelings of being emotionally overextended and exhausted by one’s work.
The five items in depersonalization subscale describe an unfeeling and impersonal response towards
recipients of one’s care or service. The subscale of personal accomplishment contains eight items that
describe feelings of competence and successful achievement in one’s work with people. For emotional
exhaustion and depersonalization, high mean scores correspond to higher degrees of experienced burnout.
In contrast to other two subscales, lower mean scores on personal accomplishment correspond to higher
degree of burnout. Each respondent was requested to indicate the frequency of the feeling represented by
each item on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘never’ to ‘always’.
Research Methodology
The data were obtained by administrating a structured-questionnaire survey. The questionnaire instrument
is consisted of four parts. The first part involved 26 likert type survey items regarding employees’
satisfaction such as “my colleagues are friendly”. The second part of the instrument included 22 questions
designed to measure the level of the employees’ burnout and presented statements such as “I usually feel
5
overloaded when I am working”. The third part was devoted to investigating the relationship between
employees’ perception level on Burnout (BO) and Job Satisfaction (JS) (2 questions). The reliabilities and
validities of both instruments (JDI & MBOI) are previously proved by other researchers. Since the scales
were to be used in Turkey, it has to be retested against validity and reliability. Both instruments have been
used in recent studies and their reliabilities and construct validities. A five-point Likert scale was used
ranging from ‘definitely agree’ (1) to ‘definitely disagree’ (5) in Job Satisfaction part, and from ‘Never’
(1) to ‘Always’ (5) in Burnout Inventory part. The final part involved 5questions regarding basic
demographic characteristics of the respondents. The survey instrument was pilot tested among 30
employees. The pilot results were used to improve the clarity and readability of questions.
The study was carried out in three stages: population, data collection and data analysis. In total, 350
questionnaires distributed by the researchers and 209 questionnaires were returned, with a response rate
of (60 %) which is statistically acceptable for data analysis. Of these, 2 were eliminated due to missing
data. The data obtained was analyzed by using a SPSS 13.0 and SAS 9.0 programs. Data analysis
consisted of descriptive statistics, frequency distribution and canonical correlation analysis within the
multivariate data analysis.
Research Findings
Demographic dispersion and profile of employees under the base of definitive statistics are stated in Table
1 (take in Table1). 209 people have gone under the research. The reliability tests have been implemented
on data. To increase the reliability coefficient of the test, two data have been taken out of study. As a
result of the test, the general Cronbach’s alpha of data is found to be as 0, 87. This is acceptable for
reliability analysis (Nunnaly, 1978).
6
Table 1. Demographic Dispersion
Number
%
AGE
Number
%
EDUCATION
At 15 or younger than 25
60
29,0
Secondary School
47
22,7
26-32
88
42,5
High school
104
50,2
33-42
47
22,7
Undergraduate
42
20,3
43-50
12
5,8
Post graduate
5
2,4
Total
207
100,0
Missing
9
4,3
207
100,0
Total
GENDER
Female
85
41,1
Male
122
58,9
Less than 1
14
6,8
Total
207
100,0
1-5
82
39,6
6-10
62
30,0
11-20
35
16,9
21 or above
14
6,8
Total
207
100,0
TENURE
Less than 1
67
32,4
1-3
97
46,9
4-6
33
15,9
7-9
10
4,8
Total
207
100,0
TOTAL WORKING YEARS
Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of the survey results in by the means of factor averages of the
independent variables and dependent variables. The mean values come out between 1-5 numerical values
(in reading Likert scale results 5: strongly agree, 4:agree, 3: neither agree nor disagree, 2: disagree, 1:
strongly disagree).
7
Table 2. Descriptive statistics
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Work itself
207
2,41
1,065
wages
207
2,86
,984
promotion
207
2,74
1,016
coworkers
207
2,73
1,048
supervision
207
2,44
,814
Emotional Exhaustion
207
3,12
,997
Depersonalization
207
2,74
1,043
Personal Accomplishment
207
2,79
1,026
JS
207
2,64
,819
BO
207
2,88
,513
Valid N (listwise)
207
When mean values are analyzed, regardless of the relation ship between the variables, it is seen that some
of the factors like emotional exhaustion , wages and personal accomplishment have the highest values.
According to mean values, employees sometimes feel emotionally exhausted. Work itself and
supervision are issues that need to be improved.
In order to determine the relationship between two sets of variables, canonical correlation analysis is
used. Canonical correlation analysis is a multivariate statistical model that facilitates the study of
interrelationships among sets of multiple dependent variables and multiple independent variables. In this
study, job satisfaction (JS) and burnout (BO) are specified as the set of dependent variables.
One of the dependent variables, job satisfaction, is measured through a satisfaction index (JDI) with
independent areas of satisfaction. There are 3 more independent variables associated with the other
dependent variable, burnout inventory.
The level of significance of a canonical correlation generally considered to be the minimum acceptable
level for interpretation is the .05 level, which (along with the .01 level) has become the generally accepted
level for considering a correlation coefficient statistically significant (Hair et al., 450). In this study, both
canonical correlations are statistically significant (p<0.05). In addition, multivariate tests like Wilk’s
8
lambda, Pillai’s trace, Hotelling’s trace and Roy’s ger are also performed (Table 3). The results of these
tests also prove that both correlations are significant at 0.0001 level. Redundancy analysis for the first and
the second function is observed.
Table 3. Canonical Correlation Analysis Relating Levels of Dependent and Independent Set
Measures of overall Model Fit for Canonical Correlation
Canonical Correlation
Canonical R2
1
0.9677
0.936
110.6
.0001
2
0.6911
0.477
25.8
.0001
Canonical Function
F Statistics
Probability
Multivariate tests of significance
Value
Approx. F Statistics
Probability
Wilks’ lambda
0.033
110.57
.0001
Pillai’s trace
1.414
59.75
.0001
Hotelling’s trace
15.657
192.03
.0001
Roy’s ger
14.742
364.88
.0001
9
Table 4. Canonical Results
Canonical Function 1
Canonical Function 2
Loadings
Cross-loadings
Loadings
Cross loadings
JS-Job Satisfaction
0.9100
0.8806
0.4147
0.2866
BO-Burnout
0.9312
0.9011
-0.3646
-0.2520
Explained Variance
85 %
Criterion set
15 %
Predictor set
Work itself
0.1992
0.1928
0.0109
0.0075
Wages
0.1671
0.1617
0.0435
0.0301
Promotion
0.3459
0.3347
-0.0587
-0.0406
Co-workers
0.1723
0.1668
0.1615
0.1116
Supervision
0.3695
0.3576
0.2002
-0.1384
E. Exhaustion
-0.7866
-0.7612
0.2890
0.1997
Depersonalization
-0.8155
-0.7892
0.5010
0.3463
Personal Accomplishment
0,8425
0.8153
0.2230
0.1542
Explained variance
29.3 %
5.7%
Canonical Coefficient
0.9677
0.6911
Redundancy R2
93.6 %
47.7 %
From the redundancy analysis, it is seen that the canonical R2 of the first function is .9365, and the
redundancy analysis for the second function products a lower value as Canonical R2 of .4777. From the
10
redundancy analysis, and the significance tests, the first canonical function should be accepted. Table 4
represents canonical results of the dependent and independent sets for both functions (variates).
Table 4 shows the canonical coefficients of the dependent variables (JS and BO) belong to the criterion
set and 5 satisfaction measures and 3 components of burnout inventory belong to the predictor set.
Canonical function 1 has been found significant from the significance tests and redundancy values.
Function 2 has not been taken into consideration since it is significant but poor redundancy percent with
lower loadings.
In Function 1, both dependent variables (criterion set) have loadings exceeding .80. This indicates a high
correlation between JS and BO. As we examine the canonical loadings of the predictor set all the
independent variables loadings except emotional exhaustion and depersonalization have positive values.
Burnout dimensions like Personal Accomplishment (0.8425), Depersonalization (-0.8155), Emotional
Exhaustion (-0.7866) have the highest loadings. Supervision (0.3695), Promotion (0.3459), Work itself
(0.1992), Co-workers (0.1723) and Wages (0.1671) are the dimensions of Job satisfaction have relatively
lower loadings. The dimensions of burnout have stronger affects on dependent variables than the job
satisfaction dimensions. When criterion set is analyzed, it is seen that job satisfaction is also strongly
affected by the burnout dimensions.
In order to validate the canonical correlation analysis, sensitivity analysis of the independent set also has
been made. Independent variables like wages, co-workers, personal accomplishment and emotional
exhaustion have been deleted but there have not been significant changes at the factor loadings. This
analysis ensures the validity of the data.
Conclusion
The wages which take place in Herzberg’s two factor theory also appear empirically as hygiene factor in
this study. Besides, the absence of the other hygiene factors of the theory in this study can be attributed to
11
the oriental characteristics of Turkish people. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that all other independent
variables except emotional exhaustion and depersonalization , are positively interrelated.
The high loadings of the criterions’ like job satisfaction and burnout, can be interpreted considering the
dimensions and inter-correlations between them. Two dimensions of burnout (emotional exhaustion and
depersonalization) have negative loadings when canonically tested because, these two predictors are
negatively worded.
As a result, there is a strong relationship between job satisfaction and burnout when taken together.
Wages do not have an important place in this relationship. Employees do not evaluate their job
satisfaction in relation with their wages. Although there is a strong relationship between canonical
criterion variables, it is seen that burnout is strongly affected by the predictors, especially by the
independent variables of its own original measure.
Management in hospitality organization should take supervision, promotion opportunities and working
conditions into consideration when creating satisfied employees. Management also should promote ways
to personal accomplishment. According to employees, emotional exhaustion and depersonalization are
also have strong but negative correlation with the dependent variables which may mean that these two
dimensions are the most critical ones to be considered and as a whole, burnout is perceived more
important than job satisfaction.
References
Allen, J. & Mellor, D. (2002). Work Context, Personal Control, and Burnout amongst Nurses. Western
Journal of Nursing Research, 24, 905–917.
Barrows, D., & Wesson, T. (2001). A Comparative Analysis of Job Satisfaction Among Public and
Private Sector Professionals. Retrieved December 20, 2004, from
http://www.innovation.cc/rev_arts/job_ satisfaction2.htm
12
Beckstead, J. W. (2002). Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Maslach Burnout Inventory among Florida
Nurses. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 39, 785–792.
Burisch, M. (2002). A Longitudinal Study of Burnout: The Relative Importance of Dispositions and
Experiences. Work and Stress, 16, 1–17.
Clark, A. E., & Oswald, A. J. (1996). Satisfaction and Comparison Income. Journal of Public Economics,
61(3), 359-381.
Clark, A. E., Oswald, A. J., & Warr, P. (1996). Is Job Satisfaction U-Shaped in Age? Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 69(1), 57 - 81.
Davis, K. (1981). Human Behaviour at Work: Organisational Behaviour (5th ed.). New York: McGrawHill.
Farber, B. A. (1990). Burnout in Psychotherapists: Incidence Types, and Trends. Psychotherapy in
Private Practice, 8(1), 35-44.
Ferrie, J. E., Shipley, M. J., Newman, K., Stansfeld S. A., & Marmot, M. (2005). Self-Reported Job
Insecurity and Health in the Whitehall II Study: Potential Explanations of the Relationship. Social
Science and Medicine, 60(7), 1593-1602.
Friedman, R. (1985). Making Family Therapy Easier for the Therapist: Burnout Prevention. Family
Process, 24, 549-553.
Furnham, A., Petrides K. V., Jackson C. J., & Cotter T. (2002). Do Personality Factors Predict Job
Satisfaction? Personality and Individual Differences, 33(8), 1325-1342.
Hamermesh, D. S. (2001). The Changing Distribution of Job Satisfaction. Journal of Human Resources,
36(1), 1-30.
Heywood, J. S., Siebert, W, S., & Wei, X. (2002). Job Satisfaction and Worker Sorting: The Case of
Union and Government Jobs. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55(2), 595 -609.
Kalliath, T., Morris, R. (2002). Job Satisfaction among Nurses: A Predictor of Burnout Levels. Journal of
Nursing Administration, 32, 648–654.
Kestnbaum, J. D. (1984). Expectations for Therapeutic Growth: One Factor in Burnout. Social Casework:
The Journal of Contemporary Social Work, 65, 374-377.
13
Marsden, P., & Cook, C. (1993). Gender Differences in Organizational Commitment. Work and
Occupations, 20(3), 368-391.
Maslach, C. & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The Measurement of Experienced Burnout, Journal of Occupational
Behavior, 2, 99-113.
Maslach, C. & Jackson, S. E. (1986). Manual Maslach Burnout Inventory, 2nd Ed., Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Maslach, C., Goldberg, J. (1998). Prevention of Burnout: New Perspectives. Applied and Preventive
Psychology, 7, 63–74.
Murray, M .K. (2002). The Nursing Shortage. Past, Present, and Future. Journal of Nursing
Administration, 32, 79–84.
Nagy, M. S. (2002). Using a single item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 77-76. Retrieved April 22, 2005,from Ingenta
connect database.
Pines, A.M., & Aronson, E. (1981). Burnout: From Tedium to Personal Growth. New York: Free Press.
Robinson, A., & Head, K.(1983). Measures of Occupational Attitudes and Occupational Characteristics.
Michigan: Survey Research Centre.
Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job Satisfaction: Are all the parts there?. Personnel Psychology.
36, 577-600.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A Ttheory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 48, 23–47.
Shamian, J., Kerr, M. S., Laschinger, H. K., Thomson, D. (2001). A Hospital-Level Analysis of the Work
Environment and Workforce Health Indicators for Registered Nurses. Canadian Journal of
Nursing, 33, 35–50.
Smith, M. P., Kendall, L.,& Hulin, C. (1969). The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement:
A Strategy for the Study of Attitudes. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
14
Stechmiller, J. K., Yarandi, H. N. (1993). Predictors of Burnout in Critical Care Nurses. Heart and Lung,
13, 534–541.
Strawser, J. A. (2000). Job Satisfaction in Accounting Practice: A Comparison of Two Periods. Retrieved
January 10, 2005, from http://panopticon.csustan.edu/cpa99/html/ strawser.html.
Thomsen, S., Soares, J., Nolan, P., Dallender, J., Arnetz, B. (1999). Feelings of Professional Fulfillment
and Exhaustion in Mental Health Personnel: the Importance of Organizational and Individual
Factors. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 68, 157–164.
Wheeler, H.,& Riding, R. (1994). Occupational Stress in General Nurses and Midwives. British Journal
of Nursing, 3, 527–534.
Yukl, G., & Wexley, K. (1971). Job Satisfaction and Motivation to Work in Readings in Organizational
and Industrial Psychology. London: Oxford University Press.
15