Burnout and perceived organisational support among front-line hospitality employees.

This article describes research designed to investigate the relationship between burnout and perceived organisational support (POS) among front-line hospitality employees, Three hundred front-line employees of a multisite hospitality firm were surveyed using an instrument comprising the general

survey version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory and the 17-item version of the Survey of Perceived Organisational Support (POS). Significant relationships were found between POS and each of the three burnout dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism and personal efficacy. The findings of this study contribute to the existing academic literature and provide hospitality managers with a better understanding of the factors that contribute to the problem of front-line employee turnover.

**********

Research suggests that a common flaw in hospitality organisations is that they fail to address the issues associated with employee wellbeing, such as the experience of work-related burnout and the extent to which their employees feel they are supported and valued (Anderson, Provis, & Chappel, 2001; Tabacchi, Krone, & Farber, 1990; Zohar, 1994). Work-related burnout in employees is believed to result in physiological, psychological and behavioural consequences which are detrimental to the health of the employee and the effectiveness and efficiency of the organisation (van Dierendonck, Schaufeli & Buunk, 1998). On the other hand, a high level of perceived organisational support (POS) has been associated with many positive implications for both employees and management, such as increased organisational commitment, job satisfaction and reduced turnover rates (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997).

A study by Zohar (1994) found that the hospitality industry is recognised as one of the most stressful professions. Buick and Thomas (2001) described the hospitality industry as one that faced labour shortages, high levels of staff turnover, unsociable working hours and high pressure working conditions. Although previous research has addressed the occurrence of work-related burnout in the hospitality industry (see for example, Reynolds & Tabacchi, 1993; Tabacchi, Krone & Farber, 1990), past research efforts have predominantly focused on middle and upper level management as opposed to front-line employees. Furthermore, research to date has not investigated the relationship between burnout and POS within a hospitality setting. The aim of this study was to address this research gap through an exploratory quantitative study of front-line hospitality employees. The findings of this study contribute to the existing academic literature and provide hospitality mangers with a better understanding of the factors that contribute to the problem of front-line employee turnover.

Burnout and its Organisational Consequences

The term burnout has been used widely since the 1970s to describe the stresses experienced by people working in human services industries. The term's most common use was to define the relationship that people have with their work and the difficulties that may surface when that relationship breaks down (Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter, 2001). Vallen (1993) described this condition as a collection of problems experienced in the workplace that result in a negative interface between individuals and their environment. Maslach (1982) identified three common dimensions of burnout: emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation or cynicism, and reduced personal accomplishment--otherwise known as reduced personal efficacy. Further research on these dimensions led to the development of the Multidimensional Theory of Burnout (Maslach, 1982). Figure 1 presents a conceptual model of the burnout phenomenon.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

According to Perlman and Hartman (1982), exhaustion is the most commonly experienced symptom of burnout. They found that exhaustion was associated with both psychological and physiological strain and was characterised by symptoms such as tension, anxiety, fatigue and insomnia. Jansen, Kerkstra, Huijer and Van Der Zee (1996) described the dimension as the feeling of not being able to psychologically contribute to organisational activities. In support of this description, Cordes and Dougherty (1993) described the experience as being a lack of energy and a feeling that all of one's emotional resources have been expended.

The second dimension of burnout, cynicism, was described by Jansen et al. (1996, p. 408) as 'the development of negative and cynical attitudes and feelings about one's clients and colleagues'. Common characteristics of this dimension include the display of callousness and cynicism towards co-workers, customers and the organisation. According to Cordes and Dougherty (1993), the observable symptoms include the use of offensive or abstract language, withdrawal through longer breaks, extended conversations with fellow employees and extensive use of jargon.

The third dimension of burnout, that of reduced personal efficacy, was described by Cordes and Dougherty (1993) as the tendency of an individual to negatively evaluate themselves as they perceive a decrease in job capabilities and successful achievements in their work. In addition, Maslach et al. (2001) described the experience of reduced personal efficacy as an outcome of exhaustion and cynicism as both of these dimensions are known to interfere with one's effectiveness.

Burnout among employees is associated with reductions in productivity, absenteeism, low organisational commitment and high turnover, and these costs are directly linked to reduced organisational effectiveness and financial loss (Lingard, 2003; Reynolds & Tabacchi, 1993; Vallen, 1993).

Burnout Among Front-Line Hospitality Employees

According to Seltzer and Numerof (1988) people in front-line, nonsupervisory positions may be more prone to burnout than those in supervisory and administrative positions. Buick and Thomas (2001) also suggested that the occurrence of burnout is higher in service industries where roles involve a high degree of interaction with customers. Zohar (1994) identified role conflict, role ambiguity, work overload and lack of control--commonly known as lack of decision latitude or autonomy--as sources of job-related stress among frontline hospitality staff. Each of these have been identified as being important causes of burnout (Maslach et al., 2001) and will be discussed in detail.

Role conflict and role ambiguity are commonly regarded as role stressors (Zohar, 1994). The experience of role conflict is common among front-line hospitality staff as they attempt to balance often conflicting demands from customers and management (Chung & Schneider, 2002; Ross & Boles, 1994). On the other hand, role ambiguity arises when staff members are not sure of management expectations and the reduced accessibility of restaurant supervisory staff during busy periods may pose a problem for employees seeking clarification of their delegated roles or tasks (Ross & Boles, 1994). This may result in employees' negatively evaluating their abilities, leading to feelings of reduced personal efficacy (Deery & Shaw, 1998).

The regular occurrence of these role stressors that prevent a front-line employee from meeting organisational expectations can evoke a variety of outcomes commonly recognised as symptoms of role strain. These include low job satisfaction, absenteeism, lower organisational commitment, poorer job performance, negative attitude toward work, tension and anxiety (Zohar, 1994). These symptoms of role strain are strongly associated with the symptoms of burnout (Maslach & Leiter, 1997; Vallen, 1993; van Dierendonck, et al., 1998).

The third source of job related stress found among front-line hospitality staff is work overload. Referred to as a work characteristic stressor, work overload may occur as front-line staff try to meet the demands of the customer and management for speed and quality of service (Zohar, 1994). Since customer satisfaction depends on the delivery of service in 'real time' (with each delay often negatively affecting satisfaction) the front-line employee is required to perform a highly demanding integrative function under tight time constraints (Ross & Boles, 1994). This particular stressor can often result in service employees experiencing high levels of exhaustion (Anderson et al., 2001).

Lack of autonomy, also described as a job characteristic stressor, was predicted by Zohar (1994) to be an outcome of the unique nature of hospitality work because the delivery of food and beverage services often requires coordination of the outputs of different operational units to meet exacting service delivery deadlines. Thus, the individual has little control over the tempo of activities in which they are involved. According to Riley (1996), the lack of autonomy or control that front-line hospitality employees have over service delivery deadlines, and customer and supervisory demands, can often lead to the experience of stress and helplessness. The experiences of stress and helplessness have been noted as having a negative impact on job performance and satisfaction, as well as a decrease in organisational commitment (Ross & Boles, 1994). Research by Singh (2000) also supported the existence of a negative relationship between perceived task control and burnout.

A lack of peer cohesion was also identified by Ross and Boles (1994) as a common antecedent of burnout and job dissatisfaction among hospitality employees. Their research found that hospitality employees were likely to have fewer opportunities, than those working more regular hours, to socialise and bond with their coworkers due to the industry's unsociable working hours and staggered shift times that result in the employees arriving and leaving the workplace at different times.

A further contributing factor to burnout among front-line hospitality employees is the feeling of subservience such employees may experience, as the nature of their roles requires the constant adherence to customer and supervisory demands (Anderson et al., 2001; Reichel & Pizam, 1984). Furthermore, a study by Hartman and Yrle (1996) revealed that hospitality employees tend to become bored and frustrated in their roles due to a lack of job mobility and promotional opportunities leading to a decrease in job satisfaction. This, in turn, leads to symptoms of cynicism as employees adopt a negative attitude towards their work and their customers (Amabile, 1993; Maslach et al., 2001).

The literature on burnout described above suggests that many of the characteristics of front-line jobs in the hospitality industry--including role conflict, role ambiguity, work overload and lack of control--appear to contribute to the experience of burnout-related symptoms (Zohar, 1994). The literature also suggests that some of the symptoms of burnout are similar to those a front-line hospitality employee would experience, if they felt unsupported by their organisation (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001). Hence, these findings appear to suggest a potential relationship between the experience of burnout among front-line hospitality employees and their perceived organisational support.

Perceived Organisational Support

According to organisational support theory, the development of perceived organisational support (POS) is based on the employees' tendency to view their favourable or unfavourable treatment as an indication that the organisation favours or disfavours them (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Employees are said to develop global beliefs regarding the extent to which their organisation values their contributions and genuinely cares about their wellbeing (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997).

According to Johlke, Stamper and Shoemaker (2002, p. 117), the concept of POS '... is based on a social exchange interpretation of organisational commitment, whereby employees extend their effort and loyalties to the organisation in return for the material commodities and social rewards it can bestow'. POS theory has been found to be related to, yet distinct from, both Leader-Member exchange and supervisor support (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). However, while the latter two constructs describe the relationship between subordinates and individual supervisors, acting as agents of the organisation, the concept of POS describes the relationship that an employee has with their organisation as a whole (Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 2003; Borchgrevink & Boster, 1997). More specifically, Levinson (1965) suggested that actions taken by supervisors may be interpreted by employees as indications of the organisation's intent, rather than attributed solely to the personal motives of the agent. According to Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002), this personification of the organisation is supported by the entity's legal, moral and financial responsibility for the actions of its agents and these actions are guided by the organisation's policies, norms and culture. Thus, the employee views their organisation's favourable or less favourable treatment towards them, not through the actions of their immediate superiors, but through the human-like characteristics assigned to the policies, norms and culture of the organisation. Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison and Sowa (1986) identified four general forms of perceived favourable treatment that contribute to employees POS. These include fairness, supervisor support, organisational rewards and job conditions.

Both employee and employer can benefit from high levels of POS. Employees experience positive outcomes--such as a decrease in job-related stress, an increase in positive job-related affect, high levels of job involvement, reduced withdrawal behaviour, increased organisational commitment and a desire to remain with the organisation (Eisenberger, et al., 1986). This results in positive organisational outcomes such as reduced turnover, increased affective commitment and higher productivity and performance (Eisenberger, et al., 2001).

Perceived Organisational Support and Front-Line Hospitality Employees

Front-line employees in the hospitality industry are at the forefront of providing hospitality services to guests. According to Faulkner and Patiar (1997), these front-line employees have little input into the operating procedures and decision-making processes that regulate their service environment. Furthermore, while a hospitality organisation's management places a strong emphasis on customer focus, it has been recognised that the environment in which these front-line staff work can often inhibit their ability to provide a truly hospitable service (Vallen, 1993). In addition, Davidson, Manning and Timo (2001) claim that employees' perception of their work environment or climate has a substantial influence on the quality of service and level of customer satisfaction.

A study on front-line hospitality staff conducted by Faulkner and Patiar (1997) identified dealing with ambiguous situations as one of the most common sources of stress. Ross and Boles (1994) suggested that supervisory and managerial support reduces job-related strains such as role conflict and role ambiguity. This claim is supported by a number of findings that suggest supervisory and leadership behaviours actually increase role clarity (Hampton, Dubinsky, & Skinner, 1986; Johnson, Parasuraman, & Futrell, 1989).

Smith, Gregory and Cannon (1996) claimed that extrinsic factors such as organisational support, supervisor relations and immediate work environment all contribute to a hospitality employee's level of job satisfaction and can result in a positive attitude toward the organisation. However, a study by Reichel and Pizam (1984) found that hospitality employees, when compared with four other industries, had the lowest level of job satisfaction. Moreover, Hartman and Yrle (1996) argued that many hospitality firms lack adequate promotional policies, which could also be a key determinant of low levels of job satisfaction among hospitality employees.

High front-line employee turnover is a recognised problem within the hospitality industry (Davidson, et al., 2001; Hartman & Yrle, 1996). This notion, along with the previous finding that hospitality employees are more likely to experience lower levels of job satisfaction (Reichel & Pizam, 1984), suggests that hospitality employees may be more likely to experience burnout-related symptoms and more prone to having negative perceptions of the extent to which their organisation supports them.

Investigating the Relationship Between Burnout and POS

Work-related burnout and low POS have many of the same behavioural consequences and it is the relationship between these two phenomena that the current research aimed to explore. According to Tabacchi et al. (1990), high levels of POS, mainly the aspects relating to supervisory support, function as a crucial antecedent to the prevention of burnout. Their study revealed that hospitality employees were more likely to report symptoms associated with burnout when they perceived low levels of supervisory and subordinate support. This relationship was supported by Rowley and Purcell (2001), who found that one of the primary causes of employee turnover within the industry was high stress levels that occurred as a result of managerial demands. Further support for the relationship between burnout and POS was demonstrated by Kilfedder, Power and Wells (2001), who found that employees who reported low perceptions of social support also reported symptoms associated with the burnout dimensions of cynicism and exhaustion. Thus, in the current research a negative relationship was predicted between these two dimensions of burnout and POS, indicating that employees, who perceive their organisation to be unsupportive and unappreciative, are more likely to experience higher levels of exhaustion and cynicism. A positive relationship was predicted between the personal efficacy dimension of burnout and POS, indicating that high levels of perceived organisational support in front-line hospitality employees are associated with high levels of personal efficacy. Thus, the two hypotheses for this study proposed that:

* H1: A negative relationship exists between the exhaustion and cynicism dimensions of burnout and perceived organisational support in front-line hospitality employees.

* H2: A positive relationship exists between the personal efficacy dimension of burnout and the levels of POS in front-line hospitality employees.

Methodology

Sampling and Data Collection Methods

The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between burnout and POS among front-line hospitality employees. Data were collected in early 2004. The cross-sectional study included a sample of 300 front-line food and beverage attendants currently working 25 hours per week or more within a multisite hotel organisation situated in Queensland, Australia. A nonprobability convenience sampling method was used to select the participants. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to all front-line employees who had worked an average of more than 25 hours per week over the previous four pay periods. The survey was attached to pay slips with an incentive for completion. Once completed, the questionnaires were returned to the researcher via self-addressed prepaid envelopes.

Survey Instrument

The survey instrument comprised two widely used scales: the proprietary Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Scale (MBI-GS) (Schaufeli, Leiter, Maslach, & Jackson, 1996) and a shortened version of the widely available scale used in the Survey of Perceived Organisational Support (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Responses to all items in these two scales were obtained using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). In addition, the survey instrument collected responses to basic demographic and work history questions.

The MBI-GS scale consists of 16 items designed to measure the three dimensions of burnout; exhaustion (EX), cynicism (CY) and personal efficacy (PE). A high degree of burnout is reflected in high EX and CY scores and in low PE scores (Schaufeli et al., 1996). The 17-item Survey of Perceived Organisational Support was designed by Eisenberger et al. (1986) as a unidimensional scale to measure employees' perceptions of organisational support. The scale includes five items that are negatively worded (i.e., a high score indicates low POS) to enable the researcher to explore 'yea-saying' response bias (Anastasi, 1982).

Results

A total of 100 front-line food and beverage attendants completed and returned the questionnaire equating to a response rate of 33%. On average, respondents had been employed in the hospitality industry for 7.5 years and had been with the current employer for 2.5 years. Fifty per cent of the respondents were under 26 years of age and 65% of them were female. Slightly over half of the respondents (56%) worked more than 35 hours per week and there were almost equal proportions of people working day (31%), night (36%) and split (33%) shifts.

The remainder of the results and discussion sections will focus on the relationship between reported levels of burnout and perceived organisational support and on the tests of the two hypotheses outlined earlier.

Data Exploration

A Principle Component Analysis (PEA) using varimax rotation was conducted on the items comprising the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS). The results confirmed the multidimensionality of the scale with most of the 16 items loading onto the three dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism and personal efficacy in much the same way described by Maslach, Jackson and Leiter (1996). However, one of the items, labelled CY3 ('I just want to do my job and not be bothered') loaded more strongly on to the Exhaustion factor than the Cynicism factor. This was also a problem identified by Schutte, Toppinen, Kalimo and Schaufeli (2000) in their confirmatory factor analysis of the MBI-GS. Schutte et al. (2000) found that the deletion of this item resulted in improved internal consistency for the Cynicism scale, as did the current study (Cronbach's [alpha] improved from 0.82 to 0.84 on deletion of this item). The final solution is shown in Table 1. The three dimensions accounted for 62.9% of the variance. Scale reliability analysis showed high levels of internal consistency for each of the MBI-GS subscales; exhaustion (Cronbach's [alpha] = 0.90), cynicism (Cronbach's [alpha] = 0.84) and personal efficacy (Cronbach's [alpha] = 0.72).

PCA was also conducted on the 17 items comprising the Survey of Perceived Organisational Support to test Eisenberger et al.'s (1986) claim that the scale is unidimensional. The unrotated component matrix, presented in Table 2, showed that all 17 items had factor loadings of greater than 0.44 with factor one. However, three of the five negatively worded questions in the instrument also loaded strongly onto a second component and item 14 loaded more strongly onto a third component than it did onto factor one. Scale analysis showed that reliability could not be improved by removal of any of the items described above. In the absence of any strong evidence to contradict Eisenberger et al.'s (1986) claim of unidimensionality, the 17 items were treated as a unidimensional scale and the scale reliability Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.89 also suggests that the items were internally consistent in their measurement of POS (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). The unidimensional structure accounted for 37.1% of the total variance in responses to the items.

Simple summated scales were formed for each of the three dimensions of burnout and for the single dimension of POS. The summated variables were examined for compliance with the assumptions of correlation (i.e., normality and homoscedasticity of residuals and linearity) and no substantial threats to these assumptions were observed.

The Relationship Between the Dimensions of Burnout and POS

The hypotheses were tested using bivariate correlation and the results of these tests are summarised in Table 3. It is well recognised in psychometric research that measurement error attenuates the statistical relationship between composite variables (Fan, 2003). Thus, correction for attenuation due to measurement error was achieved using the traditional approach discussed by Charles (2005) in which the corrected correlation between the two variables ([r.sub.xyc]) is estimated by dividing the observed correlation ([r.sub.xy]) by the square root of the product of the reliability coefficients for each of the two variables, that is:

[r.sub.xyc] = [r.sub.xy]/[[square of [r.sub.xx]] [square of [r.sub.yy]]]

Table 3 presents both the corrected and uncorrected coefficients for purposes of comparison. A significant negative correlation was found between reported levels of POS and exhaustion (r = -0.389, p < 0.01) and reported levels of POS and cynicism (r = -0.675, p < 0.01). These results support the first hypothesis that exhaustion and cynicism are negatively related to POS. Table 3 shows that a significant positive correlation was found between personal efficacy and POS (r = 0.481, p < 0.01) and this supports the second hypothesis that personal efficacy is positively related to POS. Comparison of the uncorrected correlation coefficients with those corrected for measurement error indicate that they are consistent with Fan's (2003, p. 915) observation that correlation coefficients that have not been corrected for measurement error are 'systematically biased downwards'.

Discussion

The two constructs, exhaustion and cynicism, are associated with similar job-related strains such as role conflict, role ambiguity, excessive workload and lack of autonomy (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993). The significant negative relationship between these two dimensions of burnout and POS supports hypothesis one, that exhaustion and cynicism are negatively related to POS, and suggest that the more the hospitality employees in this study felt supported by their organisation the less exhausted and cynical they felt. This is consistent with Ross and Boles' (1994) research that found that adequate supervisor and managerial support can reduce the occurrence of ambiguous situations and increase the role clarity of front-line employees. Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002, p. 709) conducted meta-analysis of more than 70 studies conducted in several different industries and also found that POS was positively correlated with having 'a positive mood' at work and this implies reduced work-related cynicism among employees. Further support for this relationship was provided by Armeli, Eisenberger, Fasolo and Lynch (1998) who found high levels of POS to be a significant contributor to a positive disposition toward work among police officers.

The positive relationship between POS and exhaustion is consistent with Kilfedder et al.'s (2001) finding that exhaustion can occur as a result of a feeling of lack of support from one's organisation. Furthermore, a study by Rowley and Purcell (2001) indicated that one of the prominent causes of turnover within the hospitality industry was the high stress levels experienced by employees due to the workloads inflicted on employees by management. Although significant, the correlation between POS and exhaustion is the lowest of the three relationships tested here. This suggests that other mediating variables proposed by Cordes and Dougherty (1993), such as lifestyle outside of work, peer relationships, role compatibility and health status might play a particularly important role in determining levels of reported employee exhaustion and it highlights the need to collect data on these variables when exploring the relationship between POS and this dimension of burnout.

The significant positive relationship between personal efficacy and POS provides support for hypothesis two, that personal efficacy is positively related to POS, and suggests that employees who feel they are supported by their organisation also feel confident and effective in their roles. This result is consistent with previous findings that high levels of POS can counteract negative consequences associated with job-related strains that may lead to feelings of reduced personal efficacy (Zohar, 1994). Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) also found that POS had a significant positive effect on various measures of employee performance in their review of over 70 studies.

Conclusions and Implications

The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between burnout and POS among front-line hospitality employees. Results of the study demonstrated that POS was significantly correlated with all three dimensions of burnout, illustrating that higher levels of POS were associated with lower levels of exhaustion and cynicism and higher levels of personal efficacy within a hospitality setting. Though significant, smaller correlation coefficients between POS and exhaustion indicate that other social and environmental factors need to be considered when investigating this dimension of burnout in the workplace.

Implications for Management

Work-related burnout in employees has been linked to reduced productivity, absenteeism, low organisational commitment and high staff turnover and all of these contribute to reduced service and financial loss for the employer organisation (Lingard, 2003). Thus, hospitality managers should be alert for behavioural symptoms related to burnout such as reduced enthusiasm, high absenteeism, tardiness, and decreased productivity among frontline employees. This research indicates that POS is one of the factors that contribute to work-related burnout. Thus, identification of burnout-related behaviours may indicate a need for managers to implement strategies to reassure employees of the organisation's commitment toward them. To reduce front-line employee levels of cynicism and increase levels of job satisfaction and organisational commitment among employees, management might consider redesigning front-line hospitality jobs to make them more meaningful, challenging and psychologically rewarding. To enhance employee levels of POS, hospitality managers need to ensure that programs are in place that offer encouragement and reward good performance. These might include employee of the month programs, letters of commendation and internal promotional opportunities (Rowley & Purcell, 2001).

Since supervisor support has been shown to be important in determining POS (Tabacchi, Krone, & Farber, 2000), hospitality organisations should also ensure that their managers and supervisors are seen to be approachable, empathetic and available to address any work related grievances that their front-line staff may have (Vallen, 1993). Training and staff development programs are additional methods by which an organisation can enhance their employees' POS (van Dierendonck et al., 1998).

Study Limitations and Future Research

The present study has three main limitations. First, the sample population used in this research was limited to food and beverage attendants from one multisite employer, thus the findings of this study may not be representative of the entire population of front-line hospitality employees. Davidson et al. (2001) identified organisational climate as a determinant of the behaviour and perceptions of employees but it is not possible to explore the effects of organisational climate on POS and burnout within the single firm used in this research. Future research should sample employees from a range of different firms and hospitality service providers--such as accommodation providers, fast food chains, gaming establishments and theme parks--so that comparisons can be made between different types of hospitality employee and the existing benchmarks that are available for retail and healthcare workers.

The second limitation of this study is that the length, time frame and scope of the research did not permit investigation and measurement of other social, psychological and economic variables that may influence the experience of burnout-related symptoms. Future research in this area should consider variables such as employee lifestyles outside the workplace, peer relationships, role compatibility and the general physical and psychological health status of the sample population that might influence the relationship between POS and the dimensions of burnout.

The final limitation of this study is that data were collected during an off-peak period for the hospitality industry and this may limit the extent to which these results can be generalised to other environments. Future research might adopt a longitudinal multistage approach to investigate the issue of seasonal fluctuation in front-line hospitality employees' reported levels of burnout and POS.

References

Allen, D.G., Shore, L.M., & Griffeth, R.W. (2003). The role of perceived organisational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of Management, 29(1), 99-118.

Amabile, T.M. (1993). Motivational synergy: toward new conceptualisations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resources Management Review, 3(3), 185-201.

Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Anderson, B.A., Provis, C., & Chappel, S.J. (2001). When it's just too hard to smile[ Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 8(2), 69-72.

Armeli, S. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Lynch, P. (1998). Perceived organizational support and police performance: The moderating influence of socio-emotional needs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 288-297.

Borchgrevink, C.P., & Boster, F.J. (1997). Leader member exchange development: A hospitality antecedent investigation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 16(3), 241-259.

Buick, I., & Thomas, M. (2001). Why do middle managers in hotels burn out? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(6), 304-309.

Charles, E.P. (2005). The correction for attenuation due to measurement error: Clarifying concepts and creating confidence sets. Psychological Methods, 10(2), 206-226.

Chung, B.G., & Schneider, B. (2002). Serving multiple masters: Role conflict experienced by service employees. Journal of Services Marketing, 16(1), 70-87.

Cordes, C.L., & Dougherty, T.W. (1993). A review and an integration of research on job burnout. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 621-656.

Davidson, M., Manning, M., & Timo, N. (2001). Are customer satisfaction and performance in hotels influenced by organisational climate? Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 8(1), 41-54.

Deery, M.A., & Shaw, R.N. (1998). An exploratory analysis of turnover culture in the hotel industry in Australia. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 16(4), 375-372.

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organisational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8(1), 42-51.

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P.D. (1997). Perceived organisational support, discretionary treatment and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 812-820.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 500-507.

Fan, X. (2003). Two approaches for correcting correlation attenuation caused by measurement error: Implications for research practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(3), 915-930.

Faulkner, B., & Patiar, A. (1997). Workplace induced stress among operational staff in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 16(1), 99-117.

Hampton, R., Dubinsky, A.J., & Skinner, S.J. (1986). A model of sales supervisor leadership behaviors and retail salesperson's job-related outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14, 33-42.

Hartman, S.J., & Yrle, A.C. (1996). Can the hobo phenomenon help explain voluntary turnover? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(4), 11-16.

Jansen, P.G.M., Kerkstra, A., Huijer, H., & Van Der Zee, J. (1996). The effects of job characteristics and individual characteristics on job satisfaction and burnout in community nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 33(4), 407-421.

Johlke, M.C., Stamper, C.L., & Shoemaker, M.E. (2002). Antecedents to boundary spanner perceived organisational support. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(2), 116-128.

Johnson, M.W., Parasuraman, A., & Futrell, C.M. (1989). Extending a model of sales person role perceptions and work related attitudes: Impact of job tenure. Journal of Business Research, 18, 269-290.

Kilfedder, C., Power, K., & Wells, T. (2001). Burnout in psychiatric nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 34(3), 383-396.

Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organisation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370-390.

Lingard, H. (2003). The impact of individual and job characteristics on 'burnout' among civil engineers in Australia and the implications for employee turnover. Construction Management and Economics, 21(1), 69-80.

Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Maslach, C., Jackson, S., & Leiter, M.P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Maslach, C., & Leiter M.P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422.

Perlman, B., & Hartman, E.A. (1982). Burnout: Summary and future research. Human Relations, 33(3), 283-305.

Reichel, A., & Pizam, A. (1984). Job satisfaction, lifestyle and demographics of U.S. hospitality industry workers--versus others. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 3(3), 123-133.

Reynolds, D., & Tabacchi, M. (1993). Burnout in full-service chain restaurants. The Cornell Hotel and Administration Quarterly, 34(2), 62-68.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-714.

Riley, M. (1996). Managing employee relations in the hotel and catering industry. London: Cassel.

Ross, L.E., & Boles, J.S. (1994). Exploring the influence of workplace relationships on work-related attitudes and behaviours in the hospitality work environment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 13(2), 155-171.

Rowley, G., & Purcell, K. (2001). 'As cooks go, she went': Is labour churn inevitable? Hospitality Management, 20, 163-185.

Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S.E. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey. In C. Maslach, S.E Jackson, & M.P. Leiter, MBI Manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press

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(2), 53-66.

Seltzer, J., & Numerof, R.E. (1988). Supervisory leadership and subordinate burnout. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 439-446.

Singh, J. (2000). Performance productivity and quality of frontline employees in service organisations. Journal of Marketing, 64, 15-34.

Smith, K., Gregory, S.R., & Cannon, D. (1996). Becoming an employer of choice: Assessing commitment in the hospitality workplace. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(6), 3-9.

Tabacchi, M., Krone, C., & Farber, B. (1990). Workplace and social support in ameliorating managerial burnout in the food and beverage industry. Hospitality Education and Research Journal, 14 (2) 553-560.

Tabacchi, M.H., Krone, C., & Farber, B. (2000). A support system to mitigate manager burnout. The Cornell Hotel and Administration Quarterly, 31(3), 33-37.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Vallen, G.K. (1993). Organizational climate and burnout. The Cornell Hotel and Administration Quarterly, 34(1), 54-59.

van Dierendonck, D., Schaufeli, W.B., & Buunk, B.P. (1998). The evaluation of an individual burnout intervention program: The role of inequity and social support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 392-407.

Zohar, D. (1994). Analysis of job stress profile in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 13(3), 219-231.

Correspondence Gabrielle Waiters, Department of Tourism, Leisure, Hotel and Sport Management, Griffith University, PMB 50, Gold Coast Mail Centre, Queensland, 9726, Australia. E-mail: G.walters@griffith.edu.au

Gabrielle Waiters

and Mike Raybould

Griffith University, Australia

Table 1
Factor Analysis for the Maslach Burnout Inventory (General Survey)

                                 Component
Item *          Exhaustion   Personal Efficacy   Cynicism

EX1               0.731            0.025          0.278
EX2               0.861           -0.128          0.206
EX3               0.855           -0.118          0.193
EX4               0.722           -0.218          0.164
EX5               0.782           -0.114          0.386
CY1               0.257           -0.142          0.780
CY2               0.324           -0.061          0.818
CY4               0.400           -0.115          0.600
CY5               0.252           -0.098          0.755
PE1              -0.147            0.645          0.044
PE2               0.004            0.764         -0.352
PE3              -0.181            0.751          0.068
PE4              -0.026            0.582         -0.312
PE5              -0.006            0.497         -0.242
PE6              -0.141            0.828          0.071

Eigenvalue         5.71             2.40           1.34
Variance (%)       38.1             16.0            8.9

Note: * This is a proprietary instrument. For descriptions of the
MBI items see Schaufeli et al. (1996).

Table 2
Factor Analysis for the Survey of Perceived Organisational
Support (SPOS)

                                            Component
Item    Description                    1       2       3

1       My organisation              .532    -.497   -.009
        values my
        contribution to
        its wellbeing

2       If my organisation           .626    -.289    .256
        could hire someone
        to replace me at a
        lower salary they would

3       My organisation              .471     .463    .312
        fails to appreciate
        any extra effort
        from me (R)

4       My organisation              .570    -.019   -.082
        strongly considers
        my goals and values

5       My organisation would        .704     .167    .064
        ignore any complaint
        from me (R)

6       My organisation              .499     .535    .162
        disregards my best
        interests when
        it makes decisions
        that affect me (R)

7       Help is available from       .537     .034   -.520
        my organisation
        when I have a problem

8       My organisation              .675    -.238   -.471
        really cares
        about my wellbeing

9       If I did the best            .628    -.358   -.153
        job possible my
        organisation would
        fail to notice

10      My organisation is           .588     .068   -.371
        willing to help me
        when I need a
        special favour

11      My organisation cares        .700     .022   -.308
        about my general
        satisfaction at work

12      If given the opportunity,    .473     .630   -.007
        my organisation
        would take advantage
        of me (R)

13      My organisation              .691     .325    .054
        shows very little
        concern for me (R)

14      If I decided to quit         .445    -.411    .590
        my organisation
        would persuade me
        to stay

15      My organisation cares        .630    -.082    .380
        about my opinions

16      My organisation takes        .774    -.205    .174
        pride in my
        accomplishments
        at work

17      My organisation tries        .688     .052    .111
        to make my job as
        interesting as possible

        Eigenvalue                   6.309   1.773   1.486
        Variance (%)                 37.11   10.43    8.74

Table 3
Pearson Correlations Between the Three Dimensions of Burnout and POS

                    Exhaustion   Cynicism    Personal    POS
                                             Efficacy
Exhaustion              1
Cynicism              .729 *
                     (.634 *)        1
Personal efficacy    -.369 *      -.392 *
                    (-.297 *)    (-.305 *)       1
POS                  -.389 *      -.675 *     .481 *
                    (-.348 *)    (-.584 *)   (-.385 *)    1

Note: Correlations corrected for measurement error (uncorrected values
shown in parentheses)

* Correlation is significant at the 0-01 level (2-tailed)