Skip to main content
PMC home page
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2020 Oct 7;92:102703. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102703

COVID-19: The effects of job insecurity on the job engagement and turnover intent of deluxe hotel employees and the moderating role of generational characteristics

Hyo Sun Jung a, Yoon Sik Jung b, Hye Hyun Yoon c,*
PMCID: PMC7538393  PMID: 33041428

Abstract

COVID-19 has caused an unprecedented crisis in all industries around the world. This study sought to verify that job insecurity, as perceived by deluxe hotel employees, significantly affects their job engagement and turnover intent and to determine the moderating effect of generational characteristics. The finding showed that perceptions of job insecurity had negative effects on the engagement of deluxe hotel employees. Also, employees’ job engagement can decrease turnover intent. The engagement of employees fully mediated the relationship between perceptions of job insecurity and turnover intent, and job insecurity caused by COVID-19 had a greater influence on Generation Y than Generation X in reducing job engagement, indicating that the negative impact of job insecurity is higher in Generation Y.

Keywords: COVID-19, Job insecurity, Job engagement, Turnover intent, Generational characteristics, Deluxe hotel employee

1. Introduction

COVID-19 has caused an unprecedented crisis to all industries around the world. Tourism, lodging, and travel businesses, markedly sensitive to serious shocks such as the prevalence of epidemics, are suffering a sharp drop in demand (Chang et al., 2020). The hotel industry in particular has experienced dramatic sales losses as occupancy rates have largely dropped due to social distancing and the drastic decline in the number of tourists (Sobieralski, 2020). The hotel industry experienced an employment shock earlier than other industries, with a sharp drop in the number of employees and a dramatic rise in the number on temporary leave. In the case of South Korea, the entrance of foreigners into the country was restricted in response to COVID-19, and demand for domestic travel also decreased significantly, causing a serious management crisis in hotels. Uncertainty of employment in these industries, which has been increased by the virus, therefore poses an immediate threat to organizational performance and viability—an unprecedented situation that requires the hospitality industry to seek a variety of solutions (Carnevale and Hatak, 2020). In this context, investigating job insecurity, as perceived by deluxe hotel employees, and its negative effects may be significant in determining how industries can recover and how rapidly changing industries can be sustained in the future.

It is obvious that, even before COVID-19, modern working environments faced uncertainly due to technological changes, economic fluctuations, and political insecurity, thus unable to guarantee employment stability to all employees (Etehadi and Karatepe, 2019). Organizational restructuring and scale-downs have increased employees’ perceptions of job insecurity—the subjective and unconscious perception of job loss (Niesen et al., 2018)—but COVID-19 has aggravated this situation. Job insecurity can spread among employees for two specific reasons (Mauno et al., 2014); First, changes in an organization caused by quantitative job insecurity, such as layoffs, downsizing, and mergers, affect certain groups within the organization, inducing their perceptions of job insecurity, and, Second, certain threats or stressors can be interpreted similarly or collectively by employees of different work units. However, what is most important is that job insecurity acts as a significant stressor for employees (Jordan et al., 2002; Gaunt and Benjamin, 2007) and has a negative relationship with factors associated with job attitudes and the psychological health of employees (László et al., 2010; De Witte et al., 2015; Tian et al., 2014). Given that job insecurity is a risk factor that induces employees to engage in harmful behaviors through negative psychological responses (Chirumbolo, 2015), this study sought to empirically investigate the effects of job insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Also, deluxe hotel employees play an essential role in creating positive customer experiences—a key factor in customer satisfaction and service quality evaluation (Ayşe and Alexander, 2018), but they are likely to change jobs in the face of heavy workloads and frequent environmental changes (Kim et al., 2015). This turnover frequently occurs when their motivation is decreased by anxiety as a result of their jobs (Akgunduz and Eryilmaz, 2018). Since it seems impossible for employees to perform their work without anxiety over their employment conditions during the current pandemic, it may be fruitful to determine the effects of job insecurity based on the responses and behaviors of employees and to identify how they can be alleviated. Despite its importance, such research has been scarce.

Common values and opinions are formed among those who compose each generation (Ryder, 1965), which is a tendency that requires organizations that manage employees of various generations to understand the varying behavioral characteristics caused by generational gaps (Kong et al., 2015). Currently, most of the deluxe hotel industry’s workforce in Korea consists of Generations X and Y (Eyoun et al., 2020), and, therefore, understanding the characteristics of these two generations may enhance productivity and morale as well as employee retention (Gursoy et al., 2008). In this context, this study was based on the assumption that job engagement and turnover intent can vary depending on the perceptions of job insecurity, assuming that the causal relationship is different between employees of different generations. Therefore, this study intended to verify that job insecurity, as perceived by deluxe hotel employees, significantly affects their job engagement and turnover intent with the aim of moderating effect of generational characteristics (Fig. 1 ).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Research model.

2. Literature review and conceptual model

2.1. Relationship between job insecurity and job engagement

Job security can be defined as an employee’s fear of losing their job and being unemployed (De Witte, 1999). Job insecurity is an important factor that impairs the psychological health of employees (Nella et al., 2015; Inoue et al., 2018) and reduces motivation (Ünsar, 2011). Job engagement can be defined as a positive and fulfilling state that is characterized by the vigor, and absorption of employees (Schaufeli et al., 2002). In general, high job engagement means having a positive mental state on the job, and employees with high job engagement can be a particularly important variable in performance, because they improve organizational effectiveness, create more productive work environments, and reduce employee turnover (Caplan and Whittemore, 2013).

As for job security and job engagement, Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984)reported that employees with higher job insecurity were likely to have reduced engagement and to make less effort to achieve organizational goals because they spend less time and energy on their jobs, and Lo Presti and Nonnis (2012) suggested that higher perceived job insecurity decreases emotional commitment and makes it inconsistent. Similarly, according to Wang et al. (2015), job insecurity is considerably and negatively associated with job performance and has a negative relationship with job engagement. and Asfaw and Chang (2019) also argued that perceived job insecurity is directly related to a decreased job engagement. Karatepe et al. (2020) said that job insecurity directly hinders employees’ engagement, and Shin and Hur (2020) concurringly found that job insecurity depletes the physical, psychological, and mental energy of employees, negatively influencing their health and well-being and thereby inducing decreased engagement. Based on these studies and the existing empirical evidence, we assumed that perceptions of job insecurity would reduce employee job engagement, proposing the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1

Job insecurity negatively influences job engagement.

2.2. Relationship between job engagement and turnover intent

Turnover intent is not only a warning signal of employees who are about to leave their organizations, but also a factor from which changes in employees within the organization and in job positions can be effectively predicted (Brown and Peterson, 1993). It can therefore be said that turnover intent is the intention of organizational members to attempt to abandon their qualifications as members and to quit their current jobs (Meyer and Allen, 1984). The negative effect of voluntary turnover has been frequently discussed in the hospitality industry in terms of maintaining a competent workforce (Kim et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2010), and employees’ turnover intent can cause serious damage to an organization unless the organization takes preventive measures (Şahin, 2011). A meta-analysis by Griffeth et al. (2000) reported a strong and consistent relationship between turnover intent and actual turnover rate (Cotton and Tuttle, 1986), and turnover intent can thus be understood as a significant precursor to the actual rate of voluntary turnover. Because expressing the intent to leave a job is much easier than actually leaving, the variable has therefore been frequently used in previous studies (Park and Min, 2020), and the current study also used turnover intent as a dependent variable.

Many studies have found that higher engagement induces lower turnover intent and that engagement is the most influential psychological variable in reducing the turnover of employees (Jones and Harter, 2005; Rafiq et al., 2019; Shin and Jeung, 2019). According to Hughes and Rog (2008), employee behaviors are the most important factor for organizational success, and employees who are actively engaged in their job with enthusiasm have relatively low intent to leave their current organizations. Erdil and Müceldili (2014) provided empirical evidence showing that job engagement is sufficiently and closely related to reducing employee turnover intent, and Sibiya et al. (2014) noted that employee engagement plays an important role in reducing turnover intent. Similarly, Timms et al. (2015) found that the turnover intent of employees can be reduced by creating a work environment that encourages job engagement, and Lu et al. (2016) stated that employee engagement can increase personal satisfaction and thereby reduce turnover intent, even under a variety of hardships. Casey and Sieber (2016) argued that employee job engagement serves as a key component of organizational sustainability—and reduced turnover intent—and Babakus et al. (2017) also found that job engagement on a personal level has a negative relationship with turnover intent. Therefore, the following hypothesis is posited:

Hypothesis 2

An employee’s job engagement negatively influences their turnover intent.

2.3. Relationship between job insecurity and turnover intent

Many researchers have studied job insecurity and turnover intent. Ashford et al. (1989) reported that perceived job insecurity increases an employee’s willingness to find a new job, and Arnold and Feldman (1982) argued that job insecurity is a potential cause of increasing employee turnover intent. According to Staufenbiel and König (2010), the effects of job insecurity are far more negative than positive and, when connected with stress, increase employee turnover intent. Stiglbauer et al. (2012) acknowledged that job insecurity increases employee turnover intent and noted that managing stress caused by job insecurity is critical for its reduction. As reported by Mauno et al. (2013), job insecurity and turnover intent can have a particularly powerful relationship and can be significant in decreasing job insecurity, which could reduce turnover intent. Lee and Jeong (2017) also argued that job insecurity has a clear association with turnover intent, as did Akgunduz and Eryilmaz (2018), who further argued that efforts to reduce perceived job insecurity were required to prevent the loss of excellent personnel. Urbanaviciute et al. (2018) suggested that job insecurity affects turnover intent by impeding employees from fulfilling their basic needs, and Karatepe et al. (2020) added that job insecurity increases the inclination to arrive late for work and leave early. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3

Job insecurity positively influences turnover intent.

2.4. Moderating effects of generational characteristics

According to the theory of cohorts, common values and opinions can be formed among people in a cohort through experiencing and growing from specific events at the same time, as well as through emotional development (Ryder, 1965). Because members of a generational cohort enter school, enter job markets, and retire at similar ages, all while experiencing memorable historical events at similar developmental stages (Kowske et al., 2010), they may be regarded as having similar tendencies to perceive and interpret historical events based on those developmental stages (Duncan and Agronick, 1995). The effects of generational characteristics on jobs have been studied with a focus on job-related factors, such as work-related values, attitudes, and preferences in an organizational context, and such effects are considered significant variables in an organization (Schuman and Scott, 1989; Park and Gursoy, 2012; Goh and Jie, 2019). These differences between generations are more clearly shown in organizations. According to Cohen (2002); Eisner (2005), and Gursoy et al. (2008), Generation X grew up in a society of materialism, competition, and individualism, valuing professional goals, opportunities for professional growth, and efficiency. In contrast, Generation Y grew up in a period of globalization and empiricism; valuing transparency of communication and autonomy at work; and having strong self-centeredness and self-actualization needs with relatively high self-expression (Zemke et al., 2000; Twenge et al., 2010; Park and Gursoy, 2012). Chen and Choi (2008) explained that Generation Y places the highest value on job environments, and Hurst and Good (2009) said that Generation Y leave their organizations more easily than other generations because they prefer challenging work for self-development. Generation X is the main generation within organizations in Korea, while Generation Y has been gradually entering the labor market (Brown et al., 2015). Because these two generations make up the majority of the Korean hospitality industry (Eyoun et al., 2020), it is necessary to understand their characteristics within organizations, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we assumed that the effects of perceived job insecurity on engagement and turnover intent would be different between generations, hypothesizing the following:

Hypothesis 4a

The impact of job insecurity on job engagement is different between Generations X and Y.

Hypothesis 4b

The impact of job insecurity on turnover intent is different between Generations X and Y.

3. Research methodology

3.1. Sample and data collection

The sample in this study comprised employees working for five-star hotels in Seoul that provide comprehensive services, including restaurants and gyms, with 200 or more bedrooms. At present, there are 22 five-star hotels in Seoul, of which eight received a total of 400 copies of a questionnaire. The sample size was determined by comparing the size of the groups. Assuming that each hotel has an average of 500 employees in its food and beverage (F&B) department and that approximately 10,000 F&B employees are thus working in five-star hotels in Seoul, the number of experimental subjects was calculated to be 370, with a margin of error of 5%. The data was collected in April and May 2020, and the employees were surveyed voluntarily after obtaining permission from the HR managers. We ensured that the data collected from the respondents would be kept confidential. Because it was impossible to obtain consent from all respondents, self-report convenience sampling was used. We started the survey after explaining the purpose of the study to the respondents and obtaining their voluntary consent to participate. Given the sensitivity of the research topic and to protect anonymity, each questionnaire was collected in an envelope. To increase the response rate, a souvenir worth $3 was provided. Of the 400 distributed questionnaires, 359 (89.7 %) were collected over three weeks and 314—representing a 78.5 % effective response rate—were coded for analysis. The average age of the respondents was 31.88 years old, and 67.5 % were male and 32.5 % female. Many had bachelor’s degrees (50.2 %), and 61.2 % had a tenure of less than 10 years.

3.2. Instrument development

The items of the questionnaire were prepared with reverse translation: two researchers fluent in both languages translated the items, which were originally written in English by Brislin (1980), into Korean and then reverse translated them from Korean to English to confirm that there were no differences in meaning. A preliminary survey was conducted a month before the main survey to revise ambiguous items.

The questionnaire consisted of four parts. The first part contained questions about the participants’ demographic information (e.g., age, gender, education level, and tenure) because these characteristics can play a significant role in predicting employees’ attitudes (Williams and Hazer, 1986). For the second part, we asked the employees to evaluate their overall perceptions of job insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic. To measure job insecurity, this study adapted the multi-item scales by Pienaar et al. (2013) and Akgunduz and Eryilmaz (2018) (See Table 1 ). Each job insecurity construct was measured with eight items using a 7-point Likert scale responding to the question “how much do you agree or disagree with these statements?” (1: strongly disagree to 5: strongly agree). The third and fourth parts inquired about employee engagement and turnover intent. Job engagement was measured with five items using a 7-point Likert scale based on those developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002, 2006). Turnover intent was measured by four items using a 7-point Likert scale developed by Cammann et al. (1979) and Seashore et al. (1982). Turnover intent was used in this study instead of actual turnover rate as it is easier to measure, in part because it is assessable among current, rather than former, employees (Bluedorn, 1982).

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics of variables.

Variable a Mean ± SD Normal distribution
Skewness Kurtosis
Job insecurity
JI1: I am very sure that I will be able to keep my job® 4.71 ± 1.50 −.451 −.539
JI2: I am certain of my job environment® 4.77 ± 1.56 −.490 −.471
JI3: I think that I will be able to continue working here® 4.78 ± 1.56 −.513 −.468
JI4: There is only a small chance that I will become unemployed® 4.75 ± 1.54 −.568 −.403
JI5: I fear that I might get hire 4.81 ± 1.54 −.471 −.445
JI6: I worry about the continuation of my career 4.76 ± 1.55 −.582 −.454
JI7: I fear that I might lose my job 4.82 ± 1.56. −.438 −.647
JI8: I feel uncertain about the future of my job 4.81 ± 1.63 −.531 −.646
Job engagement
JE1: I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose 3.71 ± 1.45 .121 −.689
JE2: I am enthusiastic about my job 3.69 ± 1.45 .113 −.840
JE3: My job inspires me 3.60 ± 1.41 .076 −.690
JE4: At my work, I feel bursting with energy 3.72 ± 1.51 .111 −.786
JE5: : I get carried away when I am working 3.68 ± 1.41 .178 −.590
Turnover intent
TI1: I sometimes feel compelled to quit my job in my current workplace 3.64 ± 1.61 .091 −1.026
TI2: I will quit my job at my current organization in 1 year or less 3.60 ± 1.54 .192 −.892
TI3: I am currently seriously considering leaving my current job to work at another company 3.58 ± 1.62 .022 −1.064
TI4: I will quit this company if the given condition gets even a little worse than now 3.54 ± 1.63 .107 −1.027
Open in a new tab

Note: (1) SD = Standard Deviation.

a

All variables measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1-strongly disagree to 7-strongly agreeReliability and confirmatory factor analysis properties.

3.3. Data analysis

The collected data was analyzed using SPSS and AMOS. The normal distribution of the measurement items was confirmed, and the CMV (common method variance) was verified by the Harman test and multicollinearity. The validity and reliability of the measurement items were tested by CFA (confirmatory factor analysis) and a reliability analysis. The AVE (average variance extracted), CCR (composite construct reliability), ASV (average shared variance), and MSV (maximum shared variance) were also calculated to confirm validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). A correlation analysis was conducted to confirm whether the directionality of the measurement items was consistent with the hypotheses. The four hypotheses were verified using SEM (structural equation modeling) and a multi-group analysis (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988).

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive statistics

Table 1 showed the means and standard deviations of each item in relation to the constructs of this study: job insecurity, job engagement, and turnover intent. The mean values of the items under job insecurity ranged from 4.71 to 4.82 on the 7-point scale. Respondents ranked “I fear that I might lose my job” (4.82 ± 1.56) as the highest job insecurity attribute. Of the five job engagement variables, “At my work, I feel bursting with my energy” (3.71 ± 1.45) ranked highest. Participants showed a moderate level of turnover intent, ranging from 3.54 to 3.64, and respondents showed the highest value for the attribute “I sometimes feel compelled to quit my job in my current workplace” (3.64 ± 1.61).

4.2. Measurement model

This study collected data using a self-report questionnaire, the CMV was first identified. Harman’s single-factor test focuses on whether most variances can be explained as one general factor (Podsakoff et al., 2003) and is used as a method of identifying the CMV in many studies addressing the hospitality industry (Min et al., 2016). The test results indicate that the explanatory power of a single factor (39.2 %) did not account for more than half of the total explanatory power (81.9 %). The results also show that there is no serious bias, because none of the measurement items had a factor accounting for the majority (50 % or more) of the covariance.

The analyses confirm the convergent and discriminant validity as well as the reliability of the properties, as shown in Table 2 and Fig. 2 . The standardized coefficients for all the measurement items are 0.8 or higher. Cronbach’s alpha, the CCR, and the AVE are also 0.8 or higher (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Bentler and Bonett, 1980). The fit of the model is satisfactory (χ2 = 214.451; df = 116; χ2/df = 1.849; GFI = 0.930; NFI = 0.972; CFI = 0.987; and RMSEA = 0.052), judging from the degrees of freedom (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Table 3 illustrated the intercorrelations between the three constructs in this study; the bivariate correlation shows that job engagement and the other two variables (job insecurity and turnover intent) are negatively correlated, confirming directionality that is consistent with the hypotheses. The AVE extracted from each structure is higher than the correlation with the other structures (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), and the ASV and MSV are smaller than the AVE, confirming the validity of the measurement items (Hair et al., 2010).

Table 2.

Reliability and confirmatory factor analysis properties.

Constructs Standardized estimate t-value SMCa CCRb Cronbach’s alpha AVEc
Job security .952 .859
JI1 .932 fixed .868 .980
JI2 .919 30.106*** .844
JI3 .926 30.917*** .857
JI4 .922 30.502*** .850
JI5 .928 31.160*** .860
JI6 .928 31.163*** .861
JI7 .925 30.815*** .855
JI8 .936 32.191*** .879
Job engagement .939 .868
JE1 .942 fixed .887 .970
JE2 .924 31.576*** .853
JE3 .924 31.545*** .853
JE4 .939 33.641*** .881
JE5 .931 32.513*** .866
Turnover intent .921 .880
TI1 .961 fixed .924 .968
TI2 .896 30.256*** .803
TI3 .926 34.735*** .858
TI4 .969 44.214*** .940
Open in a new tab

Note:

χ2 = 214.451 (df = 116) p < .001; χ2 / df = 1.849; Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = .930; Normed Fit Index (NFI) = .972; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .987; Root-Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .052; *** p < .001.

a

SMC = Squared multiple correlations; b CCR = composite construct reliability; c AVE = average variance extracted.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Measurement model.

Table 3.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations.

Construct 1 2 3 Mean ± SDa
1. Job insecurity [.926] .053b .013 4.77 ± 1.45
2. Job engagement −.232** [.931] .142 3.68 ± 1.37
3. Turnover intent .118* −.378** [.938] 3.58 ± 1.53
Open in a new tab

Note:

ASV (average shared variance) = Job insecurity (.035), Engagement (.101), Turnover intent (.081)MSV (maximum shared variance) = MSV (maximum shared variance) = Job insecurity (.055), Engagement (.147), Turnover intent (.147).

a

SD = Standard Deviation; b Squared correlation; [Root of AVE value].

4.3. Structural equation modeling

The relationships related to the hypotheses were analyzed using SEM. Table 4 showed the standardized path coefficients and t-values for all the relationships in the structural model (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). SEM was conducted to test Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3, and the structural model fit is good (χ2 = 214.415; χ2/df = 1.849; AGFI = 0.908; NFI = 0.972; CFI = 0.987; TLI = 0.985; and RMR = 0.054). Hypothesis 1, which hypothesized a negative relationship between job insecurity and job engagement, is supported (β = –0.235; t = –4.149; and p < 0.001). This indicates that, as perceptions of job insecurity are higher during the COVID-19 pandemic, people are less likely to engage and be involved in their jobs. Furthermore, employee engagement affects turnover intent (β = –0.375; t = –6.681; and p < 0.001), which supports Hypothesis 2. This suggests that turnover intent increases as job engagement decreases. However, Hypothesis 3, which predicted a positive relationship between job insecurity and turnover intent, is not supported (β = 0.035; t = 0.638; and p > 0.05). In this study, the perception of job insecurity does not have a significant and direct effect on turnover intent.

Table 4.

Structural parameter estimates.

Hypothesized Path (stated as alternative hypothesis) Standardized Path Coefficients t-value Results
H1: Job insecurity → Job engagement −.235 −4.149*** Supported
H2: Job engagement → Turnover intent −.375 −6.681*** Supported
H3: Job insecurity → Turnover intent .035 .638 ns Not supported
Goodness-of-fit statistics χ2 = 214.451
χ2/df = 1.849
AGFI = .908
NFI = .972
CFI = .987
TLI = .985
RMR = .054
Open in a new tab

Note:

*p < .05, ***p < .001, ns Not significant.

AGFI = Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index; NFI = Normed Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMR = Root Mean Residual Square.

4.4. Moderating effects

Hypothesis 4 postulated that the effects of job insecurity on employee engagement and turnover intent would vary by generational characteristics. Prior to the analysis of moderating effects, measurement invariance related to the employees’ generations was examined, and the results are presented in Table 5 . In the analysis that compared the chi-squared value obtained from the configural invariance model with that obtained from the metric invariance model, the difference is 15.018 at 14 degrees of freedom, which is not statistically significant at the 0.05 level, implying that the metric invariance is satisfied. This confirms that the measure invariances of the two moderating variables used in this study are not problematic (Hsiao and Lai, 2018). To verify the moderating effects, we compared the constrained and unconstrained models, determining significance by differences in the degrees of freedom (Table 6 ). The analysis shows that the negative effects of job insecurity on job engagement are significantly different according to the generation of the employee. Hypothesis 4a is therefore supported. Meanwhile, the effects of job insecurity on turnover intent display no significant differences, so Hypothesis 4b is rejected. More specifically, the negative effects of job insecurity on employee engagement are stronger in Generation Y than Generation X, indicating that the job insecurity caused by COVID-19 is a considerable and significant factor in decreasing job engagement for Generation Y. Generation Y has a strong desire for self-expression and higher self-centeredness and self-actualization than other generations (Twenge et al., 2010; Park and Gursoy, 2012). The current situation in which uncertainty prevails and the goals of self-actualization are consequently unclear may serve as a significant cause of the decrease in job engagement.

Table 5.

Model fit indices.

χ2 df CFI RMSEA RMR Δχ2
Generational characteristics Configural invariance model 350.198 232 .955 .040 075 15.018 ns
Metric invariance model 365.216 246 .953 .039 .085
Open in a new tab

Note: Δdf = 14, Δχ2 = 23.7 (p < .05); RMR = Root Mean Square Residual; ns Not significant.

Table 6.

Moderating effects on employee generational characteristics.

X-generation (N = 104)
 Y-generation (N = 211)
 Unconstrained model chi-square (df = 232) Constrained model chi-square (df = 233) Δχ2 (df = 1)
Standardized Coefficients t-value Standardized Coefficients t-value
H4a: Job insecurity → Job engagement −.164 −1.633ns −.272 −3.963*** 350.198 354.341 4.143*
H4b: Job insecurity → Turnover intent .103 1.102ns .010 .149 ns 350.198 350.997 −.799ns
Open in a new tab

Note: χ2 / df = 1.509; GFI = .892; NFI = .955; TLI = .982; CFI = .984; IFI = .982; RMSEA = .040; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, ns Not significant.

5. Discussion and implications

In this study, we examined the effects of job insecurity as perceived by deluxe hotel employees on their job engagement and turnover intent under the unexpected environmental changes caused by COVID-19. We also determined whether the effects of job insecurity varied according to the generational characteristics of the employees. First, the analyses showed that perceptions of job insecurity had negative effects on job engagement, which is consistent with previous studies (Lo Presti and Nonnis, 2012; Karatepe et al., 2020), suggesting that a higher perception of job insecurity by employees induces lower job engagement and consequently a negative state of mind. Second, employees’ job engagement negatively affected turnover intent, which is also consistent with previous studies (Casey and Sieber, 2016; Babakus et al., 2017). This result may indicate that employees who do not have high job engagement, enthusiasm, and focus on the job have increased turnover intent. Third, job insecurity caused by COVID-19 showed a greater influence on Generation Y than on Generation X in reducing job engagement, indicating that the negative impact of job insecurity is higher in Generation Y.

The theoretical implications of these results are as follows. This study has academic significance in that it conducted an appropriately timely consideration of job insecurity as perceived by deluxe hotel employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was particularly meaningful that this paper examined hotel hospitality, which is one of the industries that has been most damaged by COVID-19. This study also verified the organic causal relationships between job insecurity, job engagement, and turnover intent, establishing a theoretical foundation for associations between job insecurity and the psychological responses of deluxe hotel employees. There have been previous studies of job insecurity in general competitive environments, but few have been conducted on perceived employee job insecurity and corresponding behaviors during the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. This study may be the first empirical research to verify the significant negative effects of job insecurity during the pandemic on the responses and behaviors of employees, and the results may contribute considerably to the hospitality industry literature. In addition, this study can help us understand the characteristics of job insecurity that affect the engagement and turnover intent of employees. The results of this study can present a theoretical opportunity to explore justifications on inducing less job insecurity, an academic opportunity that may contribute to further studies. Another significance of this study is that it clarifies what was not dealt with by existing studies through the effectiveness of a new moderating variable, generation, and emphasizes the necessity of expanding theories from other studies which focused on simple causal relationships.

The results of this study suggest two important practical implications for job insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic. First, the study verified that perceptions of job insecurity significantly influence employee engagement and turnover intent, suggesting that a stable climate should be created in organizational work environments in which employees perceive less job insecurity, in order to increase employee engagement and prevent the loss of a superior workforce. Job insecurity in the deluxe hotel sector is particularly high due to long working hours and the industry being sensitive to both seasonal variations and the wider environment. As a result, the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the level of job insecurity in the sector. Therefore, deluxe hotel managers should make informed and constructive decisions to reduce the negative effects of job insecurity as much as possible.. Therefore, it is important to create work environments in which employees can perform their jobs without anxiety and to establish autonomous and horizontal organizational cultures in which employees can express consideration and attention through mutual communication. Hotel managers should make efforts to build close relationships with employees so that they can detect perceived threats in the workplace and address employees’ fears. They have to make sure that employees do not think that managers are avoiding important issues.

Managers should be able to identify threats perceived by organizational members and help alleviate these issues, building close relationships with members so they do not feel that the managers are avoiding important issues. Because employees are more sensitive to issues closely related to their daily lives, such as conversations and behaviors, this can contribute to a decrease in concerns and prevent employee turnover. To reduce job insecurity, measures can be considered through which employees participate in decision-making processes, empowering them to regard their jobs as an important part of the organization. Through employee participation in the decision-making process, empoloyees will be able to understand the difficulties that face an organization and sympathize with the goal of the organizational development. Ultimately, this will help better decisions to be made. Opportunities for sharing previous experiences of overcoming challenges or passing on know-how from past eras of insecurity need to be established through the use of the mentor-mentee system. Improved ways of increasing employee confidence and engagement should also be prepared.

Finally, at the hotel level, a powerful support system in which employees feel less pressure and adjust themselves to the organization may increase their performance and loyalty as well as reduce turnover intent. Consequently, it appears unlikely that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic will be resolved quickly. We know that short-term measures such as using annual vacation allowances or unpaid leave can no longer be considered meaningful solutions, and so it will be necessary for companies to introduce the sequential implementation of, for example, additional paid leave, adjustments to working hours, or a job-rotation system, rather than a reduction in employee numbers. A willingness from both employees and managers, and collaboration between them, will be required to secure jobs and ensure employee retention. For example, executives could voluntarily cut their salaries and labor unions could agree on collaborative relations instead of strikes. It will also be necessary to seek methods of decreasing the job insecurity perceived by employees as much as possible. In addition to these policies, deluxe hotels in South Korea should make efforts to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic by developing new marketing skills such as “untact” approaches or meal box services. However, the hotels’ volition cannot maintain employment levels by itself. Government should also seek alleviation measures, for example providing government funds to hotel companies and reducing taxes. Demonstration by the government of a strong policy intention to support companies that do not implement layoffs would also be meaningful by reducing the negative effects on job insecurity. Second, this study may contribute to predicting behaviors within organizations based on generational characteristics by verifying the specificities of Generation Y as the main workforce of deluxe hotels in the near future. Based on the results of this study, Generation Y perceived job insecurity more seriously because its negative impact is relatively high for them. Generation Y are perceived to value job satisfaction over job insecurity as they focus on a challenging life (Mohapatra et al., 2017). However, according to this study, they show more sensitive responses to employment security, which implies that their job engagement is reduced under the current uncertainty in which communication is less active and the purpose and meaning of self-actualization are unclear. Given that employees of Generation Y will be the main resource of the hotel labor market in the future (William et al., 2019), systemic policies are needed to enhance their engagement and prevent turnover. It is worth noting that implementation of such policies is more necessary for Generation Y, who show strongly diminished engagement in the face of job insecurity. This study provides empirical evidence that strategies and a variety of measures should be established to motivate Generation Y employees and satisfy their desires for self-expression and self-actualization through constant communication, as well as measures to decrease job insecurity at the organizational level.

The limitations of this study offer some insights for future research. First, the results are generally restricted because the samples are limited to Korean employees. Furthermore, Generation X and Generation Y were not equally sampled in examining the moderating role of generation. Second, since this study is cross-sectional, it cannot be extrapolated over time; longitudinal studies and comparative studies at different cultural levels are needed. A problem might arise from the uniqueness of the data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Considering the data’s singularity of contribution, collection of the data during this period only can make it is difficult to generalize the results. Third, this study relied on self-reporting to measure job insecurity, engagement, and turnover intent, and thus the respondents might have answered what they think is desirable, depending on their subjective views and the measurement tools. This calls for more objective measurement tools and estimations in further studies. Lastly, although this study used turnover intent as the final dependent variable, additional variables that can be used to concretely assess employee behaviors and organizational performance are required. In particular, turnover intent means simply an employee’s intention to leave a job, rather than the actual turnover rate, which future studies will need to examine. Further studies are also needed to determine the associations between the various independent and dependent variables that can affect job insecurity.

References

  1. Akgunduz Y., Eryilmaz G. Does turnover intention mediate the effects of job insecurity and co-worker support on social loafing. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 2018;68:41–49. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson J.C., Gerbing D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988;103(3):411–423. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnold H.J., Feldman D. Multivariate analysis of the determinants of job turnover. J. Appl. Psychol. 1982;67(3):350–360. [Google Scholar]
  4. Asfaw A.G., Chang C.C. The association between job insecurity and engagement of employees at work. J. Workplace Behav. Health. 2019;34(2):96–110. doi: 10.1080/15555240.2019.1600409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ashford S.J., Lee C., Bobko P. Content, causes, and consequences of job insecurity: a theory-based measure and substantive test. Acad. Manag. Ann. 1989;32(4):803–829. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ayşe B.E., Alexander E.E. Alleviating job stress to improve service employee work affect: the influence of rewarding. Serv. Bus. 2018;12(1):121–141. [Google Scholar]
  7. Babakus E., Yavas U., Karatepe O.M. Work engagement and turnover intentions: correlates and customer orientation as a moderator. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017;29(6):1580–1598. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bagozzi R., Yi Y. On the evaluation of structure equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988;16(1):74–94. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bentler P.M., Bonett D.G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 1980;88(3):588–606. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bluedorn A.C. A unified model of turnover from organizations. Hum. Relat. 1982;35:135–153. [Google Scholar]
  11. Brislin R.W. In: Triandis H.C., Berry J.W., editors. Vol. 2. Allyn and Bacon; Boston: 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written material; pp. 389–444. (Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Methodology). [Google Scholar]
  12. Brown S.P., Peterson P.A. Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: meta-analysis and assessment of causal effects. J. Mark. Res. 1993;30(1):63–77. [Google Scholar]
  13. Brown E.A., Thomas N.J., Bosselman R.H. Are they leaving or staying: a qualitative analysis of turnover issues for generation Y hospitality employees with a hospitality education. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015;46(1):130–137. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cammann C., Fichman M., Jenkins D., Klesh J. University of Michigan; Ann Arbor, Michigan, MI: 1979. The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished Manuscript. [Google Scholar]
  15. Caplan S., Whittemore R. Barriers to treatment engagement for depression among Latinas. Issues Ment. Health Nurs. 2013;34(6):412–424. doi: 10.3109/01612840.2012.762958. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Carnevale J.B., Hatak I. Employee adjustment and well-being in the era of COVID-19: implications for human resource management. J. Bus. Res. 2020;116(Aug):183–187. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Casey D., Sieber S. Employees, sustainability and motivation: increasing employee engagement by addressing sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Res. Hosp. Manage. 2016;6(1):69–76. [Google Scholar]
  18. Chang C.L., McAleer M., Ramos V. A charter for sustainable tourism after COVID-19. Sustainability. 2020;12(3671):1–4. [Google Scholar]
  19. Chen P.J., Choi Y. Generational differences in work values: a study of hospitality management. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2008;20(6):595–615. [Google Scholar]
  20. Chirumbolo A. The impact of job insecurity on counterproductive work behaviors: the moderating role of honesty-humility personality trait. J. Psychol. 2015;149(6):554–569. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2014.916250. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Cohen J. I/Os in the know offer insights on generation X workers. Monitor Psychol. 2002;33(2):66–67. [Google Scholar]
  22. Cotton J.L., Tuttle J.M. Employee turnover: a meta-analysis and review with implications for research. Acad. Manage. Rev. 1986;11(1):55–70. [Google Scholar]
  23. De Witte H. Job insecurity and psychological well-being: review of the literature and exploration of some unresolved issues. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 1999;8(2):155–177. [Google Scholar]
  24. De Witte H., Vander Elst T., De Cuyper N. In: Aligning Perspectives on Health, Safety and Well-Being. Sustainable Working Lives: Managing Work Transitions and Health Throughout the Life Course. Vuori J., Blonk R., Price R.H., editors. Springer Science Business Media; 2015. Job insecurity, health and well-being; pp. 109–128. [Google Scholar]
  25. Duncan L.E., Agronick G.S. The intersection of life stage and social events: personality and life outcomes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1995;69(3):558–568. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.69.3.558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Eisner S.P. Managing generation Y. SAM Advanced Manage. J. 2005;70(4):4–15. [Google Scholar]
  27. Erdil O., Müceldili B. The effects of envy on job engagement and turnover intention. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014;150:447–454. [Google Scholar]
  28. Etehadi B., Karatepe O.M. The impact of job insecurity on critical hotel employee outcomes: the mediating role of self-efficacy. J. Hosp. Mark. Manage. 2019;28(6):665–689. [Google Scholar]
  29. Eyoun K., Chen H., Ayoun B., Khliefat A. The relationship between purpose of performance appraisal and psychological contract: generational differences as a moderator. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 2020;86:1–8. [Google Scholar]
  30. Fornell C., Larcker D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. [Google Scholar]
  31. Gaunt R., Benjamin O. Job insecurity, stress and gender. Community Work Fam. 2007;10(3):341–355. [Google Scholar]
  32. Goh E., Jie F. To waste or not to waste: exploring motivational factors of generation Z hospitality employees towards food wastage in the hospitality industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 2019;80:126–135. [Google Scholar]
  33. Greenhalgh L., Rosenblatt Z. Job insecurity: toward conceptual clarity. Acad. Manage. Rev. 1984;9(3):438–448. [Google Scholar]
  34. Griffeth R.W., Hom P.W., Gaertner S. A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. J. Manage. 2000;26:463–488. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gursoy D., Maier T.A., Chi C.G. Generational differences: an examination of work values and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 2008;27(3):448–458. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hair J.F., Black W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E. seventh edition. Prentice Hall; Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hsiao Y.Y., Lai M.H.C. The impact of partial measurement invariance on testing moderation for single and mult-level data. Front. Psychol. 2018;9(740):1–10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00740. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hughes J.C., Rog E. Talent management: a strategy for improving employee recruitment, retention and engagement within hospitality organizations. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 2008;20(7):743–757. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hurst J.L., Good L.K. Generation Y and career choice: the impact of retail career perceptions, expectations and entitlement perceptions. Career Dev. Int. 2009;14(6):570–593. [Google Scholar]
  40. Inoue A., Kawakami N., Eguchi H., Tsutsumi A. Interaction effect of job insecurity and role ambiguity on psychological distress in Japanese employees: a cross-sectional study. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health. 2018;91(4):391–402. doi: 10.1007/s00420-018-1288-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Jones J.R., Harter J.K. Race effects on the employee engagement: turnover intention relationship. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2005;11(2):78–88. [Google Scholar]
  42. Jordan P.J., Ashkanasy N.M., Hartel C.E.J. Emotional intelligence as a moderator of emotional and behavioural reactions to job insecurity. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2002;27(3):361–372. [Google Scholar]
  43. Karatepe O.M., Rezapouraghdam H., Hassannia R. Job insecurity, work engagement and their effects on hotel employees’ non-green and nonattendance behaviors. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 2020;87(May):1–12. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kim B.C., Lee G., Carlson K.D. An examination of the nature of the relationship between leader-member-exchange (LMX) and turnover intent at different organizational levels. Int. J. Tour. Hosp. Manage. 2010;29(4):591–597. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kim S.S., Im J., Hwang J. The effects of mentoring on role stress, job attitude, and turnover intention in the hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 2015;48:68–82. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kong H., Wang S., Fu X. Meeting career expectation: can it enhance job satisfaction of generation Y? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 2015;27(1):147–168. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kowske B.J., Rasch R., Wiley J. Millennials’ (lack of) attitude problem: an empirical examination of generational effects on work attitudes. J. Bus. Psychol. 2010;25(2):265–279. [Google Scholar]
  48. László K.D., Pikhart H., Kopp M.S., Bobak M., Pajak A., Malyutina S., Salavecz G., Marmot M. Job insecurity and health: a study of 16 European countries. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010;70(6-3):867–874. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.11.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Lee S.H., Jeong D.Y. Job insecurity and turnover intention: organizational commitment as mediator. Soc. Behav. Pers.: Int. J. 2017;45(4):529–536. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lo Presti A., Nonnis M. Moderated effects of job insecurity on work engagement and distress. TPM. 2012;19(2):97–113. [Google Scholar]
  51. Lu L., Lu A.C.C., Gursoy D., Neale N.R. Work engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions: a comparison between supervisors and line-level employees. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 2016;28(4):737–761. [Google Scholar]
  52. Mauno S., De Cuyper N., Tolvanen A., Kinnunen U., Mäkikangas A. Occupational well-being as a mediator between job insecurity and turnover intention: findings at the individual and work department levels. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2014;23(3):381–393. [Google Scholar]
  53. Meyer J.P., Allen N.J. Testing the side-bet theory of organizational commitment: some methodological considerations. J. Appl. Psychol. 1984;59(3):372–378. [Google Scholar]
  54. Min H., Park J., Kim H.J. Common method bias in hospitality research: a critical review of literature and an empirical study. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 2016;56:126–135. [Google Scholar]
  55. Mohapatra A.K., Saxena A., Joshi D., Chaturvedi N. Does job security matter for generation Y? A behavioral analysis. Pacific Bus. Rev. Int. 2017;10(5):92–98. [Google Scholar]
  56. Nella D., Panagopoulou E., Galanis N., Montgomery A., Benos A. Consequences of job insecurity on the psychological and physical health of Greek civil servants. Biomed Res. Int. 2015;2015:1–9. doi: 10.1155/2015/673623. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Niesen W., Hootegem A.V., Handaja Y., Battistelli A., De Witte H. Quantitative and qualitative job insecurity and idea generation: the mediating role of psychological contract breach. Scandinavian J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2018;3(1):1–14. [Google Scholar]
  58. Park J., Gursoy D. Generation effects on work engagement among US hotel employees. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 2012;31(4):1195–1202. [Google Scholar]
  59. Park J.D., Min H. Turnover intention in the hospitality industry: a meta-analysis. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 2020;90:1–11. 102599. [Google Scholar]
  60. Pienaar J., De Witte H., Hellgren J., Sverke M. The cognitive/affective distinction of job insecurity: validation and differential relations. Southern Afr. Bus. Rev. 2013;17(2):1–22. [Google Scholar]
  61. Podsakoff P.M., MacKenzie S.B., Lee J.Y., Podsakoff N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003;88:879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Rafiq M., Wu W., Chin T., Nasir M. The psychological mechanism linking employee work engagement and turnover intention: a moderated mediation study. Work. 2019;62(4):615–628. doi: 10.3233/WOR-192894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Ryder N.B. The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1965;30:843–861. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Şahin F. The effect of gender on the relationship between leader-member exchange and ıntention to quit. Ege Acad. Rev. 2011;11(2):277–288. [Google Scholar]
  65. Schaufeli W.B., Salanova M., Gonzalez-Roma V., Bakker A.B. Burnout and engagement in university students. J. Cross. Psychol. 2002;33(5):464–481. [Google Scholar]
  66. Schaufeli B.W., Bakker A.B., Salanova M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2006;66(4):701–716. [Google Scholar]
  67. Schuman H., Scott J. Generations and collective memories. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1989;54(3):359–381. [Google Scholar]
  68. Seashore S.E., Lawler E.E., Mirvis P.H., Cammann C. John Wiley and Sons Publishers; New York, NY: 1982. Observing and Measuring Organizational Change: A Guide to Field Practice. [Google Scholar]
  69. Shin Y.H., Hur W.M. When do job-insecure employees keep performing well? The buffering roles of help and prosocial motivation in the relationship between job insecurity, work engagement, and job performance. J. Bus. Psychol. 2020 2020 Published, 26 May 2020. [Google Scholar]
  70. Shin I., Jeung C.W. Uncovering the turnover intention of proactive employees: the mediating role of work engagement and the moderated mediating role of job autonomy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019;16(5):1–16. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16050843. 843. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Sibiya M., Buitendach J.H., Kanengoni H., Bobat S. The prediction of turnover intention by means of employee engagement and demographic variables in a telecommunications organization. J. Psychol. Afr. 2014;24(2):131–143. [Google Scholar]
  72. Sobieralski J.B. COVID-19 and airline employment: insights from historical uncertainty shocks to the industry. TRIP. 2020;5(100123):1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.trip.2020.100123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Staufenbiel T., König C.J. A model for the effects of job insecurity on performance, turnover intention, and absenteeism. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2010;83(1):101–117. [Google Scholar]
  74. Stiglbauer B., Selenko E., Batinic B., Jodlbauer S. On the link between job insecurity and turnover intentions: moderated mediation by work involvement and well-being. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2012;17(3):354–364. doi: 10.1037/a0028565. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Tian Q., Zhang L., Zou W. Job insecurity and counterproductive behavior of casino dealers: the mediating role of affective commitment and moderating role of supervisor support. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 2014;40:29–36. [Google Scholar]
  76. Timms C., Brough P., O’Driscoll M., Kalliath T., Siu O.L., Sit C., Lo D. Flexible work arrangements, work engagement, turnover intentions and psychological health. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2015;53:83–103. [Google Scholar]
  77. Twenge J.M., Campbell S.M., Hoffman B.J., Lance C.E. Generational differences in work values: leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. J. Manage. 2010;36(5):1117–1142. [Google Scholar]
  78. Ünsar S.A. Effect of motivation on severance tendency: a field research. J. Acad. Sight. 2011;25:1–15. [Google Scholar]
  79. Urbanaviciute I., Lazauskaite-Zabielske J., Elst T.V., De Witte H. Qualitative job insecurity and turnover intention: the mediating role of basic psychological needs in public and private sectors. Career Dev. Int. 2018;23(3):274–290. [Google Scholar]
  80. Wang H.J., Lu C.Q., Siu O.L. Job insecurity and job performance: the moderating role of organizational justice and the mediating role of work engagement. J. Appl. Psychol. 2015;100(4):1249–1258. doi: 10.1037/a0038330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Williams L.J., Hazer J.T. Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment in turnover models: a reanalysis using latent variable structural equation methods. J. Appl. Psychol. 1986;71(2):219–231. [Google Scholar]
  82. Zemke R., Raines C., Filipczak B. Amacom; New York, NY: 2000. Generations at Work: Managing the Cash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace. [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Hospitality Management are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES