Abstract
This study aimed to determine whether organizational cynicism levels of Generation X and Generation Y employees in tourism sector differed. In this context, the effects of demographic variables on organizational cynicism levels of generation X and generation Y employees were investigated. Quantitative research methods were employed in the study. The population of the study consists of 192 employees of 5-star hotel enterprises that are located and in business in Belek, Antalya region. A significant difference was found between the responses of Generation Y employees and those of Generation X employees. The cognitive, affective and behavioural sub-dimensional and overall organizational cynicism scores of Generation Y employees were determined to be higher than those of Generation X. Generation X employees who want to be part of the organization they work for, and who are strictly committed to their jobs, hardworking, more traditionalist, respectful to authority, diligent and obedient can generally accept the policies of the organization without questioning, employees of Generation Y who do not like bureaucracy and seriousness, who want to manage themselves and take responsibility for themselves, and see the organization as a means and question everything, and who are more individualist can criticise them easily when they are not satisfied, and reflect this on their attitude and behaviour. It is seen that studies that examine the relationship between personal characteristics and organizational cynicism are limited in the relevant literature.
Keywords: Organizational, cynicism, Generation, x, Generation y, Turkey, Antalya, Demographic, variables.
Received: 1 August 2019 / Revised: 4 September 2019 / Accepted: 7 October 2019/ Published: 13 November 2019
Contribution/ Originality
It is seen that studies that examine the relationship between personal characteristics and organizational cynicism are limited in the relevant literature. The population of the study consists of 192 employees of 5-star hotel enterprises that are located and in business in Belek, Antalya region.
1. INTRODUCTION
Organizational cynicism is a negative attitude that employees hold towards their organization (Helvacı and Çetin, 2012). Organizational cynicism is defined as an organizational situation that contains cynicism within itself or that is related to cynicism (Sur, 2010). It expresses negative beliefs, negative emotions and harsh criticisms against the organization, openly or secretly (Pelit and Pelit, 2014). It is also described as employees' insecurity against the intentions of the organization and disbelief in its decisions, and the notion that their managers do not reflect their own character (Helvacı and Çetin, 2012).
Organizational cynicism has been defined as a negative attitude that encompasses three dimensions of cognitive (belief), affective (emotional) and behavioural (behaviour) attitudes of a person towards the organization in which he/she works (Erbil, 2013). There should be a harmonious organizational relationship and coordination at the same time in the formation of attitude (Kalağan, 2009).
The cognitive dimension includes all kinds of experiences, knowledge, thoughts and beliefs that an individual holds towards a person, a situation, an object and an event in his surrounding (Inceoğlu, 2010). The affective dimension is described as emotional experiences evaluated by individuals as positive or negative. The behavioural dimension is defined as observable acts that are shaped by attitudes (Kalağan, 2009).
These dimensions, which are effective in forming attitudes, may not always have an equal impact; in some cases, one or more of these dimensions can have a more dominant role. In this context, it is not always necessary to have all the elements together in the formation of an attitude (Pelit and Pelit, 2014).
Attitudes can result from personality traits, but they can also occur with the influence of a social group. Attitudes are shaped as behavioural patterns in the form of a permanent and continuous organization in the course of life (Aytaş, 2016).
The importance of beliefs, attitudes and values of people in terms of organizational cynicism is revealed when it is considered that they affect the organizational relations and attitudes and behaviours of employees towards their jobs (Sabuncuoğlu and Tüz, 2001). The conceptualization of organizational cynicism as an attitude shows that the rules applied to attitudes are applied to organizational cynicism as well. One of these rules is that attitude is a process of thought-behaviour which begins with belief and probably ends with behaviour (Kalağan, 2009;Pelit and Pelit, 2014).
1.1. The Cognitive (Belief) Dimension of Organizational Cynicism
The term cognitive includes knowledge. Therefore, the cognitive element of attitude is the part that is based on belief or knowledge. Attitudes vary according to the level of belief and knowledge they contain (Köklü, 1995).
The cognitive dimension of organizational cynicism refers to cynicism which is formed as a result of the fact that individuals who “think and practice” in the organization obtain information through their observations, perceptions or experiences, and develop beliefs on that subject (Aytaş, 2016).
In the cognitive dimension of organizational cynicism, it is emphasized that the organization lacks integrity (Erbil, 2013). In other words, it is described as employees’ disbelief in the decisions of the organization, notion that their managers do not reflect their own character, and mistrust against their intentions (Helvacı and Çetin, 2012).
Cynical attitudes of individuals towards their organizations emerge as a result of their thoughts and belief that the practices in the organization lack the elements of honesty, justice, and sincerity. Cynical employees believe that these elements are neglected for many times in their organizations, immoral behaviours turn into habits, human behaviours are not reassuring because they are contradictory (Aytaş, 2016) and personal interests are prioritized (Güzel et al., 2010). In addition, cynical people often think that there are hidden reasons behind the actions taken. Thus, they believe they will encounter a deceit rather than sincerity (Kabataş, 2010).
1.2. Affective (Emotional) Dimension of Organizational Cynicism
Emotional element refers to feelings that are positive or negative (Köklü, 1995). These positive or negative emotions related to any subject are associated with the previous experience of a person about that subject (Barut, 2005). Accordingly, if a person has positive or negative feelings about any stimulus, this means that the person has had a relationship with that stimulant and this relationship has been accepted or rejected as a result of the experiences. Whenever the person remembers these stimuli, their reactions to that attitude will be positive or negative in the same way (Erbil, 2013).
In this dimension of organizational cynicism, the attitudes that are caused by their emotions, rather than the thoughts and behaviour of the employees, are addressed, and the emotional side of people who have some kind of cynicism is pointed out (Aytaş, 2016). This dimension, which constitutes attitudes, conveys the emotional factors and the excitement towards an event or object that has caused the attitude of the individual. Emotional factors lead to the persistent, driving and shaping aspect of an attitude (Erdoğan, 1994).
According to Abraham (2000) the components of affective dimension occur as a result of strong stimulation of negative emotions such as disdain, distress, anger, and shame. Dean et al. (1998) suggests that although there are no impartial approaches to the organization in organizational cynicism, strong emotional reactions are given in the organization. In this dimension, where nine basic emotions come to the fore, all negative emotions felt by employees, as well as emotions such as excitement-interest, astonishment-surprise, anguish-pain, anger-rage, contempt-disdain, hatred-disgust, pleasure-joy, and fear, are associated with organizational cynicism (Kalağan, 2009;Pelit and Pelit, 2014).
1.3. Behavioural (Behaviour) Dimension of Organizational Cynicism
The behavioural element is the tendency of individuals to behave in a particular way towards the issue of attitude. In other words, people act in parallel with cognitive and affective elements. These behavioural tendencies can be seen in words or acts (Inceoğlu, 2010). The judgment of a person resulting from his/her knowledge and beliefs is the last factor of attitude that will enable the person to act in a positive or negative way against the stimulus. If a person has a positive attitude towards any stimulus, he/she will be ready to act in accordance with what it requires (Erdoğan, 1994).
The behavioural dimension of organizational cynicism, which expresses employees' clear or hidden actions, underlie conceptualizations such as hostile criticism and disparagement, alienation from work and intention to quit, loss of faith in the leader performing the change, and distrust towards an individual, group, ideology or institution (Naus, 2007;Aytaş, 2016).
2. THE IMPACT OF DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ON EMPLOYEES’ LEVELS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CYNICISM, CHARACTERISTICS OF GENERATIONS X AND Y
The first studies on organizational cynicism are included in the scales “Minesota Versatile Personality Inventory” developed in the 1940s and “Cynic Enmity” by Cook and Medley (1954). In the early studies on organizational cynicism, it was seen that organizational cynicism was based on safety (cited in Pelit and Pelit (2014)). In fact, the conceptual history of cynicism is a deep-rooted concept that dates back to the ancient Greek period in the 4th century BC. (Torun and Çetin, 2015). However, the concept of organizational cynicism was revealed in a book and was published in order to determine the reason for the spread of cynicism in organizations (cited in James (2005)). Although the concept of organizational cynicism has a comprehensive history, it has been extensively studied in the field of organizational behaviour especially after the 1990s (Pelit and Ayduğan, 2011).
In a study conducted on employee cynicism in 1996, Andersson, by addressing the issue within the framework of “Contract Violations”, argued that the theory of contract violations would contribute to the integration of the existing cynicism literature, and the study, in a sense, brought organizational cynicism to life (Sur, 2010). Dean et al. (1998) and Abraham (2000) have carried out studies to define and conceptualize organizational cynicism and to develop a scale.
In Turkey, there has been an increase in the number of studies conducted on organizational cynicism especially after the second half of the 2000s. Scale adaptation studies for organizational cynicism (Erdost et al., 2007;Güzeller and Kalağan, 2008;Tokgöz and Yılmaz, 2008) attracted attention in the first studies (Kart, 2015). The first study is the one conducted by Erdost et al. (2007) in order to introduce the concepts of cynicism and organizational cynicism to the Turkish literature and to test the developed scales related to the subject in a company.
Studies carried out by Kutanis and Çetinel (2010) who examined the relationship between organizational cynicism and organizational justice, and by Tükeltürk et al. (2009) who addressed the relationship between organizational cynicism and the violation of psychological contract, are among the first studies on the premises of organizational cynicism (Karacaoğlu and Ince, 2012).
In the tourism literature, in a study conducted by Erbil (2013) in order to reveal the relationship between the concept of organizational cynicism and employees’ intention to quit, it has been concluded that the increase in cynical attitudes towards the organization might cause an increase in the intention to quit. As a result of a study by Cetinkaya and Ozkara (2015) on the relationship between the violations of psychological contract and organizational cynicism of hotel employees, it has been found out that there is a mild and positive relationship between the two variables, and the employees' perception of the violation of psychological contract has been determined to be a significant predictor of the employees' level of organizational cynicism. In the research conducted by Sarı and Doğantekin (2016) in the accommodation establishments, it has been concluded that the level of organizational cynicism will decrease as the ethical climate levels perceived by employees increase.
Research on the relationship between personal traits and organizational cynicism is limited in the relevant literature (Aytaş, 2016). In line with the scope of the concept of organizational cynicism, it is possible to state that rather than personal factors, organizational factors are at the forefront in making employees cynical. However, in the literature there are also studies in which personal variables related to organizational cynicism differ significantly (Pelit and Pelit, 2014). Although it is stated that the effects of personal variables on organizational cynicism are weak in general, it is emphasized in several studies that some personal variables have an impact on organizational cynicism (Erbil, 2013). In this context, personal factors are generally considered as the control or mediator variable in organizational cynicism research (Karacaoğlu and Ince, 2012).
2.1. Characteristics of Generation X
As a concept, Generation X was first used by Jane Deverson in the UK in 1964 in an article written for a women's journal. In the article, the author writes about the youths of the 1960s who lived during the Second World War and had different habits from their parents. This article was not accepted by the journal, and it was published as a book named “Generation X” with two authors (Kayacan, 2016). The parents of generation X, who were generally considered to be born between the years of 1965-1979, are members of silent generation or baby boomers (Baltacı, 2016). This generation is named differently in different sources as Xers, as Postboomers, as The Thirteeners due to being the 13th generation since the foundation of the United States (Yılmaz, 2015) as Lost Generation because they experienced various economic and social crises in the period they were born, as Shadow Generation since they grew up in the shadows of the baby boomers generation (Berkup, 2015) and as Baby Burst because birth rates decreased during this period (Tekin, 2015). In Turkey, the concept of "Transitional Generation" is used rather than the concept of "Generation X" to describe those born in this period (Salap, 2016). The reason is that significant changes and transformation was experienced during this period in the world and in Turkey, especially in the field of education, health and population (Tükek, 2017).
2.2. Characteristics of Generation Y
The term Generation Y was first introduced in August 1993 in order to distinguish the adolescents of that period from those of generation X, which was the previous generation, and to define them in a different way. This generation has been given the letter Y, which comes from the word “why” in English, for its characteristics that question everything (Baltacı, 2016). The last generation in the current labour force, Generation Y, covers the generation born between 1980-1999 (Sayers, 2007) members of Generation Y grew up in a period when terrorist incidents, natural disasters, and major diseases became frightening facts. The technological, economic and political developments of this period progressed more rapidly than the previous periods. The fact that their lives are generally diversified, fast and extremely busy results from the features of the period in which they grew up. It is inevitable that they get bored instantly if there is lack of diversified work, team work and speed in order to meet their expectations (Etlican, 2012). Generation Y, which has been the busiest generation ever, has the distinction of being the generation that has been exposed to greatest stress until this time although they have been raised in close relations by the family, overly protected and brought up through micro programs (Yılmaz, 2015). The most highlighted feature of Generation Y, the first generation which was born during the years when the Internet was available, Aydin and Başol (2014) is undoubtedly their predisposition to technology (Keleş, 2011). This generation was brought up in a world where technological facilities developed as a result of the positive conditions of the period. The members of this generation are the children of a self-indulgent, individual-thinking, technology-friendly, and globalized world where phone and computer technologies were born (Babaoğlu, 2015). Together with technology, computers have become a part of their lives. It has the feature of being the most technology-dependent/addicted generation among all generations (Mücevher, 2015). Their communication with the world started from the day they were born, and they were bombarded by messages through channels like television and media as a marketing target. Therefore, communication is of great importance in this generation (Aygenoğlu, 2015).
3. METHOD
Quantitative research methods were employed in the study. Quantitative research method is a kind of research which allows for numerical interpretation and generalization by sticking to a pre-prepared questionnaire. In quantitative research method, numerical results are obtained from a sample that will represent the universe for the researched subject. The necessary mathematical and statistical analyzes are made on the results. In quantitative research, the opinions of the research universe about the research subject are questioned (Balcı, 2016).
The population of the study consists of employees of 5-star hotel enterprises that are located and in business in Belek, Antalya region. For the survey study, a list of hotels with the certificate of operation was obtained from the Antalya Provincial Culture and Tourism Directorate. According to the list, there were 53 five-star hotels in Belek. The total number of the rooms in these five-star hotels was 25901. Since the data on the number of people working in the hotel establishments could not be obtained from the hotel enterprises and Antalya Provincial Culture and Tourism Directorate, the ratio of the number of staff per room (1, 18) in five-star hotels in Turkey stated in a study by Erdem (2004) was used in this study. Based on the number of rooms, the total number of hotel employees was estimated to be 30563 (25901x1,18). According to Yazıcıoğlu and Erdoğan (2014) it would be sufficient to reach 245 and more sampling for p=0,8 q=0,2 and have an error of 0,05 for a universe size of 50,000 people. However, considering the season of the hotels and the period in which the survey was conducted, it was aimed to reach 200 employees since the number of staff per room was less in winter.
The questionnaire form was administered to the hotel staff by using the convenience sampling method, which is among non-probability sampling methods, and 220 of the 250 questionnaire forms distributed to four 5-star hotels were collected. A total of 28 of the questionnaires were not evaluated because they did not have sufficient data and significance. The remaining 192 questionnaires were included in the analysis.
Survey method was used to collect the data to be obtained for the purpose of the study. The questionnaire used consisted of 2 chapters. In the first section, “Personal Data Form” was used to collect data on demographic characteristics, and in the second section, “Organizational Cynicism Scale” was used to measure organizational cynicism levels. The personal data form comprised questions prepared by the researcher in accordance with the literature in order to collect information on demographic variables within the scope of the study such as participants' gender, age, marital status, education level, income level, service time in the sector, and service time in the enterprise. For the analysis, the organizational cynicism scale which was used by Aytaş (2016) was taken into consideration. The linguistic equivalence of the scale in Turkey was provided by Kalağan (2009) and the three-dimensional (cognitive, affective, and behavioural) organizational cynicism scale was adapted to Turkish. Concerning the validity and reliability of the scale, 13-item and 5-point Likert type organizational cynicism scale consisting of three sub-dimensions was tested in a study by Karacaoğlu and Ince (2012) called “Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of Brandes et al. (1999) organizational Cynicism Scale: The Case of Organized Industrial Zone, Kayseri”. The scale, whose validity and reliability was tested by Karacaoğlu and İnce, was a 5-point Likert-type graded as “(5) Strongly Agree”, “(4) Agree”, “(3) Neither Agree Nor Disagree”, “(2) Disagree” and “(1) Strongly Disagree”, and the original form of the scale was rated in this way, as well. In this study, the 5-point Likert Type Scale, which is in the original form, was used, but only the phrase “Neither Agree Nor Disagree” was changed, and the scale was graded as follows: “(1) Strongly Disagree”, “(2) Disagree”, “(3) Undecided”, “(4) Agree” and “(5) Strongly Agree”. Since the first and fifth items on the scale had the same meaning, the expression “It is difficult for me to trust people” was used in the scale in accordance with the sub-dimension of organizational cynicism instead of item 1 expressed as “I believe that what is stated and what is done is different in the enterprise I work”. Of the 13 items included in the scale, the first five relate to the cognitive dimension of organizational cynicism, the subsequent four to the affective dimension, and the last four to the behavioural dimension.
Before starting the study, a preliminary study was carried out with 20 people who were randomly selected for the related scale, and application started after determining whether the questions were clearly comprehended. In this study, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to determine the construct validity of the organizational cynicism scale.
4. ANALYSIS
In this study, factor structure was established through exploratory factor analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis was performed in order to verify the factor structure of the tested organizational cynicism scale. The PROC CALIS procedure of SAS 9.4 package program was used to test the factor structure of the organizational cynicism scale whose original factor structure consisted of three sub-dimensions and 13 items (five-item cognitive dimension, four-item affective dimension and four-item behavioural dimension). The data collected from 192 participants were used for the confirmatory factor analysis of the organizational cynicism scale, which was 5-point Likert type. The path diagram obtained as a result of the confirmatory factor analysis is presented together with factor loadings in Figure 1 (F1 = Cognitive, F2 = Affective, F3 = Behavioural).
Figure-1. Path model of the confirmatory factor analysis for the organizational cynicism scale.
Table-1. Fit indices of confirmatory factor analysis.
Fit indices |
Good fit |
Acceptable fit |
Results of the model |
Fit |
RMSEA |
0<RMSEA<0,05 |
0,05<RMSEA<0,10 |
0,08 |
Acceptable |
GFI |
0,95<GFI<1 |
0,90<GFI<0,95 |
0,92 |
Acceptable |
AGFI |
0,90<AGFI<1 |
0,85<AGFI<0,90 |
0,86 |
Acceptable |
NFI |
0,95<NFI<1 |
0,90<NFI<0,95 |
0,95 |
Good fit |
CFI |
0,95<CFI<1 |
0,90<CFI<0,95 |
0,97 |
Good fit |
c2/df |
c2/df<3 |
3<c2/df<5 |
3,32 |
Acceptable |
When the results of the model given in Table 1 are examined, it can be seen that the fit indices RMSEA, GFI, AGFI and c2/dfobtained as a result of the CFA are acceptable, and NFI and CFI have a good fit. According to this result, it is understood that the three-dimensional factor structure of the original model is confirmed by CFA conducted with the data. The histogram plot of the standardized errors obtained as a result of structural equation analysis is presented in Figure 2. The fact that this plot is symmetrical and is in the range of (-3, 3) and that there are no outliers is an indication of the confirmation of the model.
Figure-2. Histogram plot of standardized errors in structural equation modelling reliability of the scale.
In order to determine whether the organizational cynicism scale was reliable, Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient and total item correlation were analyzed. The evaluation of the Cronbach alpha coefficient is made based on the following criteria:
If it is 0.0 <0.40, the scale is not reliable.
If it is 0.40 <0.60, the scale has low reliability.
If it is 0.60 <0.80, the scale is quite reliable.
If it is 0.80 <1.00, the scale is highly reliable.
The Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficients for the general and sub-dimensions of the organizational cynicism scale were obtained and are presented in Table 2. The internal consistency coefficient obtained for the overall scale is r = 0,8852, indicating that the scale is highly reliable. When Cronbach alpha internal consistency values of the sub-dimensions of the scale are analyzed, it can be seen from Table 2 that Cronbach alpha internal consistency is found to be 0,7503 for the cognitive sub-dimension, 0,9118 for the affective sub-dimension and 0,7985 for the behavioural sub-dimension, and that all the sub-dimensions are highly reliable.
Descriptive statistics for the overall and sub-dimensions of the organizational cynicism scale are also given in Table 2. From this table, it can be stated that the overall score of the scale ranges from 1 to 5 and the mean is 2,42 ± 0,78, the cognitive sub-dimension score ranges from 1 to 5 and the mean is 2,62 ± 0,84, and the affective sub-dimension score ranges from 1 to 5 and the mean score is between 2.06 ± 1.05, and the behavioural sub-dimension scores ranges from 1 to 5, and the mean is 2.51 ± 1.05.
Table-2. Organizational cynicism scale and distribution of its sub-dimensions.
Sub-dimensions |
Number of questions |
Cronbach’s alfa |
|||
Cognitive |
5 |
0,7503 |
|||
Affective |
4 |
0,9118 |
|||
Behavioural |
4 |
0,7985 |
|||
OCS overall |
13 |
0,8852 |
|||
N |
M |
Sd |
Min |
Max |
|
Cognitive |
192 |
2.62 |
0.84 |
1 |
5 |
Affective |
192 |
2.06 |
1.05 |
1 |
5 |
Behavioural |
192 |
2.51 |
1.05 |
1 |
5 |
Overall |
192 |
2.42 |
0.78 |
1 |
5 |
Correlation analysis was performed to determine the relationship between the overall score of the organizational cynicism scale and the sub-dimensions, and the results are given in Table 3. A statistically significant and positive correlation is seen between the score of the cognitive sub-dimension and the score of the affective sub-dimension (r= 0,44014; p= 0,0001). A moderately significant and positive correlation is revealed between the cognitive sub-dimension score and the behavioural sub-dimension score (r= 0,46865; p= 0,0001). A highly significant and positive correlation is found between the cognitive sub-dimension score and the overall score (r= 0,79224; p= 0,0001). There is a moderately significant and positive correlation between the affective sub-dimension score and the behavioural sub-dimension score (r= 0.49454; p= 0.0001). The correlation between the affective sub-dimension score and the overall score is considered strongly significant and positive (r= 0,80009; p= 0,000). A highly significant and positive correlation exists between the behavioural sub-dimension score and the overall score (r= P = 0.0001).
Table-3. The correlation between the sub-dimensions of the organizational cynicism scale.
Sub-dimensions |
Cognitive |
Affective |
Behavioural |
OCS overall |
|
Cognitive |
r p |
1.00000 |
0.44014 0.0001 |
0.46865 0.0001 |
0.79224 0.0001 |
Affective |
r p |
1.00000 |
0.49454 0.0001 |
0.80009 0.0001 |
|
Behavioural |
r p |
1.00000 |
0.81600 0.0001 |
||
OCS overall |
r p |
1.00000 |
This study aimed to find out whether the organizational cynicism levels of the hotel employees in generations X and Y changed and whether the demographic variables of the hotel employees in different generations affected their organizational cynicism levels and to what extent they caused differences. Hypotheses were formed in line with the purpose of the study and in accordance with the research model presented in Figure 3.
The hypotheses of the research are listed as follows:
H1: The organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of Generations X and Y.
H2: The organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the gender of the individuals in different generations.
H2a: The cognitive organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the gender of the individuals in different generations.
H2b: The affective organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the gender of the individuals in different generations.
H2c: The behavioural organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the gender of the individuals in different generations.
H3: The organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the marital status of the individuals in different generations.
H3a: The cognitive organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the marital status of the individuals in different generations.
H3b: The affective organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the marital status of the individuals in different generations.
H3c: The behavioural organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the marital status of the individuals in different generations.
H4: The organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the education level of the individuals in different generations.
H4a: The cognitive organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the education level of the individuals in different generations.
H4b: The affective organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the education level of the individuals in different generations.
H4c: The behavioural organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the education level of the individuals in different generations.
H5: The organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the income levels of the individuals in different generations.
H5a: The cognitive organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the income level of the individuals in different generations.
H5b: The affective organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the income levels of the individuals in different generations.
H5c: The behavioural organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the income levels of the individuals in different generations.
H6: The organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the service time of the individuals of different generations in the sector.
H6a: The levels of cognitive organizational cynicism differ on the basis of the service time of the individuals of different generations in the sector.
H6b: The affective organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the service time of the individuals of different generations in the sector.
H6c: The behavioural organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the service time of the individuals of different generations in the sector.
H7: The organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the service time of the individuals of different generations in the enterprise.
H7a: The cognitive organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the service time of the individuals of different generations in the enterprise.
H7b: The affective organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the service time of the individuals of different generations in the enterprise.
H7c: The behavioural organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of the service time of the individuals of different generations in the enterprise.
The statistical analyzes of the data obtained from the research were performed by using SAS 9.4 package program. Descriptive statistics for the quantitative variables of the study are presented as mean and standard deviation, and descriptive statistics for the qualitative variables determined through census are shown as number and percentage.
Firstly, tests for normal distribution were conducted through Kolmogorov Smirnov test. As a result of the tests conducted, it was seen that the data showed normal distribution, and parametric tests were used in statistical analysis. T-test was performed to compare the variables with two categories such as gender, and variance analysis was performed to find the differences between the variables with three or more categories such as income. Correlation analysis was performed to determine the relationship between the dependent variables. The values 0.05 and 0.01 were accepted as significance level throughout the study.
The distribution of the main characteristics and demographic findings of the participants included in the study are given in Table 4 on the basis of Generations X and Y.
In order to determine whether the distributions of the main demographic characteristics differed on the basis of generations, chi-square (c2) analysis was performed, and the results are given in this table. While 43.23% (n= 83) of the participants belong to generation X, 56.77% (n= 109) of them belong to Generation Y. Of the participants, 40.63% (n = 78) are female, and 59.38% (n =114) are male. In terms of marital status, 65,63% (n= 126) of the participants are married, and 34,38% (n = 66) are single.
A total of 26.56% of the participants (n = 51) are secondary school graduates, 33.33% (n = 64) are high school graduates, 14.58% (n = 28) are associate degree graduates, and 25.52% (n = 49) are graduates and postgraduates. When the income levels of the participants are examined, it is observed that the income of 59.38% (n = 114) of the participants is between 1000 TL and 2000 TL, the income of 22.92% (n = 44) is between 2001 TL and 3000 TL and the income of 17.71% (n = 34) is over 3000 TL.
Table-4. Distribution of the main demographic characteristics of the participants on the basis of generations.
“Generations” |
Generation |
Total |
||||||
X |
Y |
|||||||
N |
% |
N |
% |
N |
% |
c2 |
p |
|
Gender |
||||||||
Female |
39 |
46.99 |
39 |
35.78 |
78 |
40.63 |
2.4540 |
0.1172 |
Male |
44 |
53.01 |
70 |
64.22 |
114 |
59.38 |
||
Marital status |
||||||||
Married |
68 |
81.93 |
58 |
53.21 |
126 |
65.63 |
17.2250 |
0.0001 |
Single |
15 |
18.07 |
51 |
46.79 |
66 |
34.38 |
||
Education level |
||||||||
Secondary school |
35 |
42.17 |
16 |
14.68 |
51 |
26.56 |
21.8473 |
0.0001 |
High school |
27 |
32.53 |
37 |
33.94 |
64 |
33.33 |
||
Associate degree |
9 |
10.84 |
19 |
17.43 |
28 |
14.58 |
||
Undergraduate + Postgraduate degree |
12 |
14.46 |
37 |
33.94 |
49 |
25.52 |
||
Income level |
||||||||
1000-2000TL |
48 |
57.83 |
66 |
60.55 |
114 |
59.38 |
3.9934 |
0.1358 |
2001-3000TL |
24 |
28.92 |
20 |
18.35 |
44 |
22.92 |
||
3000 TL + |
11 |
13.25 |
23 |
21.10 |
34 |
17.71 |
||
Service time in the sector |
||||||||
Less than 1 year |
3 |
3.61 |
14 |
12.84 |
17 |
8.85 |
17.1333 |
0.0018 |
1-3 years |
7 |
8.43 |
21 |
19.27 |
28 |
14.58 |
||
3-5 years |
9 |
10.84 |
17 |
15.60 |
26 |
13.54 |
||
5-10 years |
22 |
26.51 |
29 |
26.61 |
51 |
26.56 |
||
More than 10 years |
42 |
50.60 |
28 |
25.69 |
70 |
36.46 |
||
Service time in the enterprise |
||||||||
Less than 1 year |
15 |
18.07 |
39 |
35.78 |
54 |
28.13 |
11.0179 |
0.0264 |
1-3 years |
17 |
20.48 |
27 |
24.77 |
44 |
22.92 |
||
3-5 years |
21 |
25.30 |
21 |
19.27 |
42 |
21.88 |
||
5-10 years |
16 |
19.28 |
13 |
11.93 |
29 |
15.10 |
||
More than 10 years |
14 |
16.87 |
9 |
8.26 |
23 |
11.98 |
||
When the participants’ service time in the sector is examined, it is seen that 8,85% (n = 17) of the participants worked less than a year, 14,58% (n = 28) worked between 1-3 years, 13,54% (n = 26) worked between 3-5 years, 26.56% (n = 51) worked between 5-10 years, and the remaining 36.46% (n = 70) had more than 10 years of service. Table 4 which displays the service time of the participants in the enterprise, reveals that 28.13% (n = 54) of the participants worked less than a year, 22.92% (n = 44) worked between 1-3 years, 21.88% (n = 42) worked between 3-5 years, 15,10% (n = 29) worked between 5-10 years, and the remaining 11,98% (n = 23) served in the enterprise for more than 10 years.
When the chi-square (c2) results presented in Table 4 are examined in order to determine whether the distributions of the main demographic characteristics of the participants differ according to the generations, it is found out that there is a statistically significant relationship between the generations and the marital status, education level, service time in the sector and service time in the enterprise (p <0.05). In other words, the percentages of these characteristics show significant differences in Generations X and Y. When the marital status of the participants are examined, it can be seen that while the married ones make up 81,93 % in Generation X and 53,21% in Generation Y, the single participants are 18,07% in Generation X and 46,79 % in Generation Y; and there are significant differences between them (p= 0.0001). The percentages of the education categories differ significantly in Generation X and Generation Y (p= 0.0001). The percentages of the participants' service time in the sector and in the enterprise show significant differences in Generations X and Y (p= 0.0018; p= 0.0264). On the other hand, it is found out that the rate of women and men and the rate of different income levels do not show significant differences in Generations X and Y.
According to the distribution of participants based on age; the average age of the overall population is 35.59 ± 8.36, and the average age of Generation X (43.35 ± 4.81) is significantly higher (p = 0.000) compared to the average age of Generation Y (29.68 ± 4.96).
The relationship between the Sub-dimensional and Overall Scores of the Organizational Cynicism Scale based on Generations X and Y.
H1: The organizational cynicism levels differ on the basis of Generations X and Y.
In order to test this hypothesis, independent samples t-test was used to determine whether there was a difference between the participants' sub-dimensional and overall scores for the organizational cynicism scale.
According to these results, the fact that the cognitive sub-dimension score of Generation Y was found to be higher than the participants of Generation X was statistically significant (p= 0.0001). The mean score of the affective sub-dimension of the participants in Generation Y was found to be statistically higher than those of Generation X (p= 0.0001). The mean score of the behavioural sub-dimension of the participants in Generation Y was statistically higher than the participants of Generation X (p= 0.0414). The overall mean of Generation Y participants was significantly different from the participants in Generation X, and the mean of Generation Y participants was found to be higher (p= 0.0001). According to these results; H1 hypothesis was accepted. In other words, the hotel employees of Generation Y experience organizational cynicism more than those of Generation X.
The Relationship between the Sub-dimensional and Overall Scores of the Organizational Cynicism Scale in Generations X and Y by Gender, marital status, education level, income levels, service time in the sector and service time in the enterprise.
In order to test the hypotheses in the article, independent samples t-test was performed to statistically evaluate the sub-dimensional and overall scores of the organizational cynicism scale of the participants in Generations X and Y. According to the findings, there was no statistically significant difference in the cognitive, affective and behavioural sub-dimension scores and overall scores of the organizational cynicism scale on the basis of the gender, marital status, education level, income levels, service time in the sector and service time in the enterprise. Therefore, as results of the independent samples t-tests performed, the hypotheses were not accepted.
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In the present study conducted in order to determine whether the organizational cynicism levels of Generations X and Y employees in the tourism sector differed, 192 employees working in the 5-star hotels located in Belek region of Antalya were reached. As demographic variables, gender, marital status, education level, income level, service time in the sector and service time in the enterprise were investigated, and whether these personal characteristics made a difference in the levels of organizational cynicism and sub-dimensions of organizational cynicism was investigated. According to the results of the analyses, it was determined that the organizational cynicism levels of Generations X and Y employees differed significantly in terms of the sub-dimensional and overall scores of the scale. This result shows similarity to the research results reported by Yastıoğlu (2017) and Torun and Çetin (2015).
Of the 192 hotel employees participating in the study, 43.23% (n = 83) represented Generation X, while 56.77% (n = 109) represented Generation Y. According to the results, a significant difference was found between the responses of Generation Y employees and those of Generation X employees. The cognitive, affective and behavioural sub-dimensional and overall organizational cynicism scores of Generation Y employees were determined to be higher than those of Generation X. In other words, the hotel employees of Generation X experienced more organizational cynicism than those of Generation Y. This result is similar to the research results of Torun and Çetin (2015) and Aytaş (2016). This difference is thought to be caused by changes in life experiences, world views, business values, culture, knowledge and organizational perceptions of generations. The difference between those having the same manager and working in the same organizational culture is stems from the differences in their evaluation, perception, belief, and personal characteristics. Whereas Generation X employees who want to be part of the organization they work for, and who are strictly committed to their jobs, hardworking, more traditionalist, respectful to authority, diligent and obedient can generally accept the policies of the organization without questioning, employees of Generation Y who do not like bureaucracy and seriousness, who want to manage themselves and take responsibility for themselves, and see the organization as a means and question everything, and who are more individualist can criticise them easily when they are not satisfied, and reflect this on their attitude and behaviour. Indeed, the fact that the expectations, goals, and business values of the two different generations conflict with each other is thought to lead to organizational cynicism.
No significant differences were revealed in the sub-dimensional and overall scores of the organizational cynicism scale on the basis of the gender of hotel employees in Generations X and Y. In the literature, there are similar studies indicating that there is no significant relationship between organizational cynicism and the gender variable (Andersson and Bateman, 1997;Erdost et al., 2007;Güzeller and Kalağan, 2008;Tokgöz and Yılmaz, 2008;Kalağan, 2009;Kalağan and Güzeller, 2010;Aytaş, 2016). However, Maslach (2001) suggests a relationship between cynicism and gender differences.
There were no significant differences in the sub-dimensional and overall scores of the organizational cynicism scale on the basis of the marital status of the employees in Generations X and Y. When the literature is examined, there are also similar studies indicating that there is no significant relationship between organizational cynicism and the variable of marital status (Erdost et al., 2007;Kalağan, 2009). However, as a result of the study conducted by Aytaş (2016) it has been found that while the marital status of Generation Y employees does not affect organizational cynicism levels, organizational cynicism levels of Generation X employees differ based on marital status.
No significant differences were found in the sub-dimensional and overall scores of the organizational cynicism scale on the basis of the education level of the hotel employees in Generations X and Y. Some studies have not revealed significant relationships between organizational cynicism and the variable of education level (Andersson and Bateman, 1997;Sur, 2010;Helvacı and Çetin, 2012). However, when the literature is examined, there are also findings indicating that organizational cynicism levels change based on education level (Lobnikar and Pagon, 2004;Kalağan and Güzeller, 2010).
No significant differences were found in the sub-dimensional and overall scores of the organizational cynicism scale on the basis of the income levels of the hotel employees in Generations X and Y. This finding is similar to the findings of a study by Yavuz and Bedük (2016). However, there are also studies in the foreign literature that have revealed significant relationships between organizational cynicism and income levels (Delken, 2004).
No significant differences were detected in the sub-dimensional and overall scores of the organizational cynicism scale on the basis of Generations X and Y employees’ service time in the sector. This finding is also reported by Erdost et al. (2007). However, this result does not have similarity to the results of the study of Tokgöz and Yılmaz (2008). The study conducted by Tokgöz and Yılmaz suggests that there is a significant difference between the organizational cynicism levels of the hotel employees and their experiences in the sector.
No significant differences were found in the sub-dimensional and overall scores of the organizational cynicism scale on the basis of Generations X and Y employees’ service time in the enterprise. This finding is similar to the findings of the studies by Yavuz and Bedük (2016); Erdost et al. (2007) and Eaton (2000). However, when the literature is examined, there are also findings indicating that organizational cynicism scores change based on employees’ service time in the enterprises (Sur, 2010).
The findings obtained suggest the fact that especially the organizational cynicism levels of employees of Generations X and Y are different makes this study important. It is believed that knowing the similarities and differences of these two different generations that have to work together, understanding these differences, and enabling them to work together will contribute to such elements as job satisfaction, organizational trust, organizational commitment, efficiency, productivity, and continuity. In addition, the results of the study will shed light on the current problems of the sector, and the data obtained will guide managers who work in hotels. The realization of negative thoughts, attitudes and behaviours of employees representing the success of the enterprises, and the development of policies to turn these into positive will bring along success.
In the present study, whether the organizational cynicism levels differed within the framework of Generation X and Y employees was investigated in the context of employees working in 5-star hotels located in Belek region of Antalya. Since the results of the research are specific to the addressed sampling, it will be useful to conduct further studies on the subject more comprehensively, to increase the number of samples, and to incorporate different sectors into the research in terms of the generalizability of the results. Since the study is conducted in tourism sector in Turkey for the first time, it is believed that the study will contribute to theory in this regard. It is thought that the findings of this study will be beneficial for the studies to be conducted on organizational cynicism within the framework of generations in all sectors, especially in the tourism sector, and will contribute to the academic studies. In addition, it is believed that supporting the reasons and results of the differences revealed as a result of the study with qualitative research will contribute to the literature considerably.
6. LIMITATIONS
One of the main limitations of the study is that the study is conducted with less participation in winter season compared to summer season.
The second limitation is that hotel employees’ desire to participate in the survey was low because the expressions on the organizational cynicism scale often represented negative attitudes and behaviours. Although it was stated that the personal information of the participants would not be shared during the survey, some employees refused to participate in the survey, and some employees were abstained from giving information about whether they had negative feelings and thoughts about their enterprises.
Funding: This study received no specific financial support. |
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. |
Acknowledgement: Both authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. |
REFERENCES
Abraham, R., 2000. Organizational cynicism: Bases and consequences. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126(3): 269-292.
Andersson, L.M. and T.S. Bateman, 1997. Cynicism in the workplace: Some causes and effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 18(5): 449-469.
Aydin, G.O. and O. Başol, 2014. X and Y generation: Is there a change in the meaning of the study?. Electronic Journal of Vocational Colleges, 4(4): 1-15.
Aygenoğlu, K., 2015. Strategic management of generations X and Y in terms of human resources in corporate business life. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Maltepe University Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul.
Aytaş, S., 2016. The effect of demographic variables on organizational cynicism at different belt separations. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Pamukkale University Institute of Social Sciences, Denizli.
Babaoğlu, B., 2015. Tourism employees' perceptions of generation differences and one. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Istanbul Arel University Social Sciences Institute, Istanbul.
Balcı, A., 2016. Research in social sciences: Methods, techniques and principles. Ankara: Pegem Academy Publications.
Baltacı, H.Ö., 2016. The relationship between communication skills and empathic tendency to X and Y generations according to the differences and an application. Unpublished Master Thesis. Bahçeşehir University Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul.
Barut, B., 2005. The process of formation of political attitudes in the context of political advertising. University Journal of Social Sciences, 15(2): 295-317.
Berkup, S.B., 2015. Individual privacy sharing in social networks: Between the X and Y generations a comparative analysis. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Ege University Social Sciences Institute, Izmir.
Brandes, Dharwadkar and I. Dean, 1999. The validity and reliability study of the Turkish form of organizational cynicism scale: Kayseri Organized Industrial Zone Case. Business & Economics Research Journal, 3(3).
Cetinkaya, F.F. and B. Ozkara, 2015. Psychological contract violations in service businesses and the relationship between organizational cynicism: A study in 4 and 5 star hotel businesses in cappadocia region. Journal of Kastamonu University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 1(9): 72-91.
Cook, W.W. and D.M. Medley, 1954. Proposed hostilityand pharisaic-virtue Scalesfor the MMPI. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 38(6): 414-418.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060667.
Dean, J.W., P. Brandes and R. Dharwadkar, 1998. Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 341-352.
Delken, M., 2004. Organizational cynicism: A study among call centers. Unpublished Master's Thesis. University of Maastricht, Netherlands. pp: 1-62.
Eaton, J.A., 2000. A social motivation approachto organizational cynicism. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, York University, Toronto.
Erbil, S., 2013. The perception of organizational cynicism perception of employees in hotels effect. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Adnan Menderes University Social Sciences Institute, Aydın.
Erdem, B., 2004. The place and importance of human resources planning in hotel management. Balıkesir University Journal of the Institute of Social Sciences, 7(11): 35-54.
Erdoğan, I., 1994. Behavior in business. Istanbul: Beta Edition.
Erdost, H.E., K. Karacaoglu and M. Reyhanoglu, 2007. The concept of organizational cynicism and related scale of companies in Turkey in a test Edilmesi.15. National Administration and Organization Congress Proceedings Book. 25-27 May 2007, Sakarya: University of Sakarya, pp: 514-524.
Etlican, G., 2012. The attitudes of X and Y generations to online education technologies comparison. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Bahcesehir University Social Institute of Sciences, Istanbul.
Güzel, B., Ş.N. Perçin and A. Tukelturk, 2010. Perceived organizational support, Organizational cynicism relationship and effects on intention of leaving: 4-Star Hotel Business Araştırma.18. Management and Organization Proceedings. 20-22 May 2010, Adana, Turkey: Çukurova University. pp: 912-920.
Güzeller, C.O. and G. Kalağan, 2008. Adaptation of organizational cynicism scale into Turkish and various examination of variables in educational organizations.16. National Administration and Organization Congress Proceedings Book. 16-18 May 2008, Antalya: Istanbul Culture University, pp: 87-94.
Helvacı, M. and A. Çetin, 2012. Determination of organizational cynicism levels of primary school teachers (uşak case). Turkish Studies, 7(3): 1475-1497.
Inceoğlu, M., 2010. Attitude perception communication. Istanbul: Beykent University Publications.
James, M.S.L., 2005. Antecedentsand consequences of cynicism in organizations: An examination of the potential positiveand negative effects on school systems. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The Florida StateUniversity, Florida.
Kabataş, A., 2010. The relationship between organizational cynicism and organizational citizenship behavior investigation and a research. Unpublished Master's Thesis. University of Kocaeli Institute of Social Sciences, Kocaeli.
Kalağan, G., 2009. Research assistants' perceptions of organizational support and organizational cynicism attitudes. Unpublished Master Thesis. Akdeniz University Social Sciences Institute, Antalya.
Kalağan, G. and C.O. Güzeller, 2010. Investigation of teachers' organizational cynicism levels. Pamukkale University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 27: 83-97.
Karacaoğlu, K. and F. Ince, 2012. Organizational cynicism scale validity and reliability of the Turkish version: Kayseri Organized Industrial Zone Business and Economics Research Journal, 3(3): 77-92.
Kart, M.E., 2015. Organizational cynicism: Contextual performance and ethical ideology. Ankara: Nobel Academic Publications.
Kayacan, E., 2016. Motivation resources of generations X and Y: A study on the banking sector Unpublished PhD Thesis. Istanbul University Social Sciences Institute, Istanbul.
Keleş, H.N., 2011. A research to determine motivation profiles of Y generation employees. Journal of Organization and Management Sciences, 3(2): 129-139.
Köklü, N., 1995. Measurement of attitudes and options used in likert type scales. University Journal of the Faculty of Educational Sciences, 28(2): 81-93.
Kutanis, R.Ö. and E. Çetinel, 2010. Does perception of injustice trigger cynicism ?: A case study. Dumlupınar University Journal of Social Sciences, 1(26): 186-195.
Lobnikar, B. and M. Pagon, 2004. The prevalence and the nature of police cynicism in slovenia. In Mesko G.,Pagon M. andDobovsek B. (Ed.), Policing in Central and Eastern Europe: Dilemmas of ContemporaryCriminalJustice. Ljubljana: University of Maribor. pp: 103-111.
Maslach, C., 2001. Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 397- 422.
Mücevher, M.H., 2015. The characteristics and interaction perceptions of generation X and Y against each other: SDU Unpublished Master's Thesis. Süleyman Demirel University Social Sciences Institute, Isparta.
Naus, A.J.A.M., 2007. Organizationalcynicism on the nature, antecedents, andconsequences of employee cynicism toward the employing organization. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Maastricht University, Netherlands.
Pelit, E. and N. Ayduğan, 2011. A study on organizational cynicism attitudes of hotel business employees. 12th National Tourism Congress Proceedings. 30 November-4 December 2011, Düzce. pp: 286-302.
Pelit, N. and E. Pelit, 2014. Two major factors causing cancer in organizations: Mobbing and organizational cynicism (theory- process and its reflections on organizations). Ankara: Detay Publishing.
Sabuncuoğlu, Z. and M. Tüz, 2001. Organizational psychology. Bursa: Ezgi Bookstore.
Salap, K.O., 2016. Generations in working life: Approaches to generating work and life balance. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Istanbul University Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul.
Sarı, Y. and A. Doğantekin, 2016. Organizational ethics in hospitality business climate and organizational cynicism research on the relation. Journal of Business Studies, 8(3): 222-250.
Sayers, R., 2007. The right staff from X to Y: Generational change and professional development in future academic libraries. Library Management, 28(8/9): 474-487.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/01435120710837765.
Sur, Ö., 2010. Organizational cynicism: A field study on Eskisehir office workers. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
Tekin, M., 2015. Examination of generations and attitudes towards work in work life. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Süleyman Demirel University Institute of Social Sciences, Isparta.
Tokgöz, N. and H. Yılmaz, 2008. Organizational cynicism: An application in hotel businesses in Eskisehir and Alanya. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2): 283-303.
Torun, Y. and C. Çetin, 2015. Assessment of organizational cynicism on generations: What is the goal of organizational cynicism according to generations? Business and Human Magazine, 2(2): 137-146.Available at: https://doi.org/10.18394/iid.83158.
Tükek, E., 2017. X and Y generations perceptions of employer brand and internal communication: Family business case. Unpublished Master Thesis. Kadir Has University Social Sciences Institute of Science and Technology, Istanbul.
Tükeltürk, Ş.A., N.Ş. Perçin and B. Güzel, 2009. The relationship between psychological contract violations and cynicism in organizations: A research on 4-5 star hotels.17. National Management and Organization Congress Proceedings. 21-23 Mayıs 2009. Eskisehir: Eskisehir Osmangazi University, pp: 688-692.
Yastıoğlu, S., 2017. Organizational cynicism of demographic variables at different belt separations Mehmet Akif Ersoy University. Journal of the Institute of Social Sciences, 9(21): 219-236.
Yavuz, A. and A. Bedük, 2016. The relationship between organizational cynicism and organizational commitment: A public bank's Konya Branches. Selcuk University Social Sciences Institute Journal, 1(35): 301-303.
Yazıcıoğlu, Y. and S. Erdoğan, 2014. SPSS applied scientific research methods. Ankara: Detail Publishing.
Yılmaz, B., 2015. The relationship between burnout syndrome and intention to leave in different generations. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Abant İzzet Baysal University Social Sciences Institute, Bolu.
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Journal of Tourism Management Research shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. |