AnAtoliA, 2016Vol. 27, no. 4, 456–467http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2016.1160416

Committed generations: a case study on generations X and Y employees in Saudi hotels

Mohamed Adel Mohamed Samy Mohsen 

Faculty of tourism and Hotels, Department of Hotel Studies, Minia University, Minia, Egypt

Introduction

The majority of employees working in organizations belong either to generation X (born 1965–1979), or to generation Y (born 1980–1999). Both generations include different ideologies, and perceptions towards work values, attitudes, and expectations (Crampton & Hodge, 2011; Yu & Miller, 2005), which include organizational commitment. Organizational commitment is defined as the psychological state that attaches employees to their employers (Allen & Meyer, 1990). It can be found in three forms: Affective, Continuance, and Normative. There is lack of literature that highlights any relation between generational attributes and organizational commitment; especially in the hospitality industry.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the relation between generational attributes of generations X and Y employees, and the three forms of organizational commitment in Saudi hotels. The study utilized LaMastro’s (2000) instrument to measure organizational commitment. This study is the first empirical study in the Middle East that focuses on organizational commitment and its correlation with employee generations based on the work values and perceptions using the three forms of organi-zational commitment. It contributes to the literature and methodology of organizational commitment.

Literature review

Employees are becoming more diverse and consequently more complex to manage (Crampton & Hodge, 2011). One of the significant elements of diversities in many service organizations (i.e. hotels)

ABSTRACTGeneration X and Y employees represent the core of the workforce. Organizational commitment can be found in three forms: Affective, Continuance, and Normative. However, there is a lack of literature that highlights any relation between generational attributes and organizational commitment; especially in the hospitality industry. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the relation between generational attributes of employees, and the three forms of organizational commitment in Saudi hotels. The study utilized an instrument to measure organizational commitment. Out of 900 forms distributed, 528 forms were successfully filled out. The study found that all forms of Organizational Commitment are significant to generation X employees, while Affective and Normative Organizational Commitment are significant to generation Y employees.

© 2016 informa UK limited, trading as taylor & Francis Group

KEYWORDSorganizational commitment; generation X; generation Y

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 20 october 2015 Accepted 28 February 2016

CONTACT Mohamed Adel Mohamed Samy Mohsen mohamed.mohsen@mu.edu.eg

ANATOliA 457

is the presence of various generations working together in teams. The term generation can be defined as a group of people who came along at the same time, experiencing history from the perspective of the same phase of life (Bickel & Brown, 2005). Another definition later used is that a generation is a peer group of people who are outlined by their demographics, and are influenced by common icons as well as events and conditions that they encountered throughout their lives (Borges, Manuel, Elam, & Jones, 2006).

Generally, four basic generational groups have been previously identified among researchers. The first group comprises Veterans (also known as Traditionalists or Silent Generation); and they were born from 1925 to 1945. The second group includes Baby Boomers; and they were born from 1946 to 1964. The third group represents generation X (also known as Baby Busters); and they were born from 1965 to 1979. The fourth group represents generation Y (also known as Nexters, Millenials, or Trophy Generation): Born from 1980 to 1999 (Crampton & Hodge, 2011). People who were born after year 2000 are juvenile and cannot be accountable for conducting the study.

Generation X

Generation X (Gen X) includes people who were born from 1965 to 1979. The fact that they were the children of the workaholic Baby Boomers have had its impact on their personality as they tend to feel overlooked and less appreciated. Consequently, they were taught to be self-reliant individuals (Crampton & Hodge, 2011).

In terms of work values, Gen Xers are known to be hard workers, if there is work–life balance (Beutell & Wittig-Berman, 2008; Bickel & Brown, 2005). They tend to be unimpressed by authority and they are reluctant to be committed to work relations (Larson, 2003). The levels of loyalty and trust in their employers are less compared to Baby Boomers (Crampton & Hodge, 2011). They would rather be loyal to their professions. They do not have much need for leadership as they have a high need for autonomy and flexibility in their lifestyles (Yu & Miller, 2005). In term of technology, Gen Xers are known to be eager to update knowledge and application into their work as they grew up with rapidly changing technology (Yu & Miller, 2005). They were the first generation to regularly use technology, considering it as a fact of life (Crampton & Hodge, 2011). In terms of job satisfaction, Gen Xers tend to focus a little more on life outside the job. They lower their standards about promotion or position if it suits their lifestyle. However, they will not be willing to exceed the requirements of their organizations (Appelbaum, Serena, & Shapiro, 2004; Yu & Miller, 2005).

Generation Y

Generation Y (Gen Y), also called the millennial generation, include people who were born from 1981 to 1999. They are the most educated, well-travelled and technologically sophisticated genera-tion. They seem to be more focused on the process rather than the outcome. They are not interested in making a lot of money as much as they are interested in contributing to their society and to their role as parents.

Compared to generation X, Gen Y people are far less extreme in their independence than their peers in Gen X. They are also less loyal to work compared to Baby Boomers (Crampton & Hodge, 2011). Generation Y has been affected by globalization, diversification, terrorism, and international crisis. They are products of the self-esteem movement in child rearing, education, and extra-curricular activities, where they were all declared winners. (Schlitzkus, Schenarts, & Schenarts, 2010). They often require more structure, guidance, and regular feedback. They prefer working collaboratively, require information individually tailored to them, and require technology that is available to use (Feiertag & Berge, 2008). In general, they are hopeful, ambitious, relaxed, and polite. They perceive leadership through collaboration and they are loyal to their team members (Larson, 2003). They prefer to have

458 M. A. M. S. MOHSeN

several options at work. They appreciate praise and recognition in public, regardless of the financial value of the prize (Bracy, Bevill, & Roach, 2010).

Gen Y employees expect open communication, regardless of the title and position. It is extremely important that hotel managers regularly conduct performance reviews for all employees and giving feedback; especially if there are a lot of Gen Ys working with them. They always seek empowerment and flexibility from their managers (Crampton & Hodge, 2011). Gen Y employees had realistic expectations of their first job and salary but were seeking rapid advancement and the development of new skills, while also ensuring a meaningful and satisfying life outside of work (Ng, Schweitzer, & Lyons, 2010).

Organizational commitment

The existence of organizational commitment is normally affiliated with the employees’ desire to stay in the organization. It answers the main question asked by the employee of whether to maintain his/her membership (employment) with the organization or not. No empirical studies have linked organiza-tional commitment directly with generational attributes, especially in the hospitality industry. However, there are several factors that were commonly found to be correlated with generational attributes as well as organizational commitment. For instance, organizational commitment was found to be correlated with job involvement (Blau, 1989; Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006; Huselid & Day, 1991; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002), with job performance (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Meyer et al., 2002), psychological empowerment (Raub & Robert, 2012), Job satisfaction (Tsai, Cheng, & Chang, 2010), and intention to leave (Allen, 2001; Camp, 1994; Chang, 1999; Cole, Bruch, & Vogel, 2006; Colquitt et al., 2001; Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006; Huselid & Day, 1991; Loi, Hang-Yue, & Foley, 2006; Meyer et al., 2002; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Sturges, Conway, Guest, & Liefooghe, 2005).

GEN X

GEN Y

Work-life balance

Communication Satisfaction

Loyalty & Trust

Career Development

Work Relationships

Fairness & Procedural

Justice

Organizational Commitment

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

ANATOliA 459

Organizational commitment was found to be significantly correlated with cultural values such as collectivism, power distance, doing orientation, and determinism (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001), work–family flexibility. In terms of workforce diversities, organizational commitment was found to be correlated with gender, age, and marital status. Organizational commitment increases among female employees, married employee, and senior-aged employees (Lok & Crawford, 1999; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1984).

There are three forms of organizational commitment: Affective, Continuance, and Normative Meyer and Allen (1991). Affective commitment refers to the degree of loyalty to the organization based on the employees’ involvement in and satisfaction for working in their organization. Continuance commit-ment indicates the employees’ degree of loyalty to the organization based on the amount of loss they would suffer if they leave the organization. Normative commitment indicates the degree of loyalty to the organization based on ethical obligation to continue working for a particular organization. There was no clear evidence in the literature of any correlation between age groups (Generations) on the one hand, and the three forms of organizational commitment on the other hand. However, certain factors in common may link between both variables.

In terms of work–family balance, Scandura and Lankau (1997) found the flexible work hours were correlated with organizational commitment for those having family responsibilities. Also, Allen’s (2001) study indicated that employees working in organizations with low support of work–life balance have low levels of organizational commitment and consequently high levels of intention to leave. Gen Xers are known to be hard workers, if their organization supports work–life balance (Bickel & Brown, 2005). They expect flexibility and freedom from their employers in order to enjoy quality of life (Yu & Miller, 2005). Meyer et al. (2002) found that work–family balance was correlated negatively with Affective commitment, and positively with continuance commitment. They found no correlation with normative commitment. It is therefore believed that work–life balance enhances the organizational commitment of Gen X employees.

In terms of loyalty and trust, Cook and Wall (1980) found a correlation with organizational commit-ment. Both Gens X and Y employees have low levels of loyalty and trust in their employers (Crampton & Hodge, 2011). Gen X employees would rather be loyal to their professions and skills (Yu & Miller, 2005); while Gen Y employees would rather be loyal to their team members (Larson, 2003). Therefore, it is believed that loyalty and trust strengthens the organizational commitment of both Gens X and Y employees.

In terms of procedural justice and fairness, Loi et al. (2006) found that it is correlated to organi-zational commitment. This includes adherence to the employer’s policy and the implication of it on all employees without any bias or partiality. According to Bracy et al. (2010), fairness is an important factor that affects Gen Y employees’ intention to leave. Therefore, it is believed that fairness and pro-cedural justice fosters the organizational commitment of Gen Y employees.

Organizational commitment may mediate between psychological contract fulfilment and career development behaviour aimed at furthering the career outside the organization (Sturges et al., 2005). Career development is considered as a priority to Gen Y employees (Ng et al., 2010). Therefore, it is believed that career development intensifies the organizational commitment of Gen Y employees.

Increased levels of stress tend to reduce levels of organizational commitment and increase levels of resistance to change, which is derived from negative work relations (Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005). No studies have highlighted any link between generational attributes and work stress. However, work relations have been linked with Gen Y employees as they consider people to be important in their job choices since they are interested in the social aspect of work (Ng et al., 2010). Therefore, it is believed that the positive work relations enhance the organizational commitment of Gen Y employees.

Varona (1996) found an explicit positive correlation between communication satisfaction and organizational commitment. Communication was found to be significantly essential to both Gens X and Y, despite the difference in communication approach (Crampton & Hodge, 2011). Therefore, it is believed that the communication satisfaction increases the organizational commitment of both Gens X and Y employees.

460 M. A. M. S. MOHSeN

Based on the previous literature, a conceptual framework is emerged in the study (Figure 1) showing the drivers that lead employees of both generations towards achieving organizational commitment. Generation X employees are committed to their organizations mainly through work–life balance, communication satisfaction, and loyalty and trust. Generation Y employees are committed to their organizations mainly through work–life balance, loyalty and trust, communication satisfaction, career development, work relations, and fairness and procedural justice.

Methodology

This case study was conducted in three five-star hotels in Saudi Arabia. The purpose of the study was to investigate the relation between the generational attributes of hotel employees, and the three forms of organizational commitment in Saudi hotels. The study aimed to identify the significant correlation between the three forms of organizational commitment and employees of both generations through the drivers that lead employees towards organizational commitment. The study utilized LaMastro’s (2000) instrument to measure organizational commitment. This study is the first empirical study in the Middle East that focuses on the connection between organizational commitment in hotels and to the generational attributes using the three forms of organizational commitment. It contributes to the literature and methodology of both organizational commitment in hotels and generational attributes of hotel employees.

The tool used (LaMastro, 2000) constitutes three main parts of organizational commitment. The first part is Affective Organizational Commitment (AOC) comprising nine items (questions). The sec-ond part is Continuance Organizational Commitment (COC) comprising seven items. The third part is Normative Organizational Commitment (NOC) comprising six items. The tool was utilized using a five-point Likert scale in which 5 indicated “strongly agree” and 1 indicated “strongly disagree”.

A pilot study was conducted prior to the current study. The pilot study showed that 91% of the employees working in the hotels used in the study in Saudi Arabia were born in or after 1965. The study was based on staffing reports from the hotel included in the study. Therefore, this study only focused on Gen X and Gen Y employees. Total number of Gen X employees was 115 respondents; while total number of Gen Y employees was 413 respondents. The pilot study also showed that employees of the three hotels used in the study were of 20 different nationalities from Europe, Africa, and Asia. Local employees only represented 22% of the research population. This result was in the favour of achieving the aim of the study as the multiple nationalities involved will reflect a more global concept of gen-erational attributes of employees working in these hotels, rather than if the population was focused only on one or two nationalities.

The case for the hotel chain

The three hotels used in this case study belong to an international hotel company that is currently managing over 1200 properties worldwide employing over 150,000 people. This company was chosen for the research for two main reasons. First, it is considered as one of the highly renowned hospitality companies in the world known by its global competitiveness and effectiveness in managing its work-force. Second, the researcher had strong contacts inside the properties that belong to the company, which enabled accessibility that was required to achieve research objectives. The study was conducted at properties in three different locations in Saudi Arabia, where 91% of the employees were born in or after 1965 according to the results of a pilot study that was conducted prior to the case study. Coincidentally, all participants in the study were either Gen X or Gen Y employees. Two main streams of data were collected in order to achieve the study’s aim.

ANATOliA 461

Survey data collection and analysis

After outputting the conceptual framework in the literature review, survey data were collected. Initially, a key informant in each property was identified in order to facilitate the distribution and collection process. This was followed by participants’ surveys, coding, data entry, and data analysis. Hotel employ-ees were selected to conduct the survey randomly without any form of partiality in favour of gender, nationality, or any other personal criteria. A total of 900 questionnaire forms were distributed in three different properties in Saudi Arabia. Subsequently, 528 forms were successfully filled out with a response rate of 58.66%. A computer software package (SPSS 21) was used to analyse data through two tests in the study. First, a Spearman bivariate correlation test was conducted to measure the correlation between each generation from one side and all variables of organizational commitment (individually) from the other side. Second, a Mann–Whitney test was used to measure the significance in between group differences in the three forms of organizational commitment (Affective, Continuance, and Normative) collectively to each generation based on scores.

Validity and reliability

Quantitative research require the implication of standards of validity and reliability (Creswell, 2013). A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in the study to test the factor structure of the measurement tool. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity resulted .000 significance. Kaiser–Myer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy resulted .173. Three hotels in three cities have been chosen for the case study. Twenty dif-ferent nationalities represented the population of the respondents which sustained the validity of the research. Respondents have been given enough time to understand and comprehend the questions in the tool (survey) in addition to the time taken to answer them and that also increased the validity of the research. In order to test reliability, a Cronbach’s Alpha test was used. The Cronbach’s Alpha result was .815; Cronbach’s Alpha based on standardized items is .915.

Table 1. Spearman and Mann–Whitney tests’ results.

Organizational Commitment Variables Significance Gen X Gen YAffective organizational commitment AoC1 .005 299.35 254.80

AoC2 .059 286.47 258.38AoC3 .000 316.67 249.97AoC4 .000 350.07 240.67AoC5 .000 278.52 214.15AoC6 .560 271.23 262.63AoC7 .802 261.58 265.31AoC8 .661 259.49 265.89AoC9 .005 230.12 274.07

Continuance organizational commitment CoC1 .005 230.33 274.02CoC2 .000 336.29 244.51CoC3 .000 358.78 238.25CoC4 .000 319.28 249.25CoC5 .000 317.14 249.84CoC6 .000 310.93 251.57CoC7 .068 286.41 258.40

normative organizational commitment noC1 .000 321.94 248.50noC2 .000 366.81 236.01noC3 .044 288.55 257.80noC4 .010 234.76 272.78noC5 .244 278.17 260.69noC6 .345 253.39 267.59

462 M. A. M. S. MOHSeN

Results

In order to analyse the data collected, a Spearman bivariate correlation test was conducted to measure the correlation between each generation from one side and all variables of Organizational Commitment (individually) from the other side. Also, a Mann–Whitney test was used to measure the signifi-cance of the three forms of organizational commitment (Affective, Continuance, and Normative) to employees of each generation. Affective Organizational Commitment variables have been coded AOC1–9; Continuance Organizational Commitment variables have been coded COC1–7; Normative Organizational Commitment variables have been coded NOC1–6. In each form of organization com-mitment, total mean ranks have been calculated to show the degree of agreement with each statement (variable) within the three forms (see Table 1). Higher mean ranks show stronger agreement and consequently, stronger commitment.

Affective organizational commitment

Affective Organizational Commitment indicates the degree of employees’ loyalty to the organization based on their involvement in and satisfaction for working in their organization (McMahon, 2007). In terms of Affective Organizational Commitment (AOC), generation X employees scored overall higher mean rank (289.39) than generation Y employees (257.57). Generation X employees scored higher mean rank in six (out of nine) AOC variables than did generation Y employees. AOC1: “I do not feel like part of a family at the hotel” was found to be significant to employees’ generation (p < .005) where Gen X employees’ scored mean rank (−299.35), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (−254.80). AOC2: “I feel emotionally attached to the hotel” was found to be significant to employees’ generation (p < .005) where Gen X employees’ scored mean rank (286.47), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (258.38).

AOC3: “Working at the hotel means a lot to me” was found to be significant to employees’ generation (p < .005) where Gen X employees’ scored mean rank (316.67), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (249.97). AOC4: “I feel a strong sense of belonging to the hotel” was found to be significant to employees’ generation (p < .005) where Gen X employees’ scored mean rank (350.07), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (240.67). AOC5: “The hotel does not deserve my loyalty” was found to be significant to employees’ generation (p < .005) where Gen X employees’ scored mean rank (−278.52), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (−214.15). In AOC6: “I am proud to tell others that I work at the hotel”, Gen X employees scored mean rank (271.23), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (262.63). In AOC7: “I would be happy to work at the hotel until I retire”, Gen X employees scored mean rank (261.58), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (265.31).

In AOC8: “I see problems faced by the hotel as my own problems”, Gen X employees scored mean rank (259.49), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (265.89). AOC9: “I enjoy discussing the hotel issues with people outside of it” was found to be significant to employees’ generation (p < .005) where Gen X employees scored mean rank (230.12), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (274.07).

These findings indicate that Gen X employees have scored high mean ranks in five out of six AOC variables that are significant to generation in general. Gen X employees achieved the highest mean rank in AOC4, which indicates that belonging to the hotel is a critical factor of their loyalty. On the other hand, Gen Y employees achieved the highest mean rank in AOC9, which indicates that most of them consider taking their work issues with them after work is an indicator of organizational commitment. After calculating the total of mean ranks for both generations, the findings show that the difference between both is very low (51.32), which clearly indicate that Affective Organizational Commitment is significant almost evenly to both Gen X employees and to Gen Y employees.

ANATOliA 463

Continuance organizational commitment of generations X and Y

Continuance commitment indicates the employees’ degree of loyalty to the organization based on the amount of loss they would suffer if they leave the organization (McMahon, 2007). In terms of Continuance Organizational Commitment (COC), generation X employees scored higher mean rank (336.03) than generation Y employees (244.58). Generation X employees scored higher mean rank in six (out of seven) COC variables than did generation Y employees. COC1: “I am not concerned about what may happen if I leave the hotel without having another offer elsewhere” was found to be significant to employees’ generation (p < .005) where Gen X employees scored mean rank (−230.33), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (−274.02). COC2: “It would be very hard for me to leave the hotel right now, even if I wanted to” was found to be significant to employees’ generation (p < .005) where Gen X employees scored mean rank (336.29), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (244.51).

COC3: “Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided to leave the hotel now” was found to be significant to employees’ generation (p < .005) where Gen X employees scored mean rank (358.78), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (238.25). COC4: “It wouldn’t be too costly for me to leave the hotel now” was found to be significant to employees’ generation (p < .005) where Gen X employ-ees scored mean rank (−319.28), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (−249.25). COC5: “Right now, staying with the hotel is a matter of necessity as much as desire” was found to be significant to employees’ generation (p < .005) where Gen X employees scored mean rank (317.14), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (249.84). COC6: “I cannot leave the hotel due to lack of available alterna-tives” was found to be significant to employees’ generation (p < .005) where Gen X employees scored mean rank (310.93), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (251.57). COC7: “I cannot leave the hotel as another hotel may not have the overall benefits I have here” Gen X employees scored mean rank (286.41), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (258.40).

These findings indicate that Gen X employees have scored high mean ranks in five out of six COC variables that are significant to generation in general. Gen X employees achieved the highest mean rank in COC3, which indicates that they are extremely concerned about the impact of their turnover on their lives. On the other hand, Gen Y employees achieved the highest mean rank in COC1, which indicates that those who are not committed to the organization are not concerned about the conse-quences of quitting their jobs without having other offers available. After calculating the total of mean ranks for both generations, the findings show that the difference between both is very high (312.63), which clearly indicate that Continuance Organizational Commitment is more significant to Gen X employees than to Gen Y employees.

Normative organizational commitment of generations X and Y

Normative commitment indicates the degree of loyalty to the organization based on ethical obli-gation to continue working for a particular organization (McMahon, 2007). In terms of Normative Organizational Commitment (NOC), generation X employees scored higher mean rank (305.67) than generation Y employees (253.04). Generation X employees scored higher mean rank in four (out of six) NOC variables than did generation Y employees. NOC1: “I do not feel any obligation to remain with the hotel” was found to be significant to employees’ generation (p <  .005). Gen X employees scored mean rank (−321.94), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (−248.50). NOC2: “Even if it was beneficial, I do not feel it would be right to leave the hotel now”, was found to be significant to employees’ generation (p < .005). Gen X employees scored mean rank (366.81), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (236.01).

NOC3: “I would feel guilty if I leave the hotel now”, was found to be significant to employees’ generation (p < .005). Gen X employees scored mean rank (288.55), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (257.80). NOC4: “The hotel deserves my loyalty”, was found to be significant to employees’ generation (p < .005). Gen X employees scored mean rank (234.76), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (272.78). NOC5: “It would be wrong to leave the hotel right now because of my obligation”,

464 M. A. M. S. MOHSeN

Gen X employees scored mean rank (278.17), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (260.69). NOC6: “I owe a lot to the hotel”, Gen X employees scored mean rank (253.39), while Gen Y employees scored mean rank (267.59).

These findings indicate that Gen X employees have scored high mean ranks in five out of six NOC variables that are significant to generation in general. Gen X employees achieved the highest mean rank in NOC2, which indicates that they would rather stay in their current jobs on the expense of other benefits. On the other hand, Gen Y employees achieved the highest mean rank in NOC4, which indicates that their loyalty to their employer is a reward that they give back in exchange for their satisfaction After calculating the total of mean ranks for both generations, the findings show that the difference between both is very low (50.09), which clearly indicate that Normative Organizational Commitment is significant to both Gen X employees and to Gen Y employees.

Drivers of organizational commitment for generations X and Y

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relation between both generations, and the three forms of organizational commitment in Saudi hotels. According to Bickel and Brown (2005), Gen X employees can be loyal to their employers when they have work–life balance. Gen Y employees are more loyal to their team members (Larson, 2003) than to their organizations (Crampton & Hodge, 2011). Based on the conceptual model derived from the literature and based on this study’s findings, an empirical model has developed (Figure 2).

The model explains the relation between organizational commitment and generations X and Y employees. The model shows the main drivers of organizational commitment for generations X employees (work-life balance, communication satisfaction, and loyalty and trust), and for genera-tion Y employees (communication satisfaction, loyalty and trust, career development, work relations, and fairness and procedural justice). The model also shows that generation X employees are drawn towards all forms of organizational commitment (Affective, Continuance, and Normative), while

Affective Organizational Commitment

Continuance Organizational Commitment

Normative Organizational Commitment

GEN X

GEN Y

Work-life balance

Communication Satisfaction

Loyalty & Trust

Career Development

Work Relationships

Fairness & Procedural

Justice

Organizational Commitment

Figure 2. Empirical model.

ANATOliA 465

generation Y employees are derived towards only two forms of organizational commitment (Affective and Normative).

Conclusion and implications

Generations X and Y employees have certain ideologies and perceptions towards work values, attitudes, and expectations. One of the issues that employers are concerned with for their employees is organiza-tional commitment. It is defined as the psychological state that attaches employees to their employers (Allen & Meyer, 1990). It can be found in three forms: Affective, Continuance, and Normative. The research was conducted as to explore the relation between generational attributes of hotel employees, and the three forms of organizational commitment in Saudi hotels. The focus of the study was to determine the link between the attributes of generations X and Y hotel employees with their organ-izational commitment on the three forms (Affective, Continuance, and Normative). In the process, relevant theoretical literatures were reviewed and a conceptual framework was developed involving the drivers that lead employees of both generations towards achieving organizational commitment.

The study concludes that Gen X employees are more committed to their organizations than Gen Y employees. This is due to three reasons. They are committed either because they are more involved and satisfied at work; or they feel or sense the negative consequences they would be liable for if they leave their jobs; or because they feel ethically obligated to stay with their employer in spite of the benefits they would obtain from another job. Gen X employees are more committed to their organ-izations when they find work–life balance, communication satisfaction, and/or loyalty and trust at their employer’s. The study also concludes that Gen Y employees are committed to their organizations for two reasons. They are committed either because they are more involved and satisfied at work; or because they feel ethically obligated to stay with their employers regardless of the advantages they would gain from other job offers. Gen Y employees are more committed to their organizations when they find communication satisfaction, loyalty and trust, career development opportunities, positive work relationships, and fairness and procedural justice at their employer’s.

The researcher would recommend that human resources team members and hotel department heads get oriented with the common attributes of their employees’ generations and the reasons behind their organizational commitment in order to reduce their employee turnover rate. It is also recommended that they all become aware of the drivers of organizational commitment for both generations to ensure their employees loyalty is always to the maximum.

A set of potential limitations of the study were the lack of key informants who can provide accessi-bility, hence only three hotels were available for the study. Also, some employees’ responses may have been affected by the potential lack of comprehension of the survey questions. There are several avenues for future research. One idea is to model the relationship between organizational commitment of hotel employees and their turnover intentions according to the generational cohorts. Another idea is to add another diversity detail to the relation explored in the current research such as employee nationality which may establish a new dimension to the relation between organizational commitment and gen-erational. Finally, it is interesting to investigate the attributes of generation Z (future employees) and their relation with organizational commitment from the same perspective.

ORCIDMohamed Adel Mohamed Samy Mohsen   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5800-7972

ReferencesAllen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 58, 414–435. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2000.1774

466 M. A. M. S. MOHSeN

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x

Appelbaum, S. H., Serena, M., & Shapiro, B. T. (2004). Generation X and the boomers: Organizational myths and literary realities. Management Research News, 27(11/12), 1–28. doi:10.1108/01409170410784635

Beutell, N. J., & Wittig-Berman, U. (2008). Work-family conflict and work-family synergy for generation X, baby boomers, and matures. Journal of Managerial Psych, 23, 507–523. doi:10.1108/02683940810884513

Bickel, J., & Brown, A. J. (2005). Generation X: Implications for faculty recruitment and development in academic health centers. Academic Medicine, 80, 205–210. doi:10.1097/00001888-200503000-00003

Blau, G. (1989). Using job involvement and organizational commitment interactively to predict turnover. Journal of Management, 15, 115–127. doi:10.1177/014920638901500110

Borges, N. J., Manuel, R. S., Elam, C. L., & Jones, B. J. (2006). Comparing millennial and generation X medical students at one medical school. Academic Medicine, 81, 571–576. doi:10.1097/01.acm.0000225222.38078.47

Bracy, C., Bevill, S., & Roach, T. D. (2010, July). The millennial generation: Recommendations for overcoming teaching challenges. In Proceedings of the Academy of Educational Leadership, 15, 21–25.

Camp, S. D. (1994). Assessing the effects of organizational commitment and job satisfaction on turnover: An event history approach. The Prison Journal, 74, 279–305. doi:10.1177/0032855594074003002

Chang, E. (1999). Career commitment as a complex moderator of organizational commitment and turnover intention. Human Relations, 52, 1257–1278. doi:10.1177/001872679905201002

Cole, M. S., Bruch, H., & Vogel, B. (2006). Emotion as mediators of the relations between perceived supervisor support and psychological hardiness on employee cynicism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 463–484. doi:10.1002/job.381

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25  years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425

Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39–52. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1980.tb00005.x

Crampton, S. M., & Hodge, J. W. (2011). Generation Y: Unchartered territory. JBER, 7, 1–6. doi:10.19030/jber.v7i4.2272Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.‏Feiertag, J., & Berge, Z. L. (2008). Training generation N: How educators should approach the net generation. Education

+ Training, 50, 457–464. doi:10.1108/00400910810901782Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same Same” but different? European Psychologist, 11, 119–127. doi:10.1027/1016-

9040.11.2.119Huselid, M. A., & Day, N. E. (1991). Organizational commitment, job involvement, and turnover: A substantive and

methodological analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 380–391. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.3.380Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment

in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 557–569. doi:10.2307/3069370

LaMastro, V. (2000). Commitment and perceived organizational support. National Forum of applied educational research journal, 13(3), 1–13.

Larson, D.L. (2003). Bridging the generation X gap in plastic surgery training: Part 1. Identifying the problem. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 112, 1656–1661. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000085601.98753.3e

Loi, R., Hang-Yue, N., & Foley, S. (2006). Linking employees’ justice perceptions to organizational commitment and intention to leave: The mediating role of perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 101–120. doi:10.1348/096317905x39657

Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (1999). The relationship between commitment and organizational culture, subculture, leadership style and job satisfaction in organizational change and development. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 20, 365–374. doi:10.1108/01437739910302524

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171

McMahon, B. (2007). Organizational commitment, relationship commitment and their association with attachment style and locus of control (unpublished Master of Science dissertation). Georgia Institute of Technology, USA.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372–378. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.372

Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89. doi:10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-z

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842

Ng, E. S. W., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. (2010). New generation, great expectations: A field study of the millennial generation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 281–292. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9159-4

ANATOliA 467

O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.492

Raub, S., & Robert, C. (2012). Empowerment, organizational commitment, and voice behavior in the hospitality industry: Evidence from a multinational sample. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54, 136–148. doi:10.1177/1938965512457240

Scandura, T. A., & Lankau, M. J. (1997). Relationships of gender, family responsibility and flexible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 377–391.

Schlitzkus, L. L., Schenarts, K. D., & Schenarts, P. J. (2010). Is your residency program ready for generation Y? Journal of Surgical Education, 67, 108–111. doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2010.03.00

Sturges, J., Conway, N., Guest, D., & Liefooghe, A. (2005). Managing the career deal: The psychological contract as a framework for understanding career management, organizational commitment and work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 821–838. doi:10.1002/job.341

Tsai, M. C., Cheng, C. C., & Chang, Y. Y. (2010). Drivers of hospitality industry employees’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job performance. African Journal of Business Management, 4, 4118–4134.

Vakola, M., & Nikolaou, I. (2005). Attitudes towards organizational change. Employee Relations, 27, 160–174. doi:10.1108/01425450510572685

Varona, F. (1996). Relationship between communication satisfaction and organizational commitment in three guatemalan organizations. Journal of Business Communication, 33, 111–140. doi:10.1177/002194369603300203

Yu, H., & Miller, P. (2005). Leadership style. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 35–50. doi:10.1108/01437730510575570

Copyright of Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism & Hospitality Research is theproperty of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or postedto a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users mayprint, download, or email articles for individual use.