Journal of Food Protection 87 (2024) 100200

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Food Protection

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfp

Research Paper

Does Foodservice Employees’ Burnout Influence Their In-role and Extra-role

Food Safety Behaviors? A Structural Modeling Approach
Jihee Choi ⇑
Queens College, The City University of New York (CUNY), Flushing, NY 11367, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Over the past decade, a number of previous studies have found a gap between employees’ food safety knowl-
Employee burnout edge and their food safety behavior. Thus, it is valuable to examine motivators (or demotivators) of employees’
Extra‐role food safety behaviors food safety behavior from a psychological perspective. The objective of this study is to investigate the relation-
Foodservice industry ships among employees’ burnout, job commitment, and food safety behaviors (in‐role and extra‐role). A total of
In‐role food safety behaviors
267 nonmanagerial restaurant employees participated in this study. The data were analyzed using structural
Job commitment
Structural equation modeling (SEM)
equation modeling (SEM). Findings reveal that colleague‐related burnout and work‐related burnout negatively
affect employee job commitment. In addition, employee job commitment is a major predictor of in‐role and
extra‐role food safety behaviors. The findings shed light on the effect of different types of burnout on food
safety behaviors, which in turn have significant implications for managers in the foodservice industry.

Foodborne illness is one of the leading causes of mortality globally. One of the factors demotivating food safety‐related behaviors of
According to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2015), one in ten foodservice employees is burnout. Job burnout refers to mental and
people becomes sick as a result of consuming unsafe food; 600 million physical exhaustion resulting from ongoing stress that can lead to a
cases of foodborne illness and 420,000 related deaths were reported lack of motivation when dealing with customers, colleagues, and the
every year. Surprisingly, although serving safe meals to customers is requirements of one’s job (Maslach & Jackson, 1981; Unanue et al.,
the main responsibility of foodservice employees, approximately 2017). The foodservice industry has a notoriously demanding work
97% of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States are associated environment, which often brings about employee exhaustion (Lu &
with food handling errors, especially unhygienic food handling in the Gursoy, 2016); as a result, high levels of burnout are prevalent among
foodservice industry (Baser et al., 2017; Tauxe, 2019). Thus, promot- foodservice workers. Unfortunately, emotional exhaustion plays a neg-
ing safe food handling practices will help to prevent foodborne illness. ative role in employees’ health and job commitment, which can ulti-
Over the past decade, previous studies (Green et al., 2007; Panchal mately lead to a decline in service quality and productivity at an
et al., 2014) have found a disconnect between employees’ knowledge organizational level (Silva et al., 2021; Sönmez et al., 2017). More
and their food safety behavior, noting that imparting knowledge may specifically, in the context of food safety, employees suffering from
not be sufficient to elicit the desired adherence to food safety protocols burnout may not put forth their best efforts in terms of proper work‐
and promote appropriate food safety behaviors among restaurant staff. related behaviors, even following food safety hygiene standards. Such
Thus, researchers (Guchait et al., 2016; Rossi et al., 2017) have employees are more likely to make food safety‐related errors and cause
recently become interested in a more thorough investigation of moti- or experience workplace accidents, thereby putting their customers at
vational (or demotivational) factors to fully understand the reason risk (e.g., foodborne illness outbreak) (Kristensen et al., 2005; Maslach
for such gaps in knowledge and behavior in the context of food safety & Jackson, 1981).
(de Freitas et al., 2019). Employees’ food safety behavior is positively Reasons for employee burnout in the foodservice context include
correlated with how they perceive the organizational climate high workload and intense routines; they need to serve large quanti-
(Sharman et al., 2020). Therefore, it is valuable to investigate motiva- ties, and a greater variety, of food, quickly and accurately, to cus-
tors (or demotivators) of employees’ food safety behavior from a psy- tomers who may be demanding or even rude (Silva et al., 2021). In
chological perspective. addition to the demanding work environment, insufficient job
resources, lack of guidance from a supervisor, and conflict with

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Jihee.choi@qc.cuny.edu

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfp.2023.100200
Received 23 September 2023; Accepted 24 November 2023
Available online 28 November 2023
0362-028X/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of International Association for Food Protection.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
J. Choi Journal of Food Protection 87 (2024) 100200

colleagues or supervisors were found to be major factors causing H1. Employee personal burnout is negatively associated with
employee burnout (Salpigktidis et al., 2016). Radic et al. (2020) have employee job commitment.
proposed a job demands‐resources model, asserting that employee H2. Employee colleague‐related burnout is negatively associated
burnout occurs when job demands (resulting from job pressure) and with employee job commitment.
increased workload are excessive, and the job‐related resources pro- H3. Employee work‐related burnout is negatively associated with
vided in the workplace are not sufficient for employees to perform employee job commitment.
their given tasks. On the other hand, when employees feel that they H4. Employee job commitment is positively associated with
are supported by their colleagues and supervisor, they are less likely employees’ food safety behaviors (in‐role behavior).
to feel mentally and physically drained in their workplace, which H5. Employee job commitment is positively associated with
can motivate them to provide optimal quality service to their cus- employees’ food safety behaviors (extra‐role behavior).
tomers and ultimately allows an establishment to maintain a high rep-
utation (Silva et al., 2021). Materials and Methods
In this study, we consider employee burnout as one of the factors
demotivating employee food safety behaviors. Based on previous liter- Sample and data collection Prior to data collection, the univer-
ature (Maslach & Jackson, 1981; Unanue et al., 2017), this study sity’s Human Subjects Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved all
focuses on three different sources of burnout: (1) personal, related to study‐related materials, including the survey questionnaire and
personal and family problems; (2) colleagues, related to conflict with research protocol. The sample was limited to nonmanagerial restau-
coworkers; and (3) work itself, related to characteristics of the employ- rant employees such as workers whose primary task was preparing
ee’s assigned tasks. While employee burnout in general has been exten- or cooking foods in the kitchen, in the United States. At the beginning
sively researched (Nascimento et al., 2022), no previous study has of the questionnaire, a screening question was asked as follows: “Are
specifically distinguished between the different types of foodservice you currently employed, or have you been employed within the last
employee burnout in a food safety setting. three years for at least 6 months as a nonmanagerial staff member,
An employee’s commitment to their organization has a positive link specifically in roles such as a cook or cook assistant, handling food
with enhanced food safety behaviors (Al Bayari et al., 2023; Taha in the back‐of‐house areas of a restaurant in the United States (exclud-
et al., 2020). Commitment signifies that employees feel their work is ing positions of managerial capacity, such as manager)?” Only respon-
meaningful to them, and that they respect their job and their supervi- dents who met the required criteria were eligible to answer the
sor (Fu & Deshpande, 2014; Meyer et al., 2002). More specifically, remaining survey questions. Ineligible participants were asked to stop
employees who are highly committed to their organization or job and exit the questionnaire. Given the purpose of this study, we
are more likely not only to work hard to fulfill expected goals but also excluded employees who have authority over the operation, such as
show willingness to go beyond their job requirements (e.g., helping managers. Employees who had not worked for at least six months or
coworkers with a food safety‐related problem) (Bani‐Melhem, 2020; had worked more than 3 years ago (i.e., were not employed as such
Dhar, 2015). The significant role of employee commitment in food now) in the restaurant industry were excluded to prevent any recall
safety behaviors has been proven in previous studies, which found that bias among respondents and reduce the risk of participants misremem-
employees who are highly engaged in the organization are less likely bering; this was done to improve the quality of data in terms of accu-
to commit food safety violations (Nascimento et al., 2022; Taha racy and validity.
et al., 2020). Given that employee commitment was found to be a The research model is composed of six constructs: level of personal,
strong antecedent to employees’ food safety behaviors, management colleague, and work burnout, commitment to the organization, and
support – which is a key element of employee commitment – is vital. food safety behaviors including in‐role and extra‐role. Each construct
Inspired by previous research (Al Bayari et al., 2023; Shen et al., was measured by several items derived from literature. For example,
2014; Tu et al., 2021), this study’s focus on employee food safety the different types of burnout – personal, colleague‐related, work‐
behavior is twofold: first, in‐role food safety behaviors such as compli- related – were evaluated with six items (e.g., I am often physically
ance with food safety‐related standards within the employee’s formal exhausted), 6 (e.g., I find it hard to work with colleagues), and seven
job tasks (i.e., the extent to which food safety‐related behavioral pro- items (e.g., I feel burnt out because of my work) respectively, derived
tocols or guidelines are followed), and second, extra‐role food safety from Silva et al. (2021). Employees’ affective organizational commit-
behaviors related to activities beyond formal job requirements which ment was assessed using six items adopted from Taha et al. (2020).
are beneficial for coworkers and the organization, such as voluntary To measure employees’ food safety behaviors, both in‐role and extra‐
participation in food safety‐related error management (i.e., the extent role, three and five items respectively were adopted from previous
to which employees voluntarily watch for and correct food safety‐ studies (Guchait et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2013). All measurements were
related errors by others within the organization). estimated using a seven‐point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree to
This study aims to examine the relationship between employee 7 = Strongly agree). Lastly, respondents’ demographic information
burnout and employee food safety behaviors by measuring employee was collected including gender, age, income, and marital status. The
commitment to the organization. The effects of foodservice employee online questionnaire was developed using Qualtrics and data were col-
burnout in the food safety setting are not well understood. Therefore, lected over the course of six months from January to June of 2023
this study addresses the following two questions: (1) Do different types through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (M‐turk), which is widely used
of employee burnout have different influences on employee job com- in hospitality research (Buhrmester et al., 2011). M‐turk is known as
mitment? (2) What are the positive food safety behavioral conse- an effective sampling tool in terms of demographic and geographical
quences in terms of compliance and participation? In order to diversity compared to other standard internet samples, which may
answer these research questions, this study empirically tests the rela- increase our findings’ generalizability. Additionally, previous studies
tionships between different types of employee burnouts (personal, in the field of hospitality human resource management have employed
colleague‐related, work‐related), employee job commitment, and M‐Turk, which proves it is a reliable method (Kim et al., 2017;
employee food safety behaviors (both in‐role and extra‐role). The find- Orlowski et al., 2016). Upon successful completion of the survey,
ings of this study will shed light on the influence of different types of $0.50 was deposited into each participant’s M‐turk account as an
burnout on food safety behaviors, which in turn will have important incentive for participation.
implication and guidance for managers in the foodservice industry. Data analysis. All data analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0
Based on previous literature, the following hypotheses are pro- and AMOS 22.0. To test the proposed model, including multiple simul-
posed (Fig. 1). taneous linear regressions, structural equation modeling (SEM) was

2
J. Choi Journal of Food Protection 87 (2024) 100200

Figure 1. Conceptual model and hypotheses.

used (Nachtigall et al., 2003). Following Anderson and Gerbing’s 727.819 with 487 degree of freedom (p < 0.001), with
(1988) two‐step approach, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was CFI = 0.975, IFI = 0.975, TLI = 0.973, and RMSEA = 0.04. TLI,
used to validate the measurements of proposed constructs in the IFI, and CFI values ranged from 0 to 1 with a number close to 1.00,
model, and SEM was used to evaluate the validity of the structural indicating acceptable fit (Byrne, 1998). The chi‐square/df ratio was
model and test the hypotheses. 1.494, below the standard threshold of 3.0 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Fig-
ure 2 shows the standardized path coefficients and their statistical sig-
nificance. Results of SEM analysis show that four out of five
Results
hypotheses were supported (Table 3). As shown in Figure 2, all except
H1 (β = 0.119, p > 0.05) were supported, and the support for H2
Descriptive statistics. After data screening to remove surveys with
(β = −0.316, p < 0.001) indicated a negative relationship between
missing values and invalid answers in the screening question, the final
colleague‐related burnout and employee commitment. The support
dataset was composed of 267 participants. Of the respondents, 74.3
for H3 (β = −0.240, p < 0.05) indicated a negative relationship
percent were male, and 25.7 percent were female. The majority of
between work‐related burnout and employee commitment. The sup-
respondents were Caucasian (71.4 percent). More than half of respon-
port for H4 (β = 0.810, p < 0.001) indicated a positive relationship
dents (58%) were between 18 and 33 years old (72.8 percent). In
between employee commitment and their food safety behavior (in‐
terms of work experience, more than half of respondents (58.7) had
role). The support for H5 (β = 0.559, p =< 0.001) indicated a posi-
five years or less work experience in the foodservice industry.
tive relationship between employee commitment and food safety
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Confirmatory factor analysis
behavior (extra‐role).
(CFA) was used to test the validity and reliability of the measurement
model (Anderson & Gerbing, 1998; Hair et al., 1998). The results indi-
cated an acceptable model fit. The χ2 estimate was 677.411, p Discussions and Conclusions
value = 0.000, χ2/df = 1.411. The results for other fit indices also
indicated an adequate model fit (CFI = 0.979, IFI = 0.980, Discussion. The present study examined the relationships between
TLI = 0.977, RMSEA = 0.04), with IFI, TLI, and CFI values between foodservice employee burnout, job commitment, and food safety
0 and 1 (Byrne, 1998) and the RMSEA value between 0.04 and 0.08 behaviors. Specifically, we explored how different sources of burnout
(Turner & Reisinger, 2001). (personal, colleague‐related, and work‐related) affect employees’ food
As shown in Table 1, internal consistency of the scale was tested safety‐related behaviors, both in‐role (e.g., whether employees are
through the composite reliability (CR) of each intended construct. willing to follow food safety protocols or guidelines) and extra‐role
All composite reliability values exceeded the minimum threshold of (e.g., whether employees are willing to participate in food safety‐
0.70, indicating sufficient internal consistency (Hair et al., 1998). related error management or error reporting) by measuring employee
The values for Cronbach’s alpha for measuring the internal consistency commitment toward their job. This study found that colleague‐related
of item scales were higher than 0.70 as shown (Nunnally & Bernstein, and work‐related burnout have a negative effect on employee commit-
1994). The convergent and discriminant validity of the measurement ment toward their job and that employee commitment affects
scales are given in Table 2 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Convergent employee food safety behaviors.
validity was confirmed by acceptable factor loadings, and all factor Given the exacerbating effects of increased employee burnout or
loadings were statistically significant at the level of 0.001 ranging job stress on food safety adherence in the dynamic environments
from 0.778 to 0.962 (Table 1). In addition, Average Variance Extracted wherein such employees work, it is critical to gain a fuller understand-
(AVE) values for all constructs were higher than 0.50, which is the ing of how these factors interact. We observed a significant association
standard value (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In addi- between employee burnout and employee job performance, which is
tion, for discriminant validity of the scale, all of the squared correla- consistent with results reported by previous studies (Baron & Kenny,
tion values between pairs of concepts were lower than the AVE for 1986; De Boeck et al., 2017; Radic et al., 2020; Tu et al., 2021). Our
each construct, thus all discriminant validities were adequately sup- results regarding a negative association between burnout and job per-
ported by CFA (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) (Table 2). formance also confirm Radic’s job demands‐job resources model
Structural model (SEM). Structural equation model (SEM) was (Radic et al., 2020), emphasizing that burnout is an indicator that
used to estimate the overall goodness of fit using AMOS. The SEM employees have insufficient resources to adequately perform their
results showed an acceptable model fit to the data. Chi‐square was work roles. Differing from previous studies that simply focused on

3
J. Choi Journal of Food Protection 87 (2024) 100200

Table 1
CFA results: items and loadings

Construct Mean Standard Standardized Composite

deviation factor loadings reliabilities

Personal burnout 0.964

I often feel tired. 4.221 1.800 0.891
I am often physically exhausted. 4.247 1.865 0.923
I am often emotionally exhausted. 4.333 1.926 0.932
I often think I can’t take it anymore. 4.273 1.908 0.903
I often feel worn out. 4.262 1.944 0.900
I often feel weak and susceptible to illness. 4.172 1.984 0.882
Colleague-related burnout 0.957
I find it hard to work with colleagues. 4.506 1.844 0.862
It drains my energy to work with colleagues. 4.397 1.942 0.884
I find it frustrating to work with colleagues. 4.355 1.934 0.894
I feel that I give more than I get back when I work with colleagues. 4.476 1.989 0.898
I am tired of working with colleagues. 4.247 2.003 0.901
I sometimes wonder how long I will be able to continue working with colleagues. 4.355 1.953 0.890
Work-related burnout 0.963
My work is emotionally exhausting. 4.299 1.789 0.863
I feel burnt out because of my work. 4.370 1.827 0.900
My work frustrates me. 4.258 1.836 0.859
I feel worn out at the end of the working day. 4.344 1.815 0.891
I am exhausted in the morning at the thought of another day at work. 4.299 1.885 0.907
I feel that every working hour is tiring for me. 4.340 1.935 0.907
I have enough energy for family and friends during leisure time. 4.269 1.958 0.898
Commitment 0.950
I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own. 4.580 1.739 0.853
I think that I could easily become as attached to another organization as I am to this one. 4.625 1.715 0.883
I do feel like ‘part of the family’ at my organization. 4.565 1.714 0.860
I do feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this organization. 4.603 1.736 0.872
This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. 4.745 1.699 0.865
I do not feel a ‘strong’ sense of belonging to my organization. 4.704 1.847 0.904
Food safety behaviors (in-role) 0.958
I intend to follow food safety practices during working hours. 0.962
I encourage others to follow food safety practices during working hours. 0.937
I try to set a good example of food safety practices for others to follow. 0.921
Food safety behaviors (extra-role) 0.910
After food safety errors have occurred, I analyze it thoroughly. 4.970 1.463 0.778
After people make food safety-related errors, I ask others for advice on how to continue. 4.913 1.564 0.796
When someone makes food safety-related errors, I share it with others so that they don’t make the same mistake. 4.861 1.494 0.826
For us, errors are very useful for improving the work process. 4.861 1.558 0.853
After making a mistake, I try to analyze what caused it. 4.962 1.569 0.838

Note: All factor loadings were significant at p < 0.001.

Table 2
AVE and correlations matrix

No. of items AVE Personal Colleague Work Commit In-role Extra-role

Personal 6 0.819 0.964a

0.292 b
0.374 −0.055 −0.142 0.033
Colleague 6 0.789 0.085c 0.957 0.765 −0.458 −0.49 −0.103
Work 7 0.791 0.139 0.585 0.963 −0.421 −0.547 −0.122
Commitment 6 0.762 0.003 0.209 0.17 0.950 0.803 0.558
In-role 3 0.883 0.020 0.24 0.29 0.64 0.958 0.499
Extra-role 5 0.669 0.001 0.014 0.010 0.310 0.249 0.910

Notes: aComposite reliability is indicated along the diagonal; bcorrelations are above the diagonal; csquared correlations are below the diagonal.

the effect of employee burnout in general on job commitment and food The results of this study indicate that colleague‐related burnout is
safety behaviors (Nascimento et al., 2022), this study confirmed that negatively associated with employee job commitment. In line with
different types of employee burnout can differently affect the employ- these findings, previous studies (Hofmann & Stokburger‐Sauer, 2017;
ee’s food safety behaviors. For instance, personal burnout was not sig- Kang & Jang, 2022) have also asserted that service employees’ emo-
nificant in predicting employee job commitment. Because no other tional exhaustion resulting from human factors in the workplace
previous studies have made a distinction among different types of (e.g., emotional labor required to deal with colleagues or customers)
employee burnouts in a food safety context, to the best of our knowl- negatively impacts employee job commitment. Therefore, foodservice
edge, this insignificant result regarding the effect of personal burnout managers should focus on devising effective strategies to prevent
on employee job commitment could not be verified against the work of employee burnout, especially burnout caused by human factors
others. However, we may assume that personal burnout is less relevant (Hakanen et al., 2008). Our findings regarding the negative correlation
to a person’s job compared to work‐related and colleague‐related burn- between work‐related burnout, job commitment, and food safety
out. Rather, organizational factors such as the perceived level of man- behaviors are confirmed by previous research on employee burnout
agement support would make employees more or less committed to in the hospitality context, highlighting that employee work burnout
their job or organization, as suggested by Wilins et al. (2017). has consistently been found to be closely related to work pressure,

4
J. Choi Journal of Food Protection 87 (2024) 100200

Figure 2. Structural equation model.

Table 3 est in understanding the factors affecting employees’ food safety

Standardized parameter estimates for the structural model behaviors in the foodservice industry, several studies (Al‐Shabib
Relationships Standardized t value Hypothesis
et al., 2016; Ehuwa et al., 2021; Hertzman & Barrash, 2007) have
estimate found that food safety knowledge alone does not necessarily lead to
adequate food safety practices. Thus, they emphasized a need to iden-
H1: Personal burnout and job 0.119 1.953 Not
commitment supported
tify other psychological factors that might motivate employees to prac-
H2: Colleague burnout and job −0.316 −3.385 Supported tice proper food safety behaviors (Choi, 2022) Most food safety
commitment research to date has concentrated on organizational factors and cogni-
H3: Work burnout and job commitment −0.240 −2.514 Supported tive factors affecting food safety behaviors; investigation of psycholog-
H4: Job commitment and food safety 0.810 15.830 Supported
ical factors is relatively new in the food safety setting (de Andrade
behaviors (in-role)
H5: Job commitment and food safety 0.559 8.531 Supported et al., 2020). Therefore, the present study extends the scope of food
behaviors (extra-role) safety research and fills a literature gap by investigating the conver-
gence of employee burnout, job commitment, and food safety behav-
iors. Second, while previous studies related to food safety have
which may negatively impact employees’ work outcomes (de Andrade utilized comprehensive scales to measure employee burnout in gen-
et al., 2020). Moreover, according to the job demands‐job resources eral, the current study separately tested different types of employee
model suggested by Radic et al. (2020), work‐related burnout is worse burnout, categorized as personal, colleague‐related, and job‐related.
in more demanding and intense work environments with high work- By doing so, the results provide a more detailed explanation as to
loads and an absence of resources and support (Salpigktidis et al., how different types of burnout affect employee job commitment and
2016). When employees feel that their job is very demanding and that food safety behaviors. In addition, most previous studies considered
they do not have sufficient resources necessary for carrying out that employee burnout as an endogenous variable in their research models.
job, this can trigger feelings of stress and ultimately result in work‐ By examining the potential consequences of employee burnout, our
related burnout, in turn causing lower job commitment and less con- findings provide a useful foundation for researchers wishing to exam-
scientious, or even dysfunctional, behavior (Jung & Kim, 2012). ine the impact of employee burnout on job performance in the foodser-
In regard to the relationship between employee job commitment vice industry. Third, in addition to the previously researched topic of
and food safety behavioral intentions, the findings of this study are food safety behavioral intention as a predictor of future food safety
consistent with those of previous studies (Al Bayari et al., 2023; behaviors, this study adds the element of employees’ extra‐role food
Griffith et al., 2010) which found that employee food safety behavior safety behaviors (e.g., voluntary participation). Lastly, although this
is positively related to employee job commitment. In other words, study was conducted in a restaurant setting in relation to its examina-
employees’ affective organizational commitment was found to be a tion of employees’ food safety behaviors, research into noncommercial
crucial element in enhancing food safety performance and establishing foodservice settings (e.g., schools, hospitals) will also benefit from the
a good food safety culture (Taha et al., 2020). Since job commitment expanded understanding of the relationship between employee burn-
represents the employee’s involvement in their organization and may out and food safety behaviors.
influence the sense of obligation to that organization, employees Practical implications. This study’s findings have several practical
who are highly committed to their company are more likely to actively implications for the foodservice industry. First, given that employee
follow food safety guidelines and provide suggestions for solving food burnout is negatively associated with employee job commitment
safety‐related issues or problems than employees who are not. Our (Hakanen et al., 2008), understanding the role of psychological factors
findings suggest that companies would be wise to exert their fullest in managing food safety is key to mitigating the risk of foodborne ill-
efforts towards reducing the presence of stressors that bring about ness in the foodservice industry. Our findings provide a more concrete
employee burnout, in order to encourage employee commitment and framework for understanding how different types of employee burnout
thus promote adequate food safety behaviors (De Boeck et al., 2017; influence employee food safety behaviors. Thus, the findings of this
Ivancevich et al., 1990) study can be useful in developing customized employee stress inter-
Theoretical implications. The findings of this study have valuable vention strategies tailored for the different types of employee burnout,
academic implications. First, in line with the growing academic inter- to minimize psychosocial risks and ensure employees’ well‐being in

5
J. Choi Journal of Food Protection 87 (2024) 100200

the workplace. Moreover, by evaluating its employees’ stress levels on Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
a regular basis, an organization can address problems before they lead
Bani-Melhem, S. (2020). What mitigate and exacerbate the influences of customer
to burnout. Different techniques such as relaxation training or medita- incivility on frontline employee extra-role behaviour? Journal of Hospitality and
tion may be beneficial (Pienaar & Willemse, 2008). Second, based on Tourism Management, 44, 38–49.
the findings of this study, and noting that organizational commitment Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
plays a crucial role in employees’ food safety behaviors, a company Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
would be well advised to ensure that its employees feel adequately Baser, F., Ture, H., Abubakirova, A., Sanlier, N., & Cil, B. (2017). Structural modeling of
supported by the company, as this could be key to increased employee the relationship among food safety knowledge, attitude and behavior of hotel staff
in Turkey. Food Control, 73, 438–444.
commitment, which will in turn yield better outcomes in terms of Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new
proper food safety behaviors (Wilkins et al., 2017). For example, food- source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6
service managers could offer flexible work schedules, allowing (1), 3–5.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic
employees to balance their work and personal lives. They could offer concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
fair wages, practice salary transparency, and/or provide a comfortable Choi, J. (2022). Investigating motivators for managing customers with food allergies in
work environment. All of these contribute to making employees feel ethnic restaurants. Journal of Food Protection, 85(12), 1875–1882.
de Andrade, M. L., Stedefeldt, E., Zanin, L. M., & da Cunha, D. T. (2020). Food safety
that their work is valued, which promotes a positive mindset and culture in food services with different degrees of risk for foodborne diseases in
increases employee commitment (“The company is doing something Brazil. Food Control, 112 107152.
good for me; I will do my best for the company”). De Boeck, E., Mortier, A. V., Jacxsens, L., Dequidt, L., & Vlerick, P. (2017). Towards an
extended food safety culture model: Studying the moderating role of burnout and
Limitations and future studies. There are some limitations in the
jobstress, the mediating role of food safety knowledge and motivation in the
current study. First, we employed a cross‐sectional research design. relation between food safety climate and food safety behavior. Trends in Food Science
Longitudinal studies are needed to investigate potential causal effects & Technology, 62, 202–214.
over time. Second, we employed a questionnaire for the current study, de Freitas, R. S. G., da Cunha, D. T., & Stedefeldt, E. (2019). Food safety knowledge as
gateway to cognitive illusions of food handlers and the different degrees of risk
which may create an inherent language bias. Future researchers may perception. Food Research International, 116, 126–134.
consider replicating the study with diverse languages, which would Dhar, R. L. (2015). Service quality and the training of employees: The mediating role of
contribute to increased generalizability of the results as well as adding organizational commitment. Tourism Management, 46, 419–430.
Ehuwa, O., Jaiswal, A. K., & Jaiswal, S. (2021). Salmonella, food safety and food
cultural diversity. Third, we measured employees’ food safety behav- handling practices. Foods, 10(5), 907.
ioral intentions as dependent variables; future research might utilize Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
different methods to measure or observe actual food safety behaviors. unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18
(1), 39–50.
Fourth, the context of this study was the restaurant industry; a compar- Fu, W., & Deshpande, S. P. (2014). The impact of caring climate, job satisfaction, and
ison of commercial and noncommercial (e.g., schools, hospitals, organizational commitment on job performance of employees in a China’s insurance
assisted living facilities, prisons) would contribute to a broader under- company. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, 339–349.
Green, L. R., Radke, V., Mason, R., Bushnell, L., Reimann, D. W., Mack, J. C., ... Selman,
standing of the landscape. Fifth, while the current study verified C. A. (2007). Factors related to food worker hand hygiene practices. Journal of Food
whether respondents were currently, or had been recently, working Protection, 70(3), 661–666.
in the United States using a screening question and employed an effec- Griffith, C. J., Livesey, K. M., & Clayton, D. (2010). The assessment of food safety
culture. British Food Journal, 112(4), 439–456.
tive sampling tools in terms of geographical diversity (M‐Turk), we did
Guchait, P., Neal, J. A., & Simons, T. (2016). Reducing food safety errors in the United
not collect a participant’s specific location. It would be interesting to States: Leader behavioral integrity for food safety, error reporting, and error
investigate whether the relationship between employee burnout and management. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 59, 11–18.
food safety behaviors differs depending on geographic location. Lastly, Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
desirability biases could be a limitation of any study of food safety Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Ahola, K. (2008). The job demands-resources model:
behaviors, since such behaviors are often subject to social norms and A three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work
expectations. Employees might perceive certain answers as more engagement. Work & stress, 22(3), 224–241.
Hertzman, J., & Barrash, D. (2007). An assessment of food safety knowledge and
socially acceptable or desirable. Finally, while we relied on quantita- practices of catering employees. British Food Journal, 109(7), 562–576.
tive methods (a survey), qualitative methods like interviews or focus Hofmann, V., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2017). The impact of emotional labor on
groups could provide deeper insights for future studies. employees’ work-life balance perception and commitment: A study in the hospitality
industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 65, 47–58.
Ivancevich, J. M., Matteson, M. T., Freedman, S. M., & Phillips, J. S. (1990). Worksite
stress management interventions. American Psychologist, 45(2), 252.
Declaration of competing interest
Jung, J., & Kim, Y. (2012). Causes of newspaper firm employee burnout in Korea and its
impact on organizational commitment and turnover intention. The International
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(17), 3636–3651.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ- Kang, J., & Jang, J. (2022). Frontline employees' emotional labor toward their co-
workers: The mediating role of team member exchange. International Journal of
ence the work reported in this paper. Hospitality Management, 102 103130.
Kim, S., Tam, L., Kim, J. N., & Rhee, Y. (2017). Determinants of employee turnover
intention: Understanding the roles of organizational justice, supervisory justice,
Acknowledgment authoritarian organizational culture and organization-employee relationship
quality. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 22(3), 308–328.
Kristensen, T. S., Borritz, M., Villadsen, E., & Christensen, K. B. (2005). The Copenhagen
This research was funded by a Professional Staff Congress—The
burnout inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work & Stress, 19(3),
City University of New York (PSC‐CUNY) Start‐Up Funds (#90922‐ 192–207.
05 08). Lee, J. E., Almanza, B. A., Jang, S. S., Nelson, D. C., & Ghiselli, R. F. (2013). Does
transformational leadership style influence employees’ attitudes toward food safety
practices? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 282–293.
References Lu, A. C. C., & Gursoy, D. (2016). Impact of job burnout on satisfaction and turnover
intention: Do generational differences matter? Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 40(2), 210–235.
Al Bayari, J., Taha, S., Suliman, A., & Osaili, T. M. (2023). The role of food handlers’
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal
religious and organizational commitment in food hygiene practices: A structural
of Organizational Behavior, 2(2), 99–113.
modeling approach. Food Control, 150 109732.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,
Al-Shabib, N. A., Mosilhey, S. H., & Husain, F. M. (2016). Cross-sectional study on food
continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of
safety knowledge, attitude and practices of male food handlers employed in
antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1),
restaurants of King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. Food Control, 59, 212–217.
20–52.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
Nachtigall, C., Kroehne, U., Funke, F., & Steyer, R. (2003). Pros and cons of structural
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(30),
equation modeling. Methods Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 1–22.
411–423.

6
J. Choi Journal of Food Protection 87 (2024) 100200

Nascimento, L. G. P., da Silva, A. M. C., Stedefeldt, E., & da Cunha, D. T. (2022). Job Silva, C. T., Hakim, M. P., Zanetta, L. D. A., Pinheiro, G. S. D. D., Gemma, S. F. B., & da
crafting and burnout as predictors of food safety behaviors in the foodservice Cunha, D. T. (2021). Burnout and food safety: Understanding the role of job
industry. Foods, 11(17), 2671. satisfaction and menu complexity in foodservice. International Journal of Hospitality
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Management, 92 102705.
Orlowski, M., Murphy, K. S., & Severt, D. E. (2016). Conflict and commitment in the Sönmez, S., Apostolopoulos, Y., Lemke, M. K., Hsieh, Y. C. J., & Karwowski, W. (2017).
restaurant industry: Perceptions from the generation Y viewpoint. Journal of Complexity of occupational health in the hospitality industry: Dynamic simulation
Foodservice Business Research, 20(2), 218–237. modeling to advance immigrant worker health. International Journal of Hospitality
Panchal, P. K., Carli, A., & Dworkin, M. S. (2014). Identifying food safety knowledge Management, 67, 95–105.
gaps among restaurant food handlers in Bolzano, Italy. Food Protection Trends, 34(2), Taha, S., Osaili, T. M., Vij, A., Albloush, A., & Nassoura, A. (2020). Structural modelling
83–93. of relationships between food safety knowledge, attitude, commitment and
Pienaar, J., & Willemse, S. A. (2008). Burnout, engagement, coping and general health behavior of food handlers in restaurants in Jebel Ali Free Zone, Dubai, UAE. Food
of service employees in the hospitality industry. Tourism Management, 29(6), Control, 118 107431.
1053–1063. Taha, S., Wilkins, S., Juusola, K., & Osaili, T. M. (2020). Food safety performance in food
Radic, A., Arjona-Fuentes, J. M., Ariza-Montes, A., Han, H., & Law, R. (2020). Job manufacturing facilities: The influence of management practices on food handler
demands–job resources (JD-R) model, work engagement, and well-being of cruise commitment. Journal of Food Protection, 83(1), 60–67.
ship employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 88 102518. Tu, Y., Li, D., & Wang, H. J. (2021). COVID-19-induced layoff, survivors’ COVID-19-
Rossi, M. D. S. C., Stedefeldt, E., da Cunha, D. T., & de Rosso, V. V. (2017). Food safety related stress and performance in hospitality industry: The moderating role of social
knowledge, optimistic bias and risk perception among food handlers in institutional support. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 95 102912.
food services. Food Control, 73, 681–688. Turner, L. W., & Reisinger, Y. (2001). Shopping satisfaction for domestic tourists.
Tauxe, R. (2019). Outbreak: Foodborne Illness and the Struggle for Food Safety. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 8(1), 15–27.
Emerging Infectious Diseases, 25(12), 2342. Unanue, W., Gómez, M. E., Cortez, D., Oyanedel, J. C., & Mendiburo-Seguel, A. (2017).
Salpigktidis, I. I., Paliouras, D., Gogakos, A. S., Rallis, T., Schizas, N. C., Chatzinikolaou, Revisiting the link between job satisfaction and life satisfaction: The role of basic
F., ... Barbetakis, N. (2016). Burnout syndrome and job satisfaction in Greek psychological needs. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 680.
residents: Exploring differences between trainees inside and outside the country. Wilkins, S., Butt, M. M., & Annabi, C. A. (2017). The effects of employee commitment in
Annals of Translational Medicine, 4(22). transnational higher education: The case of international branch campuses. Journal
Sharman, N., Wallace, C. A., & Jespersen, L. (2020). Terminology and the understanding of Studies in International Education, 21(4), 295–314.
of culture, climate, and behavioural change–Impact of organisational and human World Health Organization (2015). WHO estimates of the global burden of foodborne
factors on food safety management. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 96, 13–20. diseases: Foodborne disease burden epidemiology reference group 2007–2015. World
Shen, J., Benson, J., & Huang, B. (2014). High-performance work systems and teachers’ Health Organization https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/199350.
work performance: The mediating role of quality of working life. Human Resource
Management, 53(5), 817–833.