-
http://cqx.sagepub.com/Cornell Hospitality Quarterly
http://cqx.sagepub.com/content/55/4/408The online version of
this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1938965513517171 2014 55: 408 originally published
online 27 December 2013Cornell Hospitality Quarterly
Xinyuan (Roy) Zhao, Hailin Qu and Jingyan LiuLeisure
Intentions
Family Conflicts and TheirAn Investigation into the Relationship
between Hospitality Employees' Work
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Cornell University School of Hotel Administration
can be found at:Cornell Hospitality QuarterlyAdditional services
and information for
http://cqx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://cqx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
What is This?
- Dec 27, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Sep 22, 2014Version of Record >>
at Bibliotheques de l'Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 on November 14,
2014cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Bibliotheques de l'Universite
Lumiere Lyon 2 on November 14, 2014cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/http://cqx.sagepub.com/content/55/4/408http://www.sagepublications.comhttp://www.chr.cornell.eduhttp://cqx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://cqx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://cqx.sagepub.com/content/55/4/408.full.pdfhttp://cqx.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/12/27/1938965513517171.full.pdfhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://cqx.sagepub.com/http://cqx.sagepub.com/
-
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly2014, Vol. 55(4) 408 421 The
Author(s) 2013Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI:
10.1177/1938965513517171cqx.sagepub.com
Focus on Human Resources
Numerous researchers and observers have studied the hos-pitality
industrys job characteristics, which create role con-flicts between
work and family domains, and which in turn increase job tension
(Hinkin and Tracey 2010; Karatepe, Babakus, and Yavas 2012;
Netemeyer, Johnston, and Burton 1990). Because job tension can
diminish employee perfor-mance, achieving workfamily balance may
serve as a stra-tegic advantage for hospitality management
(Kusluvan et al. 2010; Xiao and ONeill 2010). Tactics here include
family-friendly human resource practices, and encouraging leisure
activities, which have often been suggested as an offset to the
common stressors in work and family domains, and as a release for
counterproductive work attitudes (Lerner-Baron 2007). Accordingly,
the issue of hospitality employees desire to relax or to
participate in social events takes on a more central position, and
is important for employers to consider. However, we have seen only
limited research regarding what kinds of hospitality employees
lei-sure intentionspersonal relaxation or social interactionwould
be stronger for releasing workfamily conflict stress.
The purpose of this study, therefore, is to investigate how
hospitality employees workfamily conflicts influ-ence job tension
and, ultimately, how those conflicts affect leisure intentions. We
do this by examining the extent to which the two dimensions of
workfamily conflict (i.e., work interfering with family and family
interfering with work) increase individuals job tension. The
results of our study will not only extend workfamily conflict
research but also may inspire hospitality organizations to
establish or expand family-friendly practices.
Research on workfamily conflict has primarily focused on Western
countries and has generally overlooked other national contexts
(Casper et al. 2007), but it is likely that the nature of the
workfamily interface may vary in different cultures (Ford, Heinen,
and Langkamer 2007). However, a number of recent studies suggest
that the differences may not be so great, despite some variations.
Aryee, Fields, and Luk (1999) noted similarities between Chinese
and American cultures in the relationships among work and family
variables. Moreover, work demand has not been found to be
significantly different between China and the United States (Yang
et al. 2000). Kuchinke et al.s (2010) study has shown a similar
high incidence of work as a cen-tral life concern, as well as a
primacy of family involve-ment, in the United States, Brazil, and
Korea. P. Wang, Lawler, and Shi (2011) noted that workers in China,
India, Kenya, and Thailand have many similarities in the effect of
family-friendly policies on workfamily conflict, but they also
identified notable variations.
Given the level of participation in Chinas workforce, China may
have workfamily conflict issues (Ling and Powell 2001). More than
80 percent of urban Chinese
517171 CQXXXX10.1177/1938965513517171Cornell Hospitality
QuarterlyZhao et al.research-article2013
1Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China2Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater, USA
Corresponding Author:Xinyuan (Roy) Zhao, Business School, Sun
Yat-Sen University, S456 Shan Heng Hall, #135 Xin Gang Xi Lu,
Haizhu District, Guangzhou 510275, China. Email:
[email protected]
An Investigation into the Relationship between Hospitality
Employees WorkFamily Conflicts and Their Leisure Intentions
Xinyuan (Roy) Zhao1, Hailin Qu1,2, and Jingyan Liu1
AbstractA study of 271 employees in four full-service hotels in
China found that workfamily conflict directly influences
hospitality employees social and relaxation intentions. Moreover,
these relationships are not mediated by job tension. In practical
application, hospitality organizations can maximize return from
these results by encouraging employees to take (or by providing)
appropriate leisure activities that will help them to effectively
cope with work and family role conflicts.
Keywordsworkfamily conflict, relaxation intention, social
intention, job tension, hospitality industry
at Bibliotheques de l'Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 on November 14,
2014cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
mailto:[email protected]://cqx.sagepub.com/
-
Zhao et al. 409
women between the ages of sixteen and fifty-four are employed,
accounting for nearly 40 percent of the total urban labor force
(Ling and Powell 2001). More than 90 percent of urban families are
headed by working parents, a percentage similar to that of the
United States. Coupled with this growth in the labor force over the
last three decades, the total number of hotels in China has
multiplied from 137 in 1978 to 14,099 in 2008. This astonishing
growth has created human resources challenges for Chinese
hospitality organizations (Kong and Baum 2006), including the
awareness of facilitating employees need to balance work and family
demands (Ling and Powell 2001). Workfamily conflict has become a
critical concern not only in China but also in the hospitality
industry worldwide, and oftentimes it is a cause for high labor
turnover, poor morale, and low employee performance and commitment
(Karatepe and Aleshinloye 2009; Karatepe and Bekteshi 2008;
Karatepe and Olugbade 2009; Karatepe and Uludag 2008; Perrewe,
Hochwarter, and Kiewitz 1999; S. Wong and Ko 2009; Yavas, Babakus,
and Karatepe 2008).
Theoretical Framework
The Role of Leisure in Coping with WorkFamily Conflict
An essential component in the analysis of work and leisure is
workfamily conflict, which captures the aspects of mutually
incompatible workfamily demands that generate role conflicts and
pressure (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985). As the hospitality industry
requires that employees work odd hours and on weekends and
holidays, employees must be both willing and able to sacrifice time
that is needed for fulfilling family responsibilities. Workfamily
conflicts that result from these demands reflect the
incompatibility between role demands for work and those for family.
When coping resources are limited, this situation generates high
stress levels (Karatepe and Baddar 2006; Karatepe and Olugbade
2009).
Studies of the utility of leisure have demonstrated that leisure
is an effective method for coping with the significant strains of
workfamily conflict (Yoshitaka Iwasaki et al. 2006; Yoshitaka
Iwasaki, Mactavish, and Mackay 2005). Relaxation could help
employees to buffer workfamily conflict strains, recover
psychological resources taxed in working, decrease the negative
emotions resulting from workfamily conflict, and maintain their
personal life agenda (Hecht and Boies 2009; Saxbe, Repetti, and
Graesch 2011).
Second, leisure participation has been shown to pro-vide a type
of social support (e.g., companionship and friendship; Iso-Aholo
and Park 1996; J.-Y. Wong and Lin 2007), which occurs when social
events allow employees to build closer personal relationships with
coworkers and
supervisors. This may help employees to find and use resources
for coping more effectively with job and family demands (Cheung and
Tang 2009).
Third, leisure time is part of the three-pronged construct of
timework, family, and leisurethat in combination can develop a
sense of personal well-being (Chan and Wyatt 2007; Hultman and
Hemlin 2008). Participation in leisure activities such as sports,
outdoor recreation, and fitness sig-nificantly increases positive
emotional spillover ( = .24, p < .05) and life satisfaction ( =
.21, p < .05; Hecht and Boies 2009). Vacation travel can also
add personal experi-ences that affect the various life domains in
positive ways (Sirgy et al. 2011). Leisure has the potential to
arouse posi-tive emotions in life (95% confidence interval [CI] =
[54.72, 56.77])even more than career progress (95% CI = [51.10,
54.35]) and a fulfilling intimate relationship (95% CI = [51.39,
52.82]; Pinquart and Silbereisen 2010).
As we indicated above, we have found no research that examines
individuals leisure intentions under a stressful workfamily
conflict condition in a non-Western culture. Although a planned
leisure coping style works better than a sole avoidance leisure
coping style in terms of buffering job stress (Tsaur and Tang
2012), the extent to which leisure activities are successful in
addressing job stress may also depend on the different meanings of
leisure for people with various cultural backgrounds (Walker and
Wang 2009). Leisure studies of the Chinese culture have focused on
the individual differences (e.g., personality types) in leisure
activities and experience (Lu and Hu 2005; Tang 1987), while more
recent studies have been interested in leisure constraints (Dong
and Chick 2012) and patterns of activity (Jim and Chen 2009). These
studies of leisure constraints explain the factors restricting
Chinese peoples leisure par-ticipation, but do not sufficiently
illustrate why persons actively choose relaxation-related leisure
activities or social leisure activities. In a hierarchical model of
leisure con-straints, Chinese individuals leisure intentions
determine their participation or nonparticipation in leisure under
the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural types of
con-straints (Zhang et al. 2012). A further study of the role of
relaxation and social leisure intentions in workfamily con-flict
stress coping may fulfill the research gap that we have
identified.
The concept we investigate is that participation in lei-sure
programs would afford hospitality employees an ave-nue for
releasing stress levels, for refreshing energy levels, and for
promoting work and family balance. It would be realistic to expect
that hospitality organizations would ben-efit as well, due to lower
absenteeism and higher job satis-faction, leading to increased
productivity (Parks and Steelman 2008). An even more effective
investigation of the role of leisure in workfamily conflict can be
devel-oped through recognition that workfamily conflict con-sists
of two interdependent dimensions: work interfering
at Bibliotheques de l'Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 on November 14,
2014cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
-
410 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 55(4)
with family and family interfering with work (Frone, Russell,
and Cooper 1992a). Work interfering with family represents the
impact of the work domain on aspects of the hospitality workers
family life, while family interfering with work reflects the
effects of the family domain on work outcomes. The following
sections will propose direct and indirect influences on different
types of leisure intentions of work interfering with family and
family interfering with work.
WorkFamily Interference as It Relates to Leisure Intentions
Leisure intentions demonstrate the human motivation to use
leisure participation as an escape from regular work and family
environments, and as a mechanism for releasing anxiety and stress
(Mannell and Kleiber 1997). Leisure intentions represent
individuals intrinsic motivation, their engagement of time and
effort, and the reward expectations of participating in leisure
activities. As well, the intentions determine passive or active
participation and subjective meanings of leisure (Walker and Wang
2009). For example, both western and Chinese studies found that
people are intrinsically motivated to join leisure activities
(i.e., Canadian and Chinese college students; see Walker and Wang
2008).
In contrast to certain types of leisure activities, relax-ation
and social intentions refer to subjective meanings of leisure in
individuals viewpoint, and play critical roles in motivating people
to participate in distinct types of leisure activities (Mannell and
Kleiber 1997). Relaxation inten-tions reflect individuals
motivation to escape from the pressures of daily life and to search
for calm and peaceful places. Individuals who pursue relaxation
activities may do so to recover from physical tiredness, to release
mental stress, or to refresh energy. Social intentions,
correspond-ingly, represent the motivation to build and maintain
com-panionship, friendship, and feelings of belonging (Ryan and
Glendon 1998). People who pursue social activities may desire to
escape from the stressful situation of working alone to reduce
psychological tension or to increase a sense of belonging. Studies
of Chinese people have found that commonly indicated activities are
joining home-based and outdoor social activities (e.g., chatting
with family mem-bers or playing mahjong; Yin 2005). This fact may
reflect the influences of Taoism among the Chinese people in
seek-ing balanced workfamilyleisure life (Moneta 2004).
Because leisure has been portrayed as a mechanism for balancing
work and family demands, workfamily conflict triggers individuals
relaxation and social intentions (Hantrais, Clark, and Samuel
1984). When hospitality employees encounter interference that
creates an imbalance in their relationship with work and family,
they are more likely to seek relaxation and social types of leisure
(Eden
1990). Consequently, this study focuses on the influence that
workfamily conflict imposes on the relaxation and social types of
leisure intentions. Because work and family boundaries are
asymmetrically permeable, work interfering with family should more
frequently have a stronger effect on individuals attitudes and
behaviors than family interfer-ing with work (Frone, Russell, and
Cooper 1992b). The long working hours of hospitality jobs often
prevent employees from participating fully in family
responsibili-ties, and from having opportunities for leisure-time
physi-cal activities (Artazcoz et al. 2009). Research on the
relationship of work, family, and leisure can be conflicting. An
investigation of Chinese hospitality employees found that family
interfering with work is more closely related to job and life
satisfaction than is work interfering with family (Zhao, Qu, and
Ghiselli 2011). Several studies also argue that work, family, and
leisure are independent life domains because it was found that
achievements in work and family life were not significantly
associated (Pinquart and Silbereisen 2010; Wiese, Freund, and
Baltes 2000).
In response to these contradictory findings, our study examines
the relationship of work interfering with family and family
interfering with work to leisure intentions, and proposes that work
interfering with family and family inter-fering with work, as
distinct components of workfamily conflict, relate to hospitality
employees relaxation and social intentions in different ways. When
encountering work interfering with family, hospitality employees
need relaxation and social activities to buffer work strains and to
live in comfort. Through relaxation and social activities,
hospitality employees can separate themselves from exces-sive work
role demands, while also increasing their sense of control
regarding the boundaries among work, family, and leisure domains.
On the contrary, when facing interference from family to work,
breadwinners may have to concentrate on fulfilling job obligations,
and are then less likely to par-ticipate in relaxation and social
activities. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1a: Work interfering with family positively affects
hospitality employees relaxation intentions.Hypothesis 1b: Family
interfering with work negatively affects hospitality employees
relaxation intentions.Hypothesis 2a: Work interfering with family
positively affects hospitality employees social
intentions.Hypothesis 2b: Family interfering with work negatively
affects hospitality employees social intentions.
The Mediating Roles of Job Tension
Job tension, often recognized by psychological or psychoso-matic
symptoms (Netemeyer, Johnston, and Burton 1990), is a common
workplace concern, and studies have consistently reported the
strong positive association between work and
at Bibliotheques de l'Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 on November 14,
2014cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
-
Zhao et al. 411
family role conflict and job tension (Allen et al. 2000). King
and Kings (1990) meta-analysis, for instance, reports the
correlation between the role conflict of work and family, and the
tensions imposed by the job, as r = .28; Netemeyer, Johnston, and
Burton (1990) found the correlation as r = .44. Hospitality
industry jobs often lead employees to reluctantly endure job
tension from workfamily conflict (Artazcoz et al. 2009; Chung and
Chung 2009), and leisure such as participating in relaxation
activities is proposed as a way to mitigate workfamily conflict
stress (Cheung and Tang 2009; Kreiner, Hollensbe, and Sheep 2009;
Lapierre et al. 2012; Md-Sidin, Sambasivan, and Ismail 2010). Thus,
hos-pitality employees facing job tension should have increased
intent to search out appropriate leisure participation (Hultman and
Hemlin 2008; Law 2011).
Again, the mixed evidence of recent studies indicates a need to
further examine the relationships of these factors. For example, in
Hecht and Boiess (2009) investigation of Canadian university
faculties, the relaxation type of leisure activities (e.g., sports,
recreation, and fitness) had no sig-nificant effects on burnout or
negative emotional spillover. Halbeslebens (2006) meta-analysis
also shows that non-work social support such as establishing
friendship, increas-ing a sense of belonging, and other social
types of leisure was not as important as work-related sources of
social support.
Given the negative outcomes of job tension, we propose that job
tension is a partial mediator in the relationships of work
interfering with family and family interfering with work to
relaxation and social intentions, so that low inter-ference in
either direction means that employees feel less job tension. In
this comfortable situation, their intention to participate in
leisure activities for relaxation and social con-nections may also
be lessened. On the contrary, when hos-pitality employees encounter
greater levels of work interfering with family or family
interfering with work, they will perceive higher levels of job
tension and will be more likely to seek out leisure activities.
Therefore, we hypothe-size the following:
Hypothesis 3: Job tension is a partial mediator in the
relationships of work interfering with family and family
interfering with work to relaxation and social intention, and
positively influences relaxation and social intention.
Method
Procedure
For our study, we conducted a field survey of one hundred
employees at each of four full-service hotels in the Pearl River
Delta region of China, for a total of four hundred respondents.
These hotels have a similar business scale and target market. We
distributed a survey packet to employees
who were randomly selected from an employee list pro-vided by
the human resources department. Participants were informed that the
research was intended solely for aca-demic purposes, and that their
participation was voluntary and anonymous. The packet explained,
however, that their survey participation was important, because the
results would ultimately be conveyed to the hotel management, with
recommendations for family-friendly human resource policies and
line management practices. Employees were allowed one week to fill
out the surveys and return them to the investigators by mail.
Measures
We investigated the workfamily demands of both married and
single individuals, as suggested by Casper, Weltman, and Kwesiga
(2007), and we provided inclusive definitions of family and related
demands on the survey for both groups.
To examine relaxation and social intentions, the study used
seven items with factor loadings above .70, from the shortened
Beard and Ragheb Leisure Motivation Scale developed by Ryan and
Glendon (1998). Participants were asked about what they would like
to do at the end of their workday using responses to a series of
statements on a 7-point Likert-type scale anchored by 1 = strongly
disagree and 7 = strongly agree. Three items, which measured social
intention, asked respondents about their intention to estab-lish
and sustain existing relationships (i.e., I want to be with others,
I want to have a good time with friends, and I want to build new
friendships). The following four items examined relaxation
intentions: I want to relax men-tally, I want to be in a calm
atmosphere, I want to relax physically, and I want to avoid the
hustle and bustle.
Workfamily conflict was measured with six items from Grandey,
Cordeiro, and Crouters (2005) inventory. Three items measured work
interference with family (e.g., My job keeps me from spending time
with my family mem-bers), and the other three items measured family
interfer-ence with work (e.g., My family demands make it hard for
me to do my job well). Job tension was examined by the following
three items developed by Schaubroeck, Cotton, and Jennings (1989):
My job causes me a great deal of personal stress and anxiety,
Relations with the people I work with cause me a great deal of
stress and anxiety, and General aspects of the organization I work
for tend to cause me a great deal of stress and anxiety).
Results
Respondent Profiles
Of the 400 employees who received questionnaires, 271 provided
valid responses (response rate = 67.8%). At 54.4 percent, the
number of female respondents slightly
at Bibliotheques de l'Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 on November 14,
2014cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
-
412 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 55(4)
outnumbered the males. Approximately 25 percent of the employees
sampled had an education level below high school (27.7%) and almost
half of participants (46%) had graduated from high school, and so
respondents with col-lege-level education were rare. Well over
two-thirds of the participants (71.3%) were single or living on
their own. Respondents, on average, were 26.08 years old (SD =
6.68) with 5.35 years of work experience (SD = 5.73). The aver-age
number of dependents for each respondent was 3.82 (SD = 1.73), a
number that may seem high for such a youth-ful group. With the
aging of Chinas society and due to the influences of the one-child
policy, it would be typical for one hospitality employee to have
sole responsibility for his or her parents and grandparents, and
probably for other family members. Of the survey participants, 58
percent were line employees, and the remainder worked at a
super-visory or managerial level. We believe that our sample was
reasonably representative, because the hotels human resources
managers confirmed that the samples demo-graphic characteristics
were similar to those of their staff. In addition, the multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) results of our study indicate that at
p > .10 level, the demo-graphic patterns of surveyed employees
do not significantly differ from one hotel to another, and recent
investigations in the Chinese hospitality industry have found
similar profiles of employees (e.g., Hon 2012; Hon and Leung 2011;
X. Li, Sanders, and Frenkel 2012; Shen and Huang 2012; J. Wang and
Wong 2011).
Given the family responsibilities of these respondents, we are
able to fill a research gap by investigating workfamily issues for
employees who are single and relatively young. By contrast, the
main focus of workfamily conflict studies is typically on
dual-earner families (Brummelhuis and Van Der Lippe 2010; Casper,
Weltman, and Kwesiga 2007; Hammer and Zimmerman 2011). Despite what
might seem a fairly autonomous lifestyle, the relatively young
hospitality employees in this study are not without interfer-ence
from conventional work, family, and leisure domains, and they are,
of course, subject to the hospitality industrys standard job
conditions involving irregular and sometimes excessive work
demands.
Scale Validity and the Measurement Model
Using the two-step approach of structural equation modeling
(SEM) suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), we con-ducted a
series of statistical tests, including a confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA), to evaluate psychometric properties (i.e.,
convergent and discriminant validity) of study vari-ables, and to
assess the measurement model (see Exhibit 1). Cronbachs alpha
values of study constructs ranged from .75 to .87, which exceeds
the suggested cutoff value of .70 (Hair et al. 2006; Nunnally and
Bernstein 1994). The composite reliability (CR) values are well
above the cutoff point of .70,
the average variances extracted (AVEs) exceed the .50 cutoff
value, and the bivariate correlation coefficients are lower than
the square-root AVE for entire variables (Fornell and Larcker
1981). Finally, the results of testing the five-factor CFA
measurement model (i.e., work interfering with family, family
interfering with work, job tension, relaxation inten-tion, and
social intention) suggest that the measurement model fits
adequately for the data: 2(179) = 314.17 (p < .01), goodness of
fit index (GFI) = .88, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) = .85,
confirmatory fit index (CFI) = .92, IFI = .93, and root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) = .06 (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). Four
items (one each in family interfering with work, job tension,
relaxation intention, and social intention) are, however,
cross-loaded as indicated in the modification indices (MIs) and
expected parameter changes (EPCs). MIs and EPCs indicate whether
the hypothesized model has been appropriately described and reflect
the evidence of model misfit (Byrne 2001). After the four
cross-loading items were excluded from the model and the covariance
values of two-pair measurement items error terms were estimated,
the fitness indices improved: 2(108) = 177.26 (p < .01), GFI =
.92, AGFI = .89, CFI = .95, IFI = .95, and RMSEA = .05.
Next, to examine the potential internal validity concerns of
common method bias, we applied Harmans single-factor test
(Podsakoff et al. 2003). A factor analysis with a vari-max rotation
in which all measurement items are entered extracts four factors
(initial Eigen value 1) from all survey items. The factors account
for 58.11 percent of the varia-tion, while the first and largest
factor does not account for the majority of the variance (23.89%).
An additional factor analysis with a varimax rotation was conducted
with the revised measurement model excluding cross-loading items.
Four factors were also extracted (initial Eigen value 1). This time
the factors accounted for 60.48 percent of the variation, while the
first, largest factor still did not account
Exhibit 1:Descriptive Statistics (N = 271).
M SD CR AVE (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1. WIF 3.79 1.46 .77 .84 .64 .80 2. FIW 2.78 1.43 .76 .86 .67
.21** .82 3. JT 3.52 1.94 .75 .87 .68 .17** .27** .83 4. RI 5.84
1.32 .87 .91 .72 .09 .08 .05 .85 5. SI 5.89 1.27 .78 .87 .68 .09
.09 .06 .69** .83Age 26.08 6.68 .15* .23** .12 .07 .03DP 3.82 1.73
.10 .00 .04 .04 .00
Note. CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance
extracted; WIF = work interfering with family; FIW = family
interfering with work; JT = job tension; RI = relaxation intention;
SI = social intention; DP = number of dependents. Numbers indicated
in bold on the diagonal denote the square root of the AVE.*p <
.05. **p < .01.
at Bibliotheques de l'Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 on November 14,
2014cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
-
Zhao et al. 413
Exhibit 2:Comparing Average Levels of WIF and FIW in Various
Contexts.
Study Gender Country Industry
WIF FIW
n M SD t M SD t
The present study Female China Hotels 130 3.54 1.38 2.71 1.39
Grandey, Cordeiro, and
Crouter (2005)Female USA Various occupations 174 1.31 1.06
10.22** 2.09 1.28 1.14
Kinnunen et al. (2010) Female Finland Random sample 239 2.38
1.18 1.22 1.35 0.63 6.92**Cohen and Liani (2009) Female Israel
Nurses and hospital staff 168 2.40 0.82 1.23 1.94 0.75 .04Yavas,
Babakus, and Karatepe
(2008)Female Turkey Hotels 342 3.81 2.93
The present study Male China Hotels 109 3.96 1.47 2.98 1.42
Grandey, Cordeiro, and
Crouter (2005)Male USA Various occupations 174 1.35 0.97 12.09**
1.96 1.21 1.21
Kinnunen et al. (2010) Male Finland Random sample 239 2.59 1.18
1.81* 1.48 0.68 7.02**Yavas, Babakus, and Karatepe
(2008)Male Turkey Hotels 381 3.53 2.80
The present study Overall China Hotels 239 3.79 1.46 2.78 1.43
Namasivayam and Zhao (2007) Overall India Hotels 93 4.00 1.73 1.12
2.85 1.55 .39Karimi (2009) Overall Iran Four organizations 387 3.80
1.21 .09 2.91 1.13 1.26Zhao, Qu, and Ghiselli (2011) Overall China
Hotels 121 4.29 1.72 2.89** 2.33 1.30 2.91**Matsch et al. (2009)
Officers USA Air Force office 170 3.70 0.90 10.04** 2.56 0.99
5.68**Matsch et al. (2009) Spouse USA 170 3.50 0.97 7.80** 1.97
0.82 .17Chen and Kao (2011) Overall Taiwan, China Flight attendants
252 3.45 0.60 9.74** 2.73 0.65 9.68**Rode et al. (2007) Overall USA
Air Force personnel 1,086 4.07 1.27 15.48** 2.95 1.14 12.06**Judge,
Ilies, and Scott (2006) Overall USA Administration 74 2.56 0.69
1.14 2.03 0.57 .36Post et al. (2009) Overall USA Scientists and
engineers 938 4.62 1.50 7.68** 4.26 1.45 14.13**Hassan, Dollard,
and Winefield
(2010)Overall Malaysia Four industries 506 2.72 0.61 .21 2.58
0.55 10.31**
Note. WIF = work interfering with family; FIW = family
interfering with work.
for the majority of the variance (17.71%). Thus, the
possi-bility that the common method bias can inflate or deflate the
relationships between the variables is a minor concern in the
follow-up data analysis.
Descriptive Statistics
As can be seen in Exhibit 1, the participants, on average,
reported higher levels of work interfering with family (M = 3.79,
SD = 1.46) than family interfering with work (M = 2.78, SD = 1.43),
and, furthermore, work interfering with family was positively
correlated with family interfering with work (r = .21, p < .01).
Work interfering with family (r = .17, p < .01) and family
interfering with work (r = .27, p < .01) were positively
correlated with job tension. The average levels of relaxation
intention (M = 5.84, SD = 1.32) and social intention (M = 5.89, SD
= 1.27) were simi-larly high. Relaxation and social intentions were
signifi-cantly associated with each other (r = .69, p < .01),
which was consistent with previous leisure investigations (Ryan and
Glendon 1998). Job tension did not demonstrate
significant relationships with relaxation intention (r = .05, p
> .10) or social intention (r = .06, p > .10).
Comparing Average Interference Levels with Other Cultures
To elaborate on these findings, we conducted a series of mean
comparisons to test how average levels of work inter-fering with
family and family interfering with work vary across different
samples and contexts. Following Hassan, Dollard, and Winefields
(2010) procedure, we patterned our next analysis on the progeny of
Grandey, Cordeiro, and Crouters (2005) study, which were culled
from the Social Science Citation Index and PsycINFO databases.
Based on the thirteen selected studies, we converted all means and
standard deviations to 7-point scales. We then conducted a series
of t-tests to compare our findings on the average levels of work
interfering with family and family interfering with work with those
of twelve studies conducted in various nations (see Exhibit 2).
First, female respondents of this study have levels of work
interfering with family similar to
at Bibliotheques de l'Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 on November 14,
2014cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
-
414 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 55(4)
those of employees in Finland (Kinnunen et al. 2010) and Israel
(Cohen and Liani 2009), but higher than that of people in the
United States (Grandey, Cordeiro, and Crouter 2005). Family
interfering with work for these female respondents was not
significantly different from that of employees in the United States
and Israel, but was greater than that of employ-ees in Finland.
Second, the male respondents of our study had significantly higher
levels of work interfering with fam-ily than were found for
employees in Finland (Kinnunen et al. 2010) and in the United
States (Grandey, Cordeiro, and Crouter 2005), whereas the family
interfering with work lev-els in the study of Finnish employees
were higher, but those for employees in the United States were not.
Third, compari-son with the range of related studies shows that
Chinese hotel employees in our study have different levels of work
interfering with family than do such other disparate groups: U.S.
Air Force officers and their spouses (Matsch et al. 2009), Chinese
Taiwan flight attendants (Chen and Kao 2011), U.S. Air Force
personnel (Rode et al. 2007), and U.S. scientists and engineers
(Post et al. 2009). The Chinese respondents levels of family
interfering with work were, on average, close to those of Indian
hotel employees (Namasivayam and Zhao 2007), Iranian employees
(Karimi 2009), U.S. administrators (Judge, Ilies, and Scott 2006),
and Malaysian workers (Hassan, Dollard, and Winefield 2010).
However, the average levels of family interfering with work of
respondents in our study were greater than those of Chinese hotel
managers, but lower than those of U.S. Air Force officers and their
spouses, Chinese Taiwan flight attendants, U.S. Air Force
personnel, U.S. scientists and engineers, and Malaysian
workers.
Taken together, the average levels of work interfering with
family and family interfering with work showed mixed results across
gender, country, and industry. Thus, we con-clude that no universal
model is available for simultaneously examining workfamily conflict
issues across persons, groups, or contexts. We observe that our
participants responses have greater similarities to those of
employees in American than those outside the United States. We also
note that these hotel employees have significantly lower work
interfering with family and greater family interfering with work
than Chinese hotel managers did (Zhao, Qu, and Ghiselli 2011). In
addition, the average work interfering with family and family
interfering with work levels in both our study and the other
thirteen studies vary with the refer-ence group, lifestyles, living
costs, and other such constructs. That said, we caution that the
findings of all these studies were from self-reported
perceptions.
The Structural Model and Hypothesis Tests
We used three steps to examine the structural model. First, the
structural model with original measures was examined: 2(180) =
437.17 (p < .01), GFI = .85, AGFI = .81, IFI = .86,
CFI = .85, and RMSEA = .06 (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). The
modification misspecification results indicate that the error
covariance between relaxation and social intentions was high (MI =
94.398, EPC = .73), which may decrease the model fitness indices.
We conjecture that the high error covariance was a result of using
items of relaxation and social intentions that were from two
dimensions of the same scale.
In accordance with the CFAs, the four cross-loading items were
then excluded from the structural model. The modified structural
model was then tested: 2(95) = 225.49 (p < .01), GFI = .89, AGFI
= .85, IFI = .89, CFI = .88, and RMSEA = .05. The error covariance
between relaxation and social intentions (MI = 7.20, EPC = .16)
raises less concern.
With consideration of the critical roles played in workfamily
conflict by age (e.g., Matthews, Bulger, and Barnes-Farrell 2010)
and the number of dependents (e.g., Bhave, Kramer, and Glomb 2010),
these two demographic variables were included in the structural
model to control for their potentially confounding effects. The
model was an adequate fit for the data, 2(117) = 189.76 (p <
.01), IFI = .94, CFI = .94, and RMSEA = .05, while three
significant covariance values exist among exogenous variables: work
interfering with family and family interfering with work (0.72, p
< .01), age and family interfering with work (2.29, p < .01),
and age and the number of dependents (1.29, p = .05).
The standardized path coefficients (as shown in Exhibit 3) were
applied to test the hypotheses. Work interfering with family has
significant positive impact on job tension ( = .26, p = .01) and
relaxation intention at = .10 level ( = .28, p = .07), but not on
social intention ( = .01, p = .93). Therefore, Hypothesis 1a is
supported, but not Hypothesis 2a. Second, family interfering with
work has positive effects on job tension ( = .14, p = .03), but a
negative impact on relaxation intention at = .10 level ( = .20, p =
.08) and social intention at = .05 level ( = .22, p = .02).
Hypotheses 1b and 2b are thereby supported. In addition, job
tension has significant influence on relaxation intention at = .10
level ( = .13, p = .06), but not on social intention ( = .01, p =
.87). Job tension partially mediates the relationship of workfamily
conflict (i.e., both work interfering with family and family
interfering with work) to relaxation intention, but not to other
relationships. Hypothesis 3 is, then, partially sup-ported.
Finally, both control variables (age and number of dependents) have
insignificant relationships to job tension, relaxation intention,
and social intention.
Discussion
In this study, we determined that work interfering with fam-ily
and family interfering with work both have a positive impact on job
tension, which positively influences relax-ation intention. Work
interfering with family has a directly positive relationship to
relaxation intention, while family
at Bibliotheques de l'Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 on November 14,
2014cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
-
Zhao et al. 415
interfering with work surprisingly has directly negative
relationships to both relaxation and social intentions.
Theoretical Implications
Although we are in agreement with the general stance of the
literature regarding the effects of workfamily conflict on leisure
intentions, we argue that, for hospitality employees, work
interfering with family and family interfering with work may have
different patterns of relationships to relax-ation and social
intentionsa view confirmed by these research findings. Let us look
at the following differential findings: work interfering with
family has a positive rela-tionship for relaxation intentions,
while family interfering with work has negative relationships for
both relaxation and social intentions. These findings may be
explained by the theoretical notion that these employees family
boundaries are more permeable than their work boundaries (Frone,
Russell, and Cooper 1992b). That is, their work demands are more
likely to interfere with family life than their family lives are to
intrude on work responsibilities. When excessive work demands
interrupt family obligations, individuals seek relaxation. But when
family interferes with work, these hos-pitality employees redouble
their efforts at work, perhaps because they are afraid that
indulging in relaxation and social activities will prevent them
from achieving satisfac-tory work performance. Future research
could examine the extent to which role boundary permeability may
form differ-ent behavioral patterns for hospitality employees. For
exam-ple, in addition to workfamily conflict scales, a follow-up
study could apply the multidimensional measurement of
workleisure conflict (Tsaur, Liang, and Hsu 2012) to
inves-tigate how work, family, and leisure interact in determining
individuals stress and well-being.
Second, this study clarifies the different relationships of job
tension to relaxation and social activities. The job ten-sion that
comes from work interfering with family caused these employees to
seek relaxation rather than social inter-action. However, the job
tension that comes from family interfering with work caused this
group of employees to avoid both relaxation and social activities.
Future studies could examine this intriguing dichotomy and assess
the role and effect of specific leisure activities within the
different contexts of hospitality employees work and family
situa-tions. In addition, future research should recognize that
workfamily conflict may play a role not only in hospitality
employees job tension, but also in individuals life tension. Both
job tension and life tension would be taken into con-sideration in
the follow-up studies. Compared with tension and burnout, work
stress may also be a more proximal out-come of workfamily conflict.
Future investigations may find useful results from illustrating the
role an individuals stress plays in the relationship of workfamily
conflict and leisure intentions.
As we indicated above, our study results fill a gap by extending
specific knowledge about workfamily conflict of hospitality
employees in China. Our findings resonate with other scholars
suggestions that persons in Eastern cul-tures may have different
workfamily conflict issues than persons in the Westsuggestions
heretofore not supported with empirical findings. The comparisons
presented here indicate that it may not be appropriate to attribute
cultural
Exhibit 3:The Tested Model.
Work Interferingwith Family
Family Interferingwith Work
Job Tension
Relaxation Intention
Social Intention
.28 (Hypothesis 1a)
.26**(Hypothesis 3) .13
(Hypothesis 3) .01.14*
.22* (Hypothesis 2b)
.01 (Hypothesis 2a)
.20 (Hypothesis 1b)
Age
Number ofDependents
.07 .02
.02
.01
.04
.01
Note. 2(117) = 189.76 (p < .01), IFI = .94, CFI = .94, and
RMSEA = .05. Paths that are not significant at p < .10 are shown
as dashed lines for simplicity. The standardized path coefficients
are given with corresponding hypotheses. IFI = incremental index of
fit; CFI = confirmatory fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error
of approximation.p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
at Bibliotheques de l'Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 on November 14,
2014cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
-
416 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 55(4)
differences simply to various country origins. In the future,
the understanding of workfamily conflict in China can be enhanced
even more by investigating deep-level cultural variations (values,
beliefs, and norms) such as Confucian ideology, cultural image of
life success, collectivism versus individualism, and gender
egalitarianism (Aycan 2008; Law 2011; Rao and Indla 2010).
Taken together, the results of this study elaborate on the
relatively limited knowledge about balancing work stress with life
stress. Although it is possible to view work, family, and leisure
as three separate domains, the fact is that when employees
encounter demanding workloads, they have less opportunity to take
care of family affairs. As a consequence, they may perceive high
role conflict and low control over their life events. In this
circumstance, hospitality employees would have stronger intentions
for breaking away from work (through leisure-time activities).
In contrast, it is worth noting the outcome that occurs when
hospitality employees experience excessive family responsibilities
and demands that prevent them from per-forming as expected at work.
The resulting job tension seems to cause these employees to feel
pressured to sepa-rate from family issues as they seek a balance
between work and non-work life events. In this case, they are
likely to increase their focus on work tasks at the expense of
social and relaxation activities. Future studies could take this a
step further, investigating the self-regulation demonstrated by
these hospitality employees as they distribute resources among
work, family, and leisure domains, and considering the impact of
these self-regulation processes on personal well-being.
Practical Implications
In an effort to construct family-friendly work environments,
hospitality organizations have established such human resource
policies as flexible work schedules for employees with special
family demands. In addition, hospitality employ-ees are encouraged
to participate in various types of leisure activities, to help them
cope with job stress created by workfamily conflict. Results of
this study support a view that lei-sure activities are critical for
balancing work and family demands, and for increasing overall
quality of life. In particu-lar, relaxation activities may be an
effective method for releasing the stress imposed by interference
that ranges from excessive workloads to family
responsibilities.
Generally, our findings suggest that hospitality organiza-tions
should take opportunities for relaxation into consider-ation when
establishing a family-friendly culture for employees. Some hotels
have already done this, for exam-ple, by setting up employee
fitness centers to help employ-ees relieve stress (Rao and Indla
2010). Even the presence of a coffee room may provide individuals
with time and space that is conducive to relaxation. Such efforts
and
practices could bring returns to organizations, including a
lower employee turnover rate, low absenteeism, and high job
satisfactionwhich will ultimately lead to greater cus-tomer
satisfaction (Rao and Indla 2010).
Our study gives no indication regarding which of the vast number
of possible relaxation and social activities a hospitality
organization might want to offer. Thus, firms must develop
appropriate methods for determining the choices that would be best
for their specific employee popu-lations. Given the collectivist
nature of Chinese society, we believe that Chinese employees would
be more likely to rely on organizations and coordinate with
colleagues for relaxation (although we again note that social
activities per se were not favored in this study). They may then
expect the organization and management to arrange relaxation and
lei-sure activities that the work team members will then join
together. In contrast, the typical American approach would probably
be to allow employees to arrange their own spare time
activities.
Although hotels need to allow for staff leisure time, lei-sure
alone is not sufficient to address workfamily con-flicts. Our
results indicate that hospitality employees may have discrete
problems of workfamily conflict issues. That is, individuals who
find that work is interfering with family may need more relaxation,
while employees who see family interfering with work might well
appreciate organizational support for family issues. This is why we
say that leisure activities alone will not solve the problems
brought about by workfamily conflict. Instead, hospitality
management should be more sensitive to the workfamily needs of
spe-cific employee groups, by instituting more open and more
frequent direct communication with employees, or by tak-ing regular
opinion surveys to gauge employee stress levels and coping
mechanisms (Cheung and Tang 2009). The organizations should also
provide more flexible workfam-ily support so that hospitality
employees could choose sup-port structures that best fit the
individuals needs. Some employees may want to share pleasurable
experiences with colleagues, establish friendships, and take
temporary breaks, while others may need family leave, flexible
sched-ules, and on-site medical care and child care facilities.
Finally, our findings offer potential for facilitating a bet-ter
understanding of Chinese employees by international hospitality
organizations, so that they can respond in ways that are most
appropriate for the specific needs of those employees. Many
international hospitality groups are expanding operations in China.
These global organizations may already have an established system
of family-friendly policies that has been applied in other
countries. But our findings indicate that implementing these same
policies may not be as effective in China. To ensure that the
family-friendly policies will work in China, international
organiza-tions must take cultural differences in workfamily
conflict into account, and must respond to the specific needs of
local
at Bibliotheques de l'Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 on November 14,
2014cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
-
Zhao et al. 417
employees. In addition to cultural issues, our survey shows that
young, single employees predominate in the Chinese hospitality
industry. Their specific interests and responsi-bilities include a
desire for entertainment in their spare time, for relationships
with boyfriends or girlfriends, for joining social activities, and
for taking care of parents. However, although relatively few
employees are married and have children, those workers are usually
senior employ-ees, supervisors, and managers who are more essential
to the operation. For this group of employees to be available as
needed, they might be interested in benefits supporting child care,
work breaks, medical care, and work flexibility.
Limitations and Conclusions
A chief limitation inherent in this study is common method bias,
because responses were collected for both dependent and independent
variables in a single self-reporting question-naire (Shadish, Cook,
and Campbell 2002). Although we tested for this problem, we could
not control for it. Thus, common method bias may still have an
unknown impact on the research results, especially causal
relationships. This complication should be considered when scholars
and practi-tioners want to apply these findings. Although there are
other statistical remedies developed for common method bias (e.g.,
partial correlation procedures), these methods are not without
problems (e.g., partial correlation procedures ignore mea-surement
error; Podsakoff et al. 2003). Future research should try to avoid
common method bias as much as possible throughout the study
procedure, from research design to data analysis. The correlational
and cross-sectional nature of the survey may also threaten the
causal inferences of proposed relationships. As the information on
causes and effects was collected simultaneously, it was difficult
to exclude potential alternative explanations. An experimental and
longitudinal design is needed to examine causal relationships.
Moreover, because this study collected responses from only four
full-service hotels, the sample may not fully repre-sent employees
in a broader range of hospitality organiza-tions, especially given
that the respondents are predominantly single. Although the samples
reflect the demographic char-acteristics of the Chinese hospitality
employee population (especially the Pearl River Delta area), the
study may not be generalizable to hotel employees in other regions
of China, let alone other nations. Given the studys relatively low
response rate (68%) and small sample size (N = 271), the findings
may also be subject to non-response bias. Thus, it may not be
representative of the overall population, because those employees
who did not respond may have different viewpoints. The small sample
size may also make it difficult to split the data to compare
responses of the various demo-graphics on study variables and model
paths. A future study with a larger sample size may provide
additional or new insights relative to the literature in the fields
concerned with
issues of workplace and family. Finally, when leisure time
becomes increasingly competitive with work demands, workleisure
conflict tends to play a more critical role in determining life
well-being than workfamily conflict (Tsaur, Liang, and Hsu 2012).
The present study was con-ducted prior to the development of the
well-respected workleisure conflict scale by Tsaur, Liang, and Hsu
(2012), and so as an alternative, this study had to apply the
workfamily conflict measures. Workleisure conflict may be a more
appropriate construct for future studies examining workfamily
conflict, stress, and coping.
Despite its limitations, this study demonstrates the criti-cal
functions of relaxation and social interaction in leisure
activities that are intended to balance work and family demands.
Findings generally indicate that hospitality employees primarily
view relaxation and social activities as a way to achieve higher
levels of overall well-being, rather than looking to these
activities to cope with job tension. Accordingly, hospitality
organizations should increase employees sense of control in their
lives by implementing leisure activities that facilitate employee
efforts to fulfill demands of their personal lives in the domains
of work, family, and leisure. Such supportive programs would allow
employees to arrange time and personal resources appropri-ately,
allowing them to devote more attention to their work. Hospitality
organizations would see the benefit of their investment in these
leisure activity programs in the increased dedication to hard work
shown by employees who, in turn, will produce better service
performance and higher customer satisfaction.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the insightful comments from
the editor and anonymous reviewers.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial
support for the research, authorship, or publication of this
article: The National Natural Science Foundation of China
(71102097, 40971292), the Chinese Department of Education
(08JA840012), the Guangdong Social Science Foundation (07YH01), the
Guangzhou Social Science Foundation (07Q6), and Sun Yat-Sen
University (14000-3181304). The supporting organizations intend to
promote academic research.
References
Allen, Tammy D., David E. L. Herst, Carly S. Bruck, and Martha
Sutton. 2000. Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict:
A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology 5 (2): 278-308.
at Bibliotheques de l'Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 on November 14,
2014cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
-
418 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 55(4)
Anderson, James C., and David W. Gerbing. 1988. Structural
equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step
approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411-23.
Artazcoz, Lucia, Imma Cortes, Vicenta Escriba-Aguir, Lorena
Cascant, and Rodrigo Villegas. 2009. Understanding the
rela-tionship of long working hours with health status and
health-related behaviours. Journal of Epidemiology & Community
Health 63 (7): 521-27.
Aryee, Samuel, Dail Fields, and Vivienne Luk. 1999. A
cross-cultural test of a model of the work-family interface.
Journal of Management 25 (4): 491-511.
Aycan, Zeynep. 2008. Cross-cultural approaches to work-family
conflict. In Handbook of work-family integration: Research, theory,
and best practices, eds. Karen Korabik, Donna S. Lero, and Denise
L. Whitehead, 353-70. London: Academic Press.
Bagozzi, Richard P., and Youjae Yi. 1988. On the evaluation of
structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 16 (1): 74-94.
Bhave, Devasheesh P., Amit Kramer, and Theresa M. Glomb. 2010.
Work-family conflict in work groups: Social infor-mation
processing, support, and demographic dissimilarity. Journal of
Applied Psychology 95 (1): 145-58. doi:10.1037/a0017885.
Brummelhuis, Lieke L. Ten, and Tanja Van Der Lippe. 2010.
Effective work-life balance support for various household
structures. Human Resource Management 49 (2): 173-93.
doi:10.1002/hrm.20340.
Byrne, Barbara M. 2001. Structural equation modeling with AMOS:
Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Casper, Wendy J., Lillian T. Eby, Christopher Bordeaux, Angie
Lockwood, and Dawn Lambert. 2007. A review of research methods in
IO/OB work-family research. Journal of Applied Psychology
92:28-43.
Casper, Wendy J., David Weltman, and Eileen Kwesiga. 2007.
Beyond family-friendly: The construct and measurement of
singles-friendly work culture. Journal of Vocational Behavior
70:478-501. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.01.001.
Chan, Ka W., and Thomas A. Wyatt. 2007. Quality of work life: A
study of employees in Shanghai, China. Asia Pacific Business Review
13 (4): 501-17. doi:10.1080/13602380701250681.
Chen, Ching-Fu, and Ya-Ling Kao. 2011. The antecedents and
consequences of job stress of flight attendantsEvidence from
Taiwan. Journal of Air Transport Management 17:253-55.
doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2011.01.002.
Cheung, Francis Yue-Lok, and Catherine So-Kum Tang. 2009.
Quality of work life as a mediator between emotional labor and work
family interference. Journal of Business Psychology 24:245-55.
doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9103-7.
Chung, Chi-Ti, and Ue-Lin Chung. 2009. An exploration of
qual-ity of life and related factors among female flight
attendants. Journal of Nursing Research 17 (3): 212-20.
Cohen, Aaron, and Efrat Liani. 2009. Work-family conflict among
female employees in Israeli hospitals. Personnel Review 38 (2):
124-41. doi:10.1108/00483480910931307.
Dong, Erwei, and Garry Chick. 2012. Leisure constraints in six
Chinese cities. Leisure Sciences 34 (5): 417-35.
doi:10.1080/01490400.2012.714702.
Eden, Dov. 1990. Acute and chronic job stress, strain, and
vaca-tion relief. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 45:175-93.
Ford, Michael T., Beth A. Heinen, and Krista L. Langkamer. 2007.
Work and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis of
cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (1):
57-80.
Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating
structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measure-ment error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1):
39-50.
Frone, Michael R., Marcia Russell, and M. Lynne Cooper. 1992a.
Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a model
of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology
77:65-78.
Frone, Michael R., Marcia Russell, and M. Lynne Cooper. 1992b.
Prevalence of work-family conflict: Are work and family boundaries
asymmetrically permeable. Journal of Organizational Behavior
13:723-29.
Grandey, Alicia A., Bryanne L. Cordeiro, and Ann C. Crouter.
2005. A longitudinal and multi-source test of the work-family
conflict and job satisfaction relationship. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology 78 (3): 305-23.
doi:10.1348/096317905X26769.
Greenhaus, Jeffrey H., and Nicholas J. Beutell. 1985. Sources of
conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management
Review 10:76-88.
Hair, Joseph F., Jr., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, Rolph E.
Anderson, and Ronald L. Tatham. 2006. Multivariate data analysis.
6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Halbesleben, Jonathon R. B. 2006. Sources of social support and
burnout: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources
model. Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (5): 1134-45.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1134.
Hammer, Leslie B., and Kristi L. Zimmerman. 2011. Quality of
work life. In APA handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology, ed. Sheldon Zedeck, 399-431. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Hantrais, Linda, Peter A. Clark, and Nicole Samuel. 1984.
Time-space dimensions of work, family and leisure in France and
Great Britain. Leisure Studies 3:301-17.
Hassan, Zaiton, Maureen F. Dollard, and Anthony H. Winefield.
2010. Work-family conflict in east vs. west countries. Cross
Cultural Management 17 (1): 30-49.
doi:10.1108/13527601011016899.
Hecht, Tracy D., and Kathleen Boies. 2009. Structure and
cor-relates of spillover from nonwork to work: An examina-tion of
nonwork activities, well-being, and work outcomes. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology 14 (4): 414-26.
doi:10.1037/a0015981.
Hinkin, Timothy R., and J. Bruce Tracey. 2010. What makes it so
great? An analysis of human resources practices among Fortunes best
companies to work for. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51 (2):
158-70. doi:10.1177/1938965510362487.
Hon, Alice H. Y. 2012. Shaping environments conductive to
cre-ativity: The role of intrinsic motivation. Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly 53 (1): 53-64. doi:10.1177/1938965511424725.
Hon, Alice H. Y., and Alicia S. M. Leung. 2011. Employee
cre-ativity and motivation in the Chinese context: The
moderating
at Bibliotheques de l'Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 on November 14,
2014cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
-
Zhao et al. 419
role of organizational culture. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 52
(2): 125-34. doi:10.1177/1938965511403921.
Hultman, Barbro, and Sven Hemlin. 2008. Self-rated quality of
life among the young employed and the young in work in northern
Sweden. Work 30:461-72.
Iso-Aholo, Seppo E., and Chun J. Park. 1996. Leisure-related
social support and self-determination as buffers of stress-ill-ness
relationship. Journal of Leisure Research 28 (3): 169-87.
Iwasaki, Yoshitaka, Kelly Mackay, Jennifer Mactavish, Janice
Ristock, and Judith Bartlett. 2006. Voices from the margins:
Stress, active living, and leisure as a con-tributor to coping with
stress. Leisure Sciences 28:163-80.
doi:10.1080/01490400500484065.
Iwasaki, Yoshitaka, Jennifer Mactavish, and Kelly Mackay. 2005.
Building on strengths and resilience: Leisure as a stress sur-vival
strategy. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 33 (1):
81-100. doi:10.1080/03069880412331335894.
Jim, Chi Y., and Wendy Y. Chen. 2009. Leisure participation
pattern of residents in a new Chinese city. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 99 (4): 657-73.
Judge, Timothy A., Remus Ilies, and Brent A. Scott. 2006.
Work-family conflict and emotions: Effects at work and at home.
Personnel Psychology 59 (4): 779-814.
Karatepe, Osman M., and Kayode D. Aleshinloye. 2009. Emotional
dissonance and emotional exhaustion among hotel employees in
Nigeria. International Journal of Hospitality Management
28:349-58.
Karatepe, Osman M., Emin Babakus, and Ugur Yavas. 2012.
Affectivity and organizational politics as antecedents of burn-out
among frontline hotel employees. International Journal of
Hospitality Management 31 (1): 66-75.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.04.003.
Karatepe, Osman M., and Lulu Baddar. 2006. An empirical study of
the selected consequences of frontline employees work-fam-ily
conflict and family-work conflict. Tourism Management 27 (5):
1017-28. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2005.10.024.
Karatepe, Osman M., and Lorina Bekteshi. 2008. Antecedents and
outcomes of work-family facilitation and family-work facilitation
among frontline hotel employees. International Journal of
Hospitality Management 27:517-28.
Karatepe, Osman M., and Olusegun A. Olugbade. 2009. The effects
of job and personal resources on hotel employees work engagement.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4): 504-12.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2009. 02.003.
Karatepe, Osman M., and Orhan Uludag. 2008. Affectivity,
con-flicts in the work-family interface, and hotel employee
out-comes. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (1):
30-41.
Karimi, Leila. 2009. Do female and male employees in Iran
expe-rience similar work-family interference, job, and life
satisfac-tion? Journal of Family Issues 30 (1): 124-42.
doi:10.1177/0192513X08324973.
King, Lynda A., and Daniel W. King. 1990. Role conflict and role
ambiguity: A critical assessment of construct validity.
Psychological Bulletin 107:48-64.
Kinnunen, Ulla, Taru Feldt, Saija Mauno, and Johanna Rantanen.
2010. Interface between work and family: A longitudinal indi-vidual
and crossover perspective. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology 83:119-37.
doi:10.1348/096317908X399420.
Kong, Hai-Yan, and Tom Baum. 2006. Skills and work in the
hospitality sector: The case of hotel front office employees in
China. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
18 (6): 509-18.
Kreiner, Glen E., Elaine C. Hollensbe, and Mathew L. Sheep.
2009. Balancing borders and bridges: Negotiating the work-home
interface via boundary work tactics. Academy of Management Journal
52 (4): 704-30.
Kuchinke, K. Peter, Edgard B. Cornachione, Seok Y. Oh, and
Hye-Seung Kang. 2010. All work and no play? The meaning of work and
work stress of mid-level managers in the United States, Brazil, and
Korea. Human Resource Development International 13 (4): 393-408.
doi:10.1080/13678868.2010.501961.
Kusluvan, Salih, Zeynep Kusluvan, Ibrahim Ilhan, and Lutfi
Buyruk. 2010. The human dimension: A review of human resources
management issues in the tourism and hospital-ity industry. Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly 51 (2): 171-214.
doi:10.1177/1938965510362871.
Lapierre, Laurent M., Leslie B. Hammer, Donald M. Truxillo, and
Lauren A. Murphy. 2012. Family interference with work and workplace
cognitive failure: The mitigating role of recovery experience.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2): 227-35.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2012.07.007.
Law, Lai K. 2011. The impact of work-family conflict on Chinese
employees. Marriage & Family Review 47 (8): 590-604.
doi:10.1080/01494929.2011.625104.
Lerner-Baron, Sharon. 2007. Family vacations and leisure time:
Considerations and accommodations. In Growing up with autism:
Working with school-age children and adolescents, ed. Robin L.
Gabriels and Dina E. Hill, 183-201. New York: The Guilford
Press.
Li, Xiaobei, Karin Sanders, and Stephen Frenkel. 2012. How
leader-member exchange, work engagement and HRM con-sistency
explain Chinese luxury hotel employees job perfor-mance.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (4): 1059-66.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.01.002.
Ling, Yan, and Gary N. Powell. 2001. Work-family conflict in
contemporary China: Beyond an American-based model. International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management 1 (3): 357-73.
Lu, Luo, and Chia-Hsin Hu. 2005. Personality, leisure
experiences and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies 6 (3):
325-42. doi:10.1007/s10902-005-8628-3.
Mannell, Roger C., and Douglas A. Kleiber. 1997. A social
psy-chology of leisure. State College, PA: Venture.
Matsch, Mahlia A., Daniel A. Sachau, Jessica Gertz, and David R.
Englert. 2009. Perceptions of work-life balance among mili-tary law
enforcement personnel and their spouses. Journal of Police and
Criminal Psychology 24 (2): 113-19.
doi:10.1007/s11896-009-9046-y.
Matthews, Russell A., Carrie A. Bulger, and Janet L.
Barnes-Farrell. 2010. Work social supports, role stressors, and
work-family conflict: The moderating effect of age. Journal of
Vocational Behavior 76:78-90. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.011.
Md-Sidin, Samsinar, Murali Sambasivan, and Izhairi Ismail. 2010.
Relationship between work-family conflict and quality of life:
at Bibliotheques de l'Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 on November 14,
2014cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
-
420 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 55(4)
An investigation into the role of social support. Journal of
Managerial Psychology 25 (1): 58-81.
Moneta, Giovanni B. 2004. The flow model of intrinsic
moti-vation in Chinese: Cultural and personal moderators. Journal
of Happiness Studies 5 (2): 181-217.
doi:10.1023/B:JOHS.0000035916.27782.e4.
Namasivayam, Karthik, and Xinyuan Zhao. 2007. An investiga-tion
of the moderating effects of organizational commit-ment on the
relationships between work-family conflicts and job satisfaction
among hospitality employees in India. Tourism Management
28:1212-23. doi:10.1016/j.tour-man.2006.09.021.
Netemeyer, Richard G., Mark W. Johnston, and Scot Burton. 1990.
Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in a struc-tural
equations framework. Journal of Applied Psychology 75 (2):
148-57.
Nunnally, Jum C., and Ira H. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric
the-ory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Parks, Kizzy M., and Lisa A. Steelman. 2008. Organizational
wellness programs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology 13 (1): 58-68. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.13.1.58.
Perrewe, Pamela L., Wayne A. Hochwarter, and Christian Kiewitz.
1999. Value attainment: An explanation for the negative effects of
work-family conflict on job and life satisfaction. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology 4 (4): 318-26.
Pinquart, Martin, and Rainer K. Silbereisen. 2010. Patterns of
ful-fillment in the domains of work, intimate relationship, and
leisure. Applied Research Quality Life 5:147-64.
doi:10.1007/s11482-010-9099-1.
Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Nathan P. Podsakoff,
and Jeong-Yeon Lee. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral
research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5): 879-903.
Post, Corinne, Nancy DiTomaso, George F. Farris, and Rene
Cordero. 2009. Work-family conflict and turnover intentions among
scientists and engineers working in R&D. Journal of Business
and Psychology 24 (1): 19-32. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9089-1.
Rao, T. S. Sathyanarayana, and Vishal Indla. 2010. Work, fam-ily
or personal life: Why not all three? Indian Journal of Psychiatry
52:295-97. doi:10.4103/0019-5545.74301.
Rode, Joseph C., Michael T. Rehg, Janet P. Near, and John R.
Underhill. 2007. The effect of work/family conflict on inten-tion
to quit: The mediating roles of job and life satisfaction. Applied
Research in Quality of Life 2:65-82.
doi:10.1007/s11482-007-9030-6.
Ryan, Chris, and Ian Glendon. 1998. Application of leisure
moti-vation scale to tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 25 (1):
169-84.
Saxbe, Darby E., Rena L. Repetti, and Anthony P. Graesch. 2011.
Time spent in housework and leisure: Links with par-ents
physiological recovery from work. Journal of Family Psychology 25
(2): 271-81. doi:10.1037/a0023048.
Schaubroeck, John, John L. Cotton, and Kenneth R. Jennings.
1989. Antecedents and consequences of role stress: A covari-ance
structure analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior 10 (1):
35-58.
Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell.
2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for gen-eralized
causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Shen, Han, and Chenchen Huang. 2012. Domestic migrant work-ers
in Chinas hotel industry: An exploratory study of their life
satisfaction and job burnout. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 31 (4): 1283-91. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.02.013.
Sirgy, M. Joseph, Philippus S. Kruger, Dong-Jin Lee, and Grace
B. Yu. 2011. How does a travel trip affect tourists life
satisfaction? Journal of Travel Research 50 (3): 261-75.
doi:10.1177/0047287510362784.
Tang, Thomas Li-Ping. 1987. Effect of Type A personality and
leisure ethic on Chinese college students leisure activities and
academic performance. Journal of Social Psychology 128 (2):
153-64.
Tsaur, Sheng-Hshiung, Ying-Wen Liang, and Huei-Ju Hsu. 2012. A
multidimensional measurement of work-leisure conflict. Leisure
Sciences 34 (5): 395-416. doi:10.1080/01490400.2012.714701.
Tsaur, Sheng-Hshiung, and Ya-Yun Tang. 2012. Job stress and
well-being of female employees in hospitality: The role of
regulatory leisure coping styles. International Journal of
Hospitality Management 31 (4): 1038-44.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.12.009.
Walker, Gordon J., and Xiye Wang. 2008. A cross-cultural
com-parison of Canadian and Mainland Chinese university stu-dents
leisure motivations. Leisure Sciences 30 (3): 179-97.
doi:10.1080/01490400802014420.
Walker, Gordon J., and Xiye Wang. 2009. The meaning of lei-sure
for Chinese/Canadians. Leisure Sciences 31 (1): 1-18.
doi:10.1080/01490400802557907.
Wang, Jin, and Chak-keung Wong. 2011. Understanding
orga-nizational citizenship behavior from a cultural perspective:
An empirical study within the context of hotels in mainland China.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (4): 845-54.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.01.005.
Wang, Peng, John J. Lawler, and Kan Shi. 2011. Implementing
family-friendly employment practices in banking industry: Evidences
from some African and Asian countries. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology 84:493-517.
doi:10.1348/096317910X525363.
Wiese, Bettina S., Alexandra M. Freund, and Paul B. Baltes.
2000. Selection, optimization, and compensation: An action-related
approach to work and partnership. Journal of Vocational Behavior
57:273-300.
Wong, Jehn-Yih, and Jo-Hui Lin. 2007. The role of job control
and job support in adjusting service employees work-to-leisure
conflict. Tourism Management 28 (3): 726-35.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2006.05.003.
Wong, Simon Chak-keung, and Annie Ko. 2009. Exploratory study of
understanding hotel employees perceptions on work-life balance
issues. International Journal of Hospitality Management
28:195-203.
Xiao, Qu, and John W. ONeill. 2010. Work-family balance as a
potential strategic advantage: A hotel general manager
per-spective. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 34 (4):
415-39. doi:10.1177/1096348009350645.
at Bibliotheques de l'Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 on November 14,
2014cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
-
Zhao et al. 421
Yang, Nini, Chao C. Chen, Jaepil Choi, and Yimin Zou. 2000.
Sources of work-family conflict: A Sino-U.S. comparison of the
effects of work and family demands. Academy of Management Journal
43 (1): 113-23.
Yavas, Ugur, Emin Babakus, and Osman M. Karatepe. 2008.
Attitudinal and behavioral consequences of work-family conflict and
family-work conflict: Does gender matter? International Journal of
Service Industry Management 19 (1): 7-31.
doi:10.1108/09564230810855699.
Yin, Xiangdong. 2005. New trends of leisure consumption in
China. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 26 (1): 175-82.
doi:10.1007/s10834-004-1419-x.
Zhang, Honglei, Jie Zhang, Shaowen Cheng, Shaojing Lu, and
Chunyun Shi. 2012. Role of constraints in Chinese cal-ligraphic
landscape experience: An extension of a leisure constraints model.
Tourism Management 33 (6): 1398-407.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2012.01.001.
Zhao, Xinyuan, Hailin Qu, and Richard Ghiselli. 2011. Examining
the relationship of workfamily conflict to job and life
satis-faction: A case of hotel sales managers. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (1): 46-54.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.04.010.
Author Biographies
Xinyuan (Roy) Zhao is an Associate Professor in Hospitality
Management at Business School, Sun Yat-Sen University (SYSBS). His
research has been published widely on top-tier tour-ism and
hospitality journals, and has been funded by National
Natural Science Foundation of China, Chinese Department of
Education, Guangdong Social Science Foundation, and Guangzhou
Social Science Foundation.
Hailin Qu is the Regents Professor and William E. Davis
Distinguished Chair as well as the Director of the Center for
Hospitality and Tourism Research in the School of Hotel and
Restaurant Administration at Oklahoma State University. He is also
the Distinguished Honorary Professor at Business School, Sun
Yat-Sen University (SYSBS). His research interests are hos-pitality
and tourism service quality and consumer behavior and loyalty. He
has published numerous articles in a number of top tier business,
hospitality and tourism journals and given abundant pre-sentations
at national and international conferences. Dr. Qu has received US$5
million grants and/or contracts. He is the Editor-in-Chief of
Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism and has
served on other nine journals editorial boards. He has received
numerous awards and recognitions nationally and
internationally.
Jingyan Liu is Professor and Director of the Hospitality and
Service Management Department, Business School, Sun Yat-Sen
University (SYSBS). Her research interests include ecotourism and
management of service industry. She has been funded by National
Natural Science Foundation of China. She also serves as the
associate editor for International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management (IJCHM), and serves on the editorial boards
of Tourism Science, and China Tourism Research. She also serves as
board member of APac-CHRIE.
at Bibliotheques de l'Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 on November 14,
2014cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/