the effect of positive and negative work‐family interaction on exhaustion
TRANSCRIPT
The effect of positive andnegative work-family interaction
on exhaustionDoes work social support make a difference?
Osman M. KaratepeSchool of Tourism and Hospitality Management,Eastern Mediterranean University, Mersin, Turkey
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop and test a conceptual model, which investigatesthe effects of work-family conflict, family-work conflict, work-family facilitation, and family-workfacilitation simultaneously on exhaustion. This study also aims to examine work social support as amoderator in the relationship between two directions of conflict and facilitation and exhaustion.
Design/methodology/approach – Data for this study were collected from a judgmental sample offull-time frontline employees of the four- and five-star hotels of Albania. Respondentsself-administered the questionnaires. A total number of 107 questionnaires were retrieved.
Findings – The results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis demonstrate that bothwork-family conflict and family-work conflict amplify exhaustion. The results also indicate that worksocial support buffers the relationship between work-family conflict and exhaustion and strengthensthe negative relationship between work-family facilitation and exhaustion.
Research limitations/implications – In future studies, longitudinal research designs should beemployed to draw causal inferences regarding the relationships examined in the current study.Though common method bias was checked with Harman’s single-factor test using confirmatory factoranalysis, gathering data from multiple sources would minimise problems associated with commonmethod bias.
Practical implications – Hotel managers in Albania should benefit from establishing afamily-supportive work environment to enable their employees to manage their work and familyroles effectively. Training programs should be organised to teach employees and their supervisorsconcerning the critical importance of support surfacing from coworkers and supervisors in alleviatingthe detrimental impact of work-family conflict on exhaustion and increasing the negative associationbetween work-family facilitation and exhaustion.
Originality/value – The paper adds to the compendium of knowledge by examining theaforementioned relationships via data gathered from a sample of full-time frontline hotel employeesin Albania.
Keywords Albania, Hotels, Employees, Family life
Paper type Research paper
IntroductionIn a milieu where there are increasing competitive pressures, delivery of service qualityis a top priority for many hospitality firms. Employees in frontline service jobs of thehospitality industry are in frequent face-to-face or voice-to-voice interactions withcustomers and are the main actors in the provision of superior services to customers.However, such employees are faced with stressful and demanding situations in the
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm
IJCHM22,6
836
Received 5 June 2009Revised 20 October 2009Accepted 13 December 2009
International Journal ofContemporary HospitalityManagementVol. 22 No. 6, 2010pp. 836-856q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0959-6119DOI 10.1108/09596111011063115
workplace. Employees trying to fulfil the responsibilities of work and family domainsconcurrently are confronted with work-family conflict and family-work conflict(Graves et al., 2007). Work-family conflict refers to “a form of interrole conflict in whichthe general demands of, time devoted to, and strain created by the job interfere withperforming family-related responsibilities” and family-work conflict refers to “a formof interrole conflict in which the general demands of, time devoted to, and straincreated by the family interfere with performing work-related responsibilities”(Netemeyer et al., 1996, p. 401). Frontline employees in the hospitality industryexperience difficulties in balancing the demands of work and family roles (Deery, 2008;Deery and Jago, 2009; Karatepe, 2008).
Employees experiencing elevated levels of work-family conflict and family-workconflict do emotional labour, which refers to “the effort, planning, and control needed toexpress organisationally desired emotion during interpersonal transactions” (Morrisand Feldman, 1996, p. 987). Emotional dissonance, which refers to incongruencebetween felt and displayed emotions (Heuven and Bakker, 2003), is the key dimensionof emotional labor pertaining to its impacts on burnout and negative health outcomes(Dormann and Zapf, 2004). Such employees are confronted with burnout, which is apsychological response to stressors on the job.
On the other hand, it has been shown that participation in work and family roles canprovide a number of benefits for employees and such benefits can transcend thedifficulties or costs emanating from work and family roles (Demerouti et al., 2004;Kinnunen et al., 2006). Work-family facilitation is defined as “the extent to whichparticipation at work (or home) is made easier by virtue of the experiences, skills, andopportunities gained or developed at home (or work)” (Frone, 2003, p. 145).Consequently, work can facilitate family life and family can facilitate work life. Acareful examination of the relevant literature indicates that two directions of conflictintensify burnout, while work-family facilitation reduces burnout (Innstrand et al.,2008).
Social support, which is defined as “an interpersonal transaction that involvesemotional concern, instrumental aid, information, or appraisal” (Carlson and Perrewe,1999, p. 514), can surface from coworkers and supervisors in the workplace. Socialsupport in the workplace may help employees to cope with difficulties associated withwork and family roles (Frye and Breaugh, 2004; Karatepe and Kilic, 2007). In addition,such support may help employees to integrate work and family roles effectively(Demerouti et al., 2004; Hill, 2005). It has been demonstrated that colleague support actsas a moderator in the relationship between work-family conflict and their outcomessuch as psychological strain and family satisfaction (O’Driscoll et al., 2004). It alsoseems that work social support may enhance the relationships of work-familyfacilitation and family-work facilitation with various outcomes such as job satisfactionand family satisfaction.
Purpose and rationaleAgainst this backdrop, the purpose of this study is to develop and test a conceptualmodel, which investigates the effects of work-family conflict, family-work conflict,work-family facilitation, and family-work facilitation simultaneously on exhaustion.This study also aims to investigate work social support as a moderator in therelationship between two facets of conflict and facilitation and exhaustion. The
Work-familyinteraction
837
aforementioned relationships were assessed using cross-sectional data gathered from asample of full-time frontline hotel employees in Albania.
The current study contributes to the hospitality management literature in two ways.First, a review of the work-family literature indicates that empirical studies shouldexamine two directions of conflict and facilitation together to delineate acomprehensive understanding of positive and negative work-family interaction(Frone, 2003; Greenhaus and Powell, 2006; Lu et al., 2009). This is also highlighted inthe hospitality management literature (Karatepe and Magaji, 2008). Furthermore, littleis known regarding the effects of work-family conflict, family-work conflict,work-family facilitation, and family-work facilitation simultaneously onburnout/exhaustion (Innstrand et al., 2008). Exhaustion, which is one of thecomponents of burnout in the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI), refers to “aconsequence of intensive physical, affective, and cognitive strain, for example as along-term consequence of prolonged exposure to certain demands” (Demerouti et al.,2001, p. 500) and is prevalent among the frontline employees of the hospitality industry(Karatepe and Uludag, 2007; Yavas et al., 2008). Therefore, this study tests the impactsof two facets of conflict and facilitation on exhaustion.
Second, in his recent review, Karatepe (2008) argues that empirical research on theantecedents, consequences, and moderators of work-family facilitation andfamily-work facilitation in the hospitality management literature is scarce. Hesuggests that such relationships should be tested via data collected from thehospitality industries of the developing countries to fill in the void in this researchstream. Thus, the present study tests the moderating role of work social support on theeffects of conflicts and facilitation in the work-family interface on exhaustion usingdata collected from frontline hotel employees in Albania.
The next section presents the background to the study. This is followed by theconceptual model and hypotheses. Then, the article provides discussions of the methodand findings of the empirical study conducted with frontline hotel employees inAlbania. Finally, the article concludes with the implications of the empirical findingsand avenues for future research.
BackgroundWork and family represent two critical domains of adult life. The global trend ofincreased women participation in the workforce, coupled with increases in the numberof dual earning and single-parent families, have resulted in work-family conflict andfamily-work conflict (Aryee et al., 2005; Netemeyer et al., 2005). Evidence suggests thatemployees in the hospitality industry are faced with problems emanating fromconflicts in the work-family interface (Deery, 2008; Deery and Jago, 2009; Karatepe,2008). Limited evidence in this context in the hospitality management literature isgiven below.
The results of a previous study showed that certain types of work interferences(child care and medical problems) eroded hotel employees’ organisational commitment(Cannon, 1998). Namasivayam and Mount (2004) reported that due to conflict betweenwork and family domains, hotel employees displayed low levels of normativeorganisational commitment and job satisfaction. Surprisingly, they reported a positiverelationship between family-work conflict and job satisfaction. In another studyconducted with frontline hotel employees in Jordan, work-family conflict demonstrated
IJCHM22,6
838
positive relationships with job stress and turnover intentions (Karatepe and Baddar,2006). The results of the same study also indicated that family-work conflict reducedfamily satisfaction and exacerbated turnover intentions. According to the findings of astudy of frontline hotel employees in Turkey, work-family conflict and family-workconflict had detrimental effects on service recovery performance and turnoverintentions (Karatepe and Sokmen, 2006). The findings also indicated that family-workconflict influenced job satisfaction deleteriously. The findings of a recent studyconducted in India illustrated that the negative relationship between family-workconflict and job satisfaction was weaker among hotel employees with higher affectiveorganisational commitment (Namasivayam and Zhao, 2007). More recently, in a studyof frontline hotel employees in Turkey, Karatepe and Uludag (2008) found thatfamily-work conflict reduced marital satisfaction, while two facets of conflictintensified turnover intentions.
Another important research gap in the hospitality management literature is thefacilitation between work and family domains (Karatepe, 2008; Mulvaney et al., 2007).There are several empirical studies, which have examined the relationships ofwork-family conflict and facilitation simultaneously with various outcomes.Specifically, Karatepe and Magaji (2008) reported that frontline hotel employees inNigeria had lower affective organisational commitment due to family-work conflict.They demonstrated that such employees with higher work-family conflict displayedelevated levels of turnover intentions. In the same study, it was found that facilitationbetween work and family domains enhanced affective organisational commitment.More recently, in a study of frontline hotel employees in Northern Cyprus, Karatepeand Kilic (2009) showed that family-work facilitation increased job performance andaffective organisational commitment, while work-family facilitation enhanced jobsatisfaction. They also found that family-work conflict undermined job performance,whereas work-family conflict demonstrated a positive association with jobperformance. In another study in the hotel industry, it was found that top leadernegative work-family spillover positively influenced lower-level managers’ turnoverintentions (O’Neill et al., 2009). However, they reported weak support regarding thepositive impact of top leader positive work-family spillover on lower-level managers’organisational commitment.
Conceptual model and hypothesesConceptual modelFigure 1 presents the conceptual model of the study. The model proposes thatwork-family conflict and family-work conflict exacerbate exhaustion, whilework-family facilitation and family-work facilitation alleviate exhaustion. The modelalso suggests that work social support serves as a moderator in the relationshipbetween the abovementioned conflict dimensions and exhaustion. That is, work socialsupport reduces the relationships of work-family conflict and family-work conflict withexhaustion. According to the model, work social support also strengthens the negativeeffects of work-family facilitation and family-work facilitation on exhaustion.
In this study, age, gender, education, organisational tenure, marital status, and thenumber of children living at home are controlled to avoid statistical confounds.
Work-familyinteraction
839
HypothesesThe conservation of resources (COR) theory, which has been developed to understandthe mechanism underlying stress (Halbesleben and Rotondo, 2007), has been used asthe guiding framework in the research stream of work-family conflict and family-workconflict (Brotheridge and Lee, 2005; Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999; Yavas et al., 2008).The COR theory contends that objects, personal characteristics, conditions, andenergies are the four types of resources individuals seek to acquire, maintain andpreserve (Hobfoll, 1989). Such resources may be desired in their own right by theindividual (Hobfoll, 2001). Stress occurs in the workplace when:
. individuals are confronted with the threat of loss of resources;
. individuals lose their resources; and
. individuals invest resources and do not harvest what they have predicted inreturn (Hobfoll, 2001).
According to the COR theory, individuals lose their scanty reservoir in the process ofjuggling both work and family roles (Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999). Under thesecircumstances, they are confronted with exhaustion (Westman et al., 2004).
Although limited, there is empirical support for the abovementioned relationships.For instance, in a sample of Finnish employees from different occupations, Kinnunenet al. (2006) found that work-family conflict was significantly and positively related toexhaustion, while family-work conflict was not. However, Yavas et al. (2008) reportedthat work-family conflict and family-work conflict had significant positive impacts on(emotional) exhaustion among frontline hotel employees in Turkey. Innstrand et al.
Figure 1.Conceptual model
IJCHM22,6
840
(2008) also found similar findings for a sample of employees from different occupationsin Norway.
Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1a. Work-family conflict is positively related to frontline employees’ exhaustion.
H1b. Family-work conflict is positively related to frontline employees’ exhaustion.
The COR theory also provides guidance to develop hypotheses, which pertain to theeffects of work-family facilitation and family-work facilitation on exhaustion (cf.Hobfoll, 2001). Specifically, consistent with the work of Innstrand et al. (2008),work-family facilitation and family-work facilitation are regarded as resourcesurpluses, which may make individuals less vulnerable to exhaustion, sinceindividuals are motivated to develop and protect resource surpluses to compensatethe possibility of future resource loss.
Recent empirical research has linked work-family facilitation and family-workfacilitation to such outcomes as individual stress, exhaustion, and fatigue. Specifically,based on data obtained from the National Study of the Changing Workforce in theUnited States, Hill (2005) showed that work-family facilitation alleviated individualstress. However, family-work facilitation was not found to significantly influenceindividual stress. Demerouti et al. (2004) demonstrated that work-family facilitationwas significantly and negatively associated with fatigue for a sample of Dutch postalservice employees, while family-work facilitation was not. Recently, it was reportedthat work-family facilitation significantly and negatively impacted exhaustion, whilethere was no empirical support for the relationship between family-work facilitationand exhaustion (Kinnunen et al., 2006). More recently, it was found that work-familyfacilitation reduced exhaustion (Innstrand et al., 2008).
Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H2a. Work-family facilitation is negatively related to frontline employees’ exhaustion.
H2b. Family-work facilitation is negatively related to frontline employees’ exhaustion.
The COR theory posits that work social support is a resource that helps individuals tocope with stressors and strains (Hobfoll, 2001). Prior and recent empirical researchindicates that supervisor support alleviates both work-family conflict and family-workconflict (Frye and Breaugh, 2004; Karatepe et al., 2008; Karatepe and Kilic, 2007). In arecent meta-analytic review, work support has been reported to be negativelyassociated with exhaustion (Halbesleben, 2006). Social support in the workplace hasalso been used as a moderator in the relationship between stressors and burnout (e.g.Etzion, 1984; Viswesvaran et al., 1999). As discussed by Cole and Bedeian (2007), worksocial support may minimise the detrimental effects of exhaustion emanating fromstressful situations. Consonant with the COR theory, employees with sufficient worksocial support are likely to be less vulnerable to conflicts in the work-family interfaceand thus exhaustion.
Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H3. Work social support moderates the effects of (a) work-family conflict and (b)family-work conflict on exhaustion.
Work-familyinteraction
841
Figure 1 demonstrates that work social support also moderates the effects ofwork-family facilitation and family-work facilitation on exhaustion. Such relationshipscan be developed using the COR theory. As mentioned in the preceding parts,work-family facilitation and family-work facilitation can be regarded as resourcesurpluses so that individuals would be less vulnerable to exhaustion (Innstrand et al.,2008). Employees with adequate work social support can integrate their work andfamily roles successfully and experience less exhaustion. Consequently, as work socialsupport increases, the negative relationships between two facets of facilitation andexhaustion strengthen.
Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H4. Work social support moderates the effects of (a) work-family facilitation and(b) family-work facilitation on exhaustion.
MethodSample and procedureData for this study were collected using a self-administered questionnaire from ajudgmental sample of full-time frontline employees in the four- and five-star hotels ofAlbania. Such employees were front desk agents, reservations agents, food servers,beverage servers, door attendants, bell attendants, and guest relations representatives.In addition, this study did not limit its sample to married employees with or withoutchildren, because single childless employees often have family and social commitmentsto their parents, siblings, or relatives. Such an approach is consistent with a number ofempirical studies in the extant literature (e.g. Boyar et al., 2003; Grzywacz and Marks,2000; Karatepe and Kilic, 2007, 2009).
As a small developing country, Albania can be characterised as “a middle/lowincome developing under transition economies which emerged from the communistera” (Glaveli et al., 2006, p. 381). Due to the communist regime, the eastern blockcountries were the main tourist markets of Albania. However, public transport wasprohibited for foreigners. Such a practice precluded foreigners from meeting theAlbanians and witnessing the negatives images of the country (Hall, 1990, 2000). Inaddition, the tourism and hospitality industry was not regarded as one of the mainindustries of the Albanian economy during the communist era. Under thesecircumstances, the tourism and hospitality industry was devoid of sufficientinfrastructure and superstructure (cf. Bakiu and Baum, 1999). Nowadays, there are stillvarious problems in the tourism and hospitality industry of the country. According toPjero (2008), frontline employees in the industry are in need of specific trainingprograms, because most of them do not have the necessary qualifications to deliveryquality services. Consequently, despite the government’s recent interest in viewing thetourism and hospitality industry as one of the main industries of the economy, such animportant industry in Albania is still in its development stage.
At the time of this study, there were three 5-star and five 4-star hotels, which werelicensed by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, Youth and Sports in Albania. Theownership structures of these hotels ranged from “independently/family-owned andoperated hotels” to “international chain hotels”. These three five-star and five four-starhotels had a total number of 737 rooms. According to the managements of the hotels,such hotels collectively employed 688 employees. Permission for data collection wasgranted by all five-star hotels and three 4-star hotels. Accordingly, a total number of
IJCHM22,6
842
225 questionnaires were distributed to frontline employees of these hotels. Participantswere given an assurance of confidentiality. By the cut-off date for data collection, atotal number of 107 questionnaires were retrieved, yielding a response rate of 47.6 percent.
Almost 53 per cent of the respondents were between the ages of 18 and 27, about 30per cent between the ages of 28 and 37, and the rest were older than 37. The sample wasbalanced in gender (49.5 per cent male and 50.5 per cent female). Approximately 37 percent of the respondents had secondary and high school education. About 16 per cent ofthe respondents had vocational school education and 46 per cent university firstdegrees. The rest had graduate degrees. Nearly 19 per cent of the respondents hadtenures less than one year and 62 per cent had tenures between one and five years.Almost 16 per cent had tenures between six and ten years and the rest had tenuresmore than ten years. The majority of the respondents (57.9 per cent) were single ordivorced, while the rest were married. Approximately 67 per cent of the respondentshad no children, 29 per cent of the respondents had between one and two children,while about 4 per cent had more than two children.
MeasurementThis study used measures from previous empirical studies to operationalise theconstructs depicted in Figure 1.
Work social support. Work social support was measured via nine items from Etzion(1984). Specifically, seven of these items were related to support features, which werepresent in work such as feedback, appreciation, and emotional support. These itemswere rated on a five-point scale ranging from 5 (very much) to 1 (very little). The tworemaining items were related to the quality of the relationships with supervisor(s) andco-workers. Response options for these items ranged from 5 (very good) to 1 (very bad).Higher scores indicated higher work social support.
Positive and negative work-family interaction. Work-family conflict, family-workconflict, work-family facilitation, and family-work facilitation were operationalised via16 items from Grzywacz and Marks (2000). Each of the abovementioned facetsconsisted of four items. Sample items for work-family conflict and family-work conflictinclude “my job reduces the effort I can give to activities at home” and “responsibilitiesat home reduce the effort I can devote to my job”. Sample items for work-familyfacilitation and family-work facilitation include “the things I do at work help me dealwith personal and practical issues at home” and “talking with someone at home helpsme deal with problems at work.” Response options for such items ranged from 5 (all thetime) to 1 (never). Higher scores indicated higher work-family conflict, family-workconflict, work-family facilitation, and family-work facilitation.
Exhaustion. Exhaustion and disengagement are the two components of burnout inthe OLBI. The OLBI covers affective, physical, and cognitive components ofexhaustion (Demerouti et al., 2003; Halbesleben and Buckley, 2004). In addition,disengagement, the second component of burnout in the OLBI, consists of “anextensive and intensive reaction in terms of an emotional, cognitive, and behaviouralrejection of the job” (Bakker et al., 2004, p. 96). Consequently, this study focuses on onlyexhaustion as the dependent variable, which is one of the components of burnout.Exhaustion was measured via eight items from the OLBI from Demerouti et al. (2003).Sample items for exhaustion include “there are days when I feel tired before I arrive at
Work-familyinteraction
843
work” and “usually, I can manage the amount of my work well.” Response options forthese items ranged from 4 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). After reversing thepositively worded scale items, higher scores indicated higher levels of exhaustion.
As mentioned before, age, gender, education, organisational tenure, marital status,and the number of children living at home were treated as control variables. Age,education, and organisational tenure were measured using four-point scales. Thenumber of children was measured via a three-point scale. Gender was coded as abinary variable (0 ¼ male and 1 ¼ female). Marital status was also coded as a binaryvariable (0 ¼ single or divorced and 1 ¼ married).
The survey instrument was originally prepared in English and then translated intoAlbanian via the back-translation method (Parameswaran and Yaprak, 1987). Thesurvey instrument was tested with a pilot sample of ten frontline hotel employees.There was no compelling reason to make changes in the survey instrument, sinceemployees did not have any difficulty in understanding the items.
Data analysisThe measures were subjected to a series of confirmatory factor analyses for the issuesof dimensionality, convergent and discriminant validity ( Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996).Internal reliability estimates were assessed via the commonly accepted cut-off value of0.70. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was employed to test the relationshipsdepicted in Figure 1. The minimum required sample size for this analysis wascalculated (see Cohen, 1988). Specifically, using an effect size of F2 ¼ 0:15, an alpha of0.05, and a power rate of 0.80, it was found that a minimum sample size of 90 wasneeded. A sample size of 107 in this study exceeded this minimum requirement.
The control variables were entered in step 1 and two facets of conflict andfacilitation in step 2 to predict exhaustion. In other words, work-family conflict,family-work conflict, work-family facilitation, and family-work facilitation wereentered as a block simultaneously in step 2 to predict exhaustion. Hierarchical multipleregression analysis was also used for testing the moderating effects. All predictingvariables were centred prior to multiplication. In predicting exhaustion, the controlvariables were entered in step 1, work-family conflict in step 2, work social support instep 3, and the interactive term (work-family conflict £ work social support) in step 4.This procedure was repeated for testing the rest of the moderating relationships.
ResultsMeasurement resultsAccording to the initial results of the confirmatory factor analysis, several items weredropped due to non-significant t-values. That is, two items from exhaustion and oneitem each from work-family facilitation and family-work facilitation were removedfrom further analysis. The final results of the confirmatory factor analysis were asfollows: x 2 ¼ 526:42, df ¼ 362; GFI [Goodness of fit index] ¼ 0.74; AGFI [Adjustedgoodness of fit index] ¼ 0.69; NFI [Normed fit index] ¼ 0.57; NNFI [Non-normed fitindex] ¼ 0.75; CFI (Comparative fit index( ¼ 0.78; RMSEA [Root mean square error ofapproximation] ¼ 0.065; SRMR [Standardised root mean square residual] ¼ 0.095.Such results were not satisfactory. According to Anderson and Gerbing (1988),evidence of convergent validity exists if all observable indicators should loadsignificantly on their respective latent variables. The results demonstrated that all
IJCHM22,6
844
observable indicators loaded on their latent variables and their t-values ranging from2.48 to 10.89 were significant (.2.00). These results met Anderson and Gerbing’s(1988) criteria for convergent validity. The aforementioned criteria for the issue ofconvergent validity were also used in prior and recent empirical studies (e.g. Karatepeand Magaji, 2008; Schwepker and Hartline, 2005).
Discriminant validity was evaluated based on a series of x 2 difference tests usingmeasures of each pair of constructs. In particular, a two-dimensional model for eachpair of constructs was first fit, and then items representing each construct were forcedinto a single-factor solution. The x 2 difference test produced a significant result foreach pair of measures. Thus, imposing a single factor solution on the two sets of itemsrepresenting different constructs demonstrated a significant deterioration of the modelfit. These results provided evidence of discriminant validity (Anderson and Gerbing,1988).
Common method bias was checked via Harman’s single-factor test usingconfirmatory factor analysis. This test is based on the assumption that commonmethod bias is a serious problem when a single latent factor will account for themajority of the covariance among the measures (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The results ofthe single-factor test were as follows: x 2 ¼ 986.60, df ¼ 377; GFI ¼ 0.61; AGFI ¼ 0.55;NFI ¼ 0.36; NNFI ¼ 0.46; CFI ¼ 0.50; RMSEA ¼ 0.124; SRMR ¼ 0.12. These resultswere worse than that of the six-factor model. The chi-square test also demonstratedthat the six-factor model was superior to the single-factor model (Dx 2 ¼ 460.18,Ddf ¼ 15, p , 0.001). In short, the results demonstrated that common method bias wasnot a significant problem in this study.
Composite scores for each construct were created by averaging all items comprisingthat particular construct. Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the studyvariables are demonstrated in Table I. As shown in Table I, the scales’ alphareliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) were as follows: work social support 0.80; work-familyconflict 0.70; family-work conflict 0.77; work-family facilitation 0.60; family-workfacilitation 0.73; and exhaustion 0.56. All alpha reliabilities met the commonly acceptedcut-off value of 0.70, excluding work-family facilitation and exhaustion. The results inTable I indicate that older employees and the ones with longer tenure are faced withmore conflict between family and work domains. Employees with more children needmore social support in the workplace and facilitation between family and workdomains. The results reveal that more educated employees experience higherwork-family conflict. In addition, older employees and the ones with longer tenure havemore favourable perceptions of work-family facilitation.
Model assessment and test of hypothesesTable II presents the effects of two directions of conflict and facilitation on exhaustion.The results of the hierarchical regression analysis demonstrate that both work-familyconflict (b ¼ 0.31, p , 0.01) and family-work conflict (b ¼ 0.29, p , 0.01) exertsignificant positive effects on exhaustion. Therefore, H1a and H1b are supported.Contrary to the study predictions, neither work-family facilitation nor family-workfacilitation is significantly related to exhaustion. Therefore, H2a and H2b are notsupported. Although not demonstrated in Table II, p value was below 0.10(work-family facilitation: t ¼ 21.81, p , 0.10, family-work facilitation: t ¼ 21.81,
Work-familyinteraction
845
Var
iab
les
12
34
56
78
910
1112
1.A
ge
1.00
02.
Gen
der
0.01
61.
000
3.E
du
cati
on2
0.01
50.
070
1.00
04.
Org
anis
atio
nal
ten
ure
0.49
6*
*2
0.01
40.
222
*1.
000
5.M
arit
alst
atu
s0.
274
**
0.20
0*
20.
095
0.34
8*
*1.
000
6.T
he
nu
mb
erof
chil
dre
nli
vin
gat
hom
e0.
581
**
0.07
82
0.05
50.
365
**
0.56
8*
*1.
000
7.W
ork
soci
alsu
pp
ort
0.06
62
0.07
42
0.05
72
0.02
10.
136
0.27
1*
*1.
000
8.W
ork
-fam
ily
con
flic
t2
0.01
22
0.00
30.
216
*0.
144
20.
166
20.
148
20.
186
1.00
09.
Fam
ily
-wor
kco
nfl
ict
0.19
5*
0.11
22
0.10
70.
192
*0.
052
0.18
82
0.27
4*
*0.
452
**
1.00
010
.W
ork
-fam
ily
faci
lita
tion
0.30
4*
*0.
021
20.
137
0.27
0*
*0.
151
0.16
20.
178
20.
067
0.24
5*
1.00
011
.F
amil
y-w
ork
faci
lita
tion
0.08
12
0.08
92
0.04
12
0.05
80.
103
0.24
7*
0.47
6*
*2
0.12
92
0.21
1*
0.07
71.
000
12.
Ex
hau
stio
n2
0.00
90.
142
20.
063
20.
006
20.
170
20.
169
20.
364
**
0.46
8*
*0.
440
**
20.
106
20.
312
**
1.00
0
Mea
n1.
650.
513.
102.
050.
421.
373.
642.
962.
803.
113.
742.
27S
tan
dar
dd
evia
tion
0.80
0.50
0.93
0.71
0.50
0.56
0.56
0.71
0.87
0.83
0.85
0.39
Alp
ha
––
––
––
0.80
0.70
0.77
0.60
0.73
0.56
Notes:
Com
pos
ite
scor
esfo
rea
chm
easu
rew
ere
obta
ined
by
aver
agin
gsc
ores
acro
ssit
ems
rep
rese
nti
ng
that
mea
sure
.Th
esc
ores
for
wor
kso
cial
sup
por
t,w
ork
-fam
ily
con
flic
t,fa
mil
y-w
ork
con
flic
t,w
ork
-fam
ily
faci
lita
tion
,an
dfa
mil
y-w
ork
faci
lita
tion
ran
ge
from
1to
5.T
he
scor
esfo
rex
hau
stio
nra
ng
efr
om1
to4.
Ag
e,ed
uca
tion
,an
dor
gan
isat
ion
alte
nu
rew
ere
mea
sure
du
sin
gfo
ur-
poi
nt
scal
es.
Th
en
um
ber
ofch
ild
ren
was
mea
sure
dv
iaa
thre
e-p
oin
tsc
ale.
Hig
her
scor
esin
dic
ated
old
erag
e,m
ore
edu
cate
d,
lon
ger
ten
ure
,an
dm
ore
chil
dre
n.G
end
erw
asco
ded
asa
bin
ary
var
iab
le(0¼
mal
ean
d1¼
fem
ale)
.M
arit
alst
atu
sw
asal
soco
ded
asa
bin
ary
var
iab
le(0¼
sin
gle
ord
ivor
ced
and
1¼
mar
ried
);*co
rrel
atio
ns
are
sig
nifi
can
tat
the
0.05
lev
el;
**co
rrel
atio
ns
are
sig
nifi
can
tat
the
0.01
lev
el.
Cor
rela
tion
sw
ith
out
any
aste
risk
sar
en
otsi
gn
ifica
nt
Table I.Means, standarddeviations, correlations ofstudy variables, andCronbach’s alpha
IJCHM22,6
846
p , 0.10), indicating a potential significant relationship. However, these hypothesesare not supported, since their effects on exhaustion are not significant at p , 0.05.
H3a predicts that work social support buffers the relationship between work-familyconflict and exhaustion. The results in Table III demonstrate that the interaction ofwork-family conflict and work social support (b ¼ 20.19, p , 0.05) has a significantnegative effect on exhaustion. There is a significant increment in R 2 of the model(DR 2 ¼ 0.03, p , 0.05). Therefore, H3a is supported. On the contrary, the results inTable III show that the impact of the interactive term (family-work conflict £ worksocial support) does not have any significant effect on exhaustion. Therefore, H3b isnot supported.
In addition, the results in Table IV reveal that the interaction of work-familyfacilitation and work social support has a significant negative effect on exhaustion(b ¼ 20.21, p , 0.05). A significant increment in R 2 of the model (DR 2 ¼ 0.04,p , 0.05) is also observed. Therefore, H4a is supported. However, there is nosignificant relationship between the interaction of family-work facilitation and worksocial support and exhaustion. Therefore, H4b is not supported.
Of the control variables, only gender in the final step (step 4) in Table IV depicted asignificant positive relationship with exhaustion. The results indicate that femaleemployees are more exhausted.
Dependent variable and standardisedregression weights
ExhaustionIndependent variables Step 1 Step 2
(I) Control variablesAge 0.08 0.11Gender 0.20 * 0.14Education 20.13 20.15Organisational tenure 0.11 20.01Marital status 20.18 20.08The number of children living at home 20.18 20.15
(II) Two facets of conflict and facilitationWork-family conflict 0.31 * *
Family-work conflict 0.29 * *
Work-family facilitation 20.16Family-work facilitation 20.16
F 1.78 12.29 * * *
R 2 at each step 0.10 0.40DR 2 – 0.30
Notes: Age, education, and organisational tenure were measured using four-point scales. The numberof children was measured via a three-point scale. Higher scores indicated older age, more educated,longer tenure, and more children. Gender was coded as a binary variable (0 2 male and 1 2 female).Marital status was also coded as a binary variable (0 2 single or divorced and 1 2 married). Theresults regarding variance inflation factors were below 2.4 and did not demonstrate any problems ofmulticollinearity; *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01, * * *p , 0.001
Table II.Hierarchical multiple
regression results: directeffects
Work-familyinteraction
847
Dep
end
ent
var
iab
lean
dst
and
ard
ised
reg
ress
ion
wei
gh
tsE
xh
aust
ion
Ex
hau
stio
nIn
dep
end
ent
var
iab
les
Ste
p1
Ste
p2
Ste
p3
Ste
p4
Ind
epen
den
tv
aria
ble
sS
tep
1S
tep
2S
tep
3S
tep
4
(I)
Con
trol
var
iab
les
(I)
Con
trol
var
iab
les
Ag
e0.
080.
080.
060.
02A
ge
0.08
.07
0.05
0.03
Gen
der
0.20
*0.
19*
0.16
0.16
Gen
der
0.20
*0.
130.
120.
13E
du
cati
on2
0.13
20.
20*
20.
19*
20.
17E
du
cati
on2
0.13
20.
052
0.06
20.
06O
rgan
isat
ion
alte
nu
re0.
110.
012
0.01
0.01
Org
anis
atio
nal
ten
ure
0.11
0.02
0.01
0.01
Mar
ital
stat
us
20.
182
0.11
20.
112
0.11
Mar
ital
stat
us
20.
182
0.11
20.
112
0.11
Th
en
um
ber
ofch
ild
ren
liv
ing
ath
ome
20.
182
0.11
20.
022
0.04
Th
en
um
ber
ofch
ild
ren
liv
ing
ath
ome
20.
182
0.25
*2
0.17
20.
16(I
I)W
-FC
ON
0.48
**
*0.
44*
**
0.49
**
*(I
I)F
-WC
ON
0.46
**
*0.
39*
**
0.42
**
*
(III
)W
SS
20.
26*
*2
0.31
**
(III
)W
SS
20.
19*
20.
20*
(IV
)W
-FC
ON
*W
SS
20.
19*
(IV
)F
-WC
ON
*W
SS
20.
09F
1.78
28.3
9*
**
9.39
**
4.08
*F
1.78
25.8
0*
**
4.18
*0.
90R
2at
each
step
0.10
0.30
0.36
0.39
R2
atea
chst
ep0.
100.
280.
310.
32DR
2–
0.20
0.06
0.03
DR
22
0.18
0.03
0.01
Notes:
Ag
e,ed
uca
tion
,an
dor
gan
isat
ion
alte
nu
rew
ere
mea
sure
du
sin
gfo
ur-
poi
nt
scal
es.T
he
nu
mb
erof
chil
dre
nw
asm
easu
red
via
ath
ree-
poi
nt
scal
e.H
igh
ersc
ores
ind
icat
edol
der
age,
mor
eed
uca
ted
,lo
ng
erte
nu
re,
and
mor
ech
ild
ren
.Gen
der
was
cod
edas
ab
inar
yv
aria
ble
(0¼
mal
ean
d1¼
fem
ale)
.M
arit
alst
atu
sw
asal
soco
ded
asa
bin
ary
var
iab
le(0¼
sin
gle
ord
ivor
ced
and
1¼
mar
ried
).W
-FC
ON¼
Wor
k-f
amil
yco
nfl
ict;
WS
S¼
Wor
kso
cial
sup
por
t;F
-WC
ON¼
Fam
ily
-wor
kco
nfl
ict.
Th
ere
sult
sre
gar
din
gv
aria
nce
infl
atio
nfa
ctor
sw
ere
bel
ow2.
4an
dd
idn
otd
emon
stra
tean
yp
rob
lem
sof
mu
ltic
olli
nea
rity
;*p,
0.05
,*
*p,
0.01
,*
**p,
0.00
1
Table III.Hierarchical multipleregression results:moderating effects
IJCHM22,6
848
Dep
end
ent
var
iab
lean
dst
and
ard
ised
reg
ress
ion
wei
gh
tsE
xh
aust
ion
Ex
hau
stio
nIn
dep
end
ent
var
iab
les
Ste
p1
Ste
p2
Ste
p3
Ste
p4
Ind
epen
den
tv
aria
ble
sS
tep
1S
tep
2S
tep
3S
tep
4
(I)
Con
trol
var
iab
les
(I)
Con
trol
var
iab
les
Ag
e0.
080.
120.
070.
05A
ge
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
Gen
der
0.20
*0.
21*
0.17
0.20
*G
end
er0.
20*
0.17
0.16
0.14
Ed
uca
tion
20.
132
0.16
20.
152
0.18
Ed
uca
tion
20.
132
0.12
20.
132
0.11
Org
anis
atio
nal
ten
ure
0.11
0.15
0.10
0.08
Org
anis
atio
nal
ten
ure
0.11
0.07
0.06
0.05
Mar
ital
stat
us
20.
182
0.18
20.
182
0.22
Mar
ital
stat
us
20.
182
0.18
20.
182
0.18
Th
en
um
ber
ofch
ild
ren
liv
ing
ath
ome
20.
182
0.19
20.
072
0.01
Th
en
um
ber
ofch
ild
ren
liv
ing
ath
ome
20.
182
0.09
20.
032
0.04
(II)
W-F
F2
0.15
20.
092
0.06
(II)
F-W
F2
0.26
**
20.
162
0.17
(III
)W
SS
20.
30*
*2
0.30
**
(III
)W
SS
20.
25*
20.
28*
(IV
)W
-FF
*W
SS
20.
21*
(IV
)F
-WF
*W
SS
0.09
F1.
782.
109.
61*
*5.
01*
F1.
787.
36*
*5.
89*
0.88
R2
atea
chst
ep0.
100.
120.
190.
23R
2at
each
step
0.10
0.16
0.21
0.21
DR
2–
0.02
0.07
0.04
DR
2–
0.06
0.05
0.00
Notes:
Ag
e,ed
uca
tion
,an
dor
gan
isat
ion
alte
nu
rew
ere
mea
sure
du
sin
gfo
ur-
poi
nt
scal
es.T
he
nu
mb
erof
chil
dre
nw
asm
easu
red
via
ath
ree-
poi
nt
scal
e.H
igh
ersc
ores
ind
icat
edol
der
age,
mor
eed
uca
ted
,lo
ng
erte
nu
re,
and
mor
ech
ild
ren
.Gen
der
was
cod
edas
ab
inar
yv
aria
ble
(0¼
mal
ean
d1¼
fem
ale)
.M
arit
alst
atu
sw
asal
soco
ded
asa
bin
ary
var
iab
le(0¼
sin
gle
ord
ivor
ced
and
1¼
mar
ried
).W
-FF¼
Wor
k-f
amil
yfa
cili
tati
on;
WS
S¼
Wor
kso
cial
sup
por
t;F
-WF¼
Fam
ily
-wor
kfa
cili
tati
on.
Th
ere
sult
sre
gar
din
gv
aria
nce
infl
atio
nfa
ctor
sw
ere
bel
ow2.
4an
dd
idn
otd
emon
stra
tean
yp
rob
lem
sof
mu
ltic
olli
nea
rity
;*p,
0.05
,*
*p,
0.01
Table IV.Hierarchical multiple
regression results:moderating effects
Work-familyinteraction
849
DiscussionThis study makes useful contributions to the hospitality management literature.Specifically, the present study provides insights concerning the effects of work-familyconflict, family-work conflict, work-family facilitation, and family-work facilitationsimultaneously on exhaustion. The current study also treats work social support as amoderator in the relationship between two facets of conflict and facilitation andexhaustion using a sample of frontline hotel employees in Albania.
As the COR theory contends, individuals lose their limited resources while jugglingboth work and family roles (Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999). Since individuals losetheir resources due to the experience of interrrole conflict, they are exhausted. Theresults demonstrating that work-family conflict and family-work conflict exacerbateexhaustion are congruent with those of Innstrand et al. (2008) and Yavas et al. (2008)and the precepts of the COR theory (Hobfoll, 2001). According to various studies, thereis a lack of contemporary human resource practices in the hospitality industry(Karatepe and Kilic, 2007; Rowley and Purcell, 2001). This is also valid for the Albanianhospitality industry. Specifically, frontline employees work in the Albanian hospitalityindustry where appropriate employee training and motivation based on domesticcompetition and international standards are not prevalent (Hall, 2000). Under thesecircumstances, such employees do not appear to know how to cope with work andfamily problems and exhaustion.
On the other hand, the results do not provide any empirical support for the effects ofwork-family facilitation and family-work facilitation on exhaustion. Such results arenot congruent with those of Innstrand et al. (2008) and Kinnunen et al. (2006) and theCOR theory, which posits that employees with resource surpluses are less vulnerable toexhaustion (Hobfoll, 2001; Innstrand et al., 2008). Though such relationships are notsupported at p , 0.05, p values less than 0.10 demonstrate potential significant effects.Such findings warrant further study.
The answer to the main question asked, “Does work social support make adifference”, seems to be yes. The results reported here delineate work social support asa moderator in the relationship between work-family conflict and exhaustion. Asargued by Cole and Bedeian (2007), employees with higher work social support cancope with stressful situations and thus are less vulnerable to exhaustion. That is, theeffect of work-family conflict on exhaustion is weaker for frontline employees withhigher work social support. Such a finding is consonant with the COR theory. Worksocial support is also a moderator in the relationship between work-family facilitationand exhaustion. Broadly speaking, work social support, coupled with work-familyfacilitation as a resource surplus, ameliorates exhaustion. Consistent with the CORtheory (Hobfoll, 2001; Innstrand et al., 2008), employees with sufficient work socialsupport can manage their work and family roles effectively and report less exhaustion.
The abovementioned findings are critical for the Albanian hospitality industry,because employees work in an environment where it is not family-supportive. Afamily-supportive work environment consists of family-supportive policies andfamily-supportive supervisors (Thomas and Ganster, 1995). Therefore, supportemanating from supervisors to balance work and family responsibilities andexperience less exhaustion is a viable resource in the workplace.
The results reveal that work social support does not moderate the impact offamily-work conflict on exhaustion. Furthermore, the results do not lend any empirical
IJCHM22,6
850
support to work social support as a moderator in the relationship between family-workfacilitation and exhaustion. Such findings are not consonant with the precepts of theCOR theory (Hobfoll, 2001; Innstrand et al., 2008). Testing family support as a resourcecould buffer the relationship between family-work conflict and exhaustion andstrengthen the negative relationship between family-work facilitation and exhaustion.
Management implicationsThe implications based on the findings of this study are of interest to hospitalitymanagers. Many hospitality organisations are devoid of family-supportive workenvironments and there is a need for a family-supportive work environment, especiallyin the hospitality industries of the developing countries. This is evident due to anumber of problems associated with conflicts between work and family domains (e.g.Deery, 2008; Karatepe and Kilic, 2007; Namasivayam and Zhao, 2007). Therefore, themanagements of hotels in Albania should benefit from establishing and maintaining afamily-supportive work environment. As mentioned before, such an environmentincludes family-supportive policies and family-supportive supervisors. Havingfamily-friendly benefits such as paid family leave, (subsidised) on-site child careservices, and flexible work schedules and family-supportive supervisors permanentlyin the workplace would be important indicators for the availability of such afamily-supportive work environment.
It is acknowledged that employees in frontline service jobs of the hospitalityindustry are faced with exhaustion. Work-family conflict and family-work conflicttrigger such a work-related strain. With this realisation, the managements of the hotelsshould arrange training programs for employees and their supervisors to delineate thecritical importance of supervisor support and coworker support as work-relatedresources to alleviate the effect of work-family conflict on exhaustion and strengthenthe negative relationship between work-family facilitation and exhaustion. Thesetraining programs should be frequently organised so that employees and theirsupervisors would always be aware of the significance of this support. However, someof the hospitality firms in Albania may not invest in training programs due to the costsinvolved. It should be noted that not arranging these trainings programs may alsocarry higher costs (cf. Netemeyer et al., 2005). Another potential remedy would be thathotel managers could employ mentors to provide their employees with immediatesupport for coping with conflicts in the work-family interface and exhaustion.
The abovementioned implications are critical for hospitality firms in Albania,because employees in frontline service jobs are unable to deliver service quality ifmanagers do not establish and maintain a work environment where employees cancope with difficulties associated with stressful and demanding situations.
Limitations and directions for future researchThis study has several limitations, which offer avenues for future research. First, therelationships among the study variables were tested based on cross-sectional dataobtained from frontline hotel employees. Although using cross-sectional data inempirical investigations in the extant literature is prevalent, such a practice makes itimpossible to determine the directions of the causal relationships. Therefore,employing longitudinal studies in future research would be helpful in establishing thedirections of the causal relationships. Second, the relationships in the conceptual model
Work-familyinteraction
851
were tested based on self-report data, which were susceptible to common method bias.Although this problem was controlled via Harman’s single-factor test usingconfirmatory factor analysis, it would be beneficial if future studies could collectdata from multiple sources.
Third, the reliability coefficients for exhaustion (0.56) and work-family facilitation(0.60) were below the commonly accepted cut-off level of 0.70. The small sample size aswell as a different cultural setting in this study appears to be responsible for theseresults. However, a careful examination of the extant literature indicates that there arevarious empirical studies, which have reported lower reliability coefficients below 0.70for different constructs (e.g. Johns et al., 2003; Koyuncu et al., 2007). Nevertheless, usinglarge sample sizes in future studies to test the relationships in the conceptual modelcould be a potential remedy. This could also improve the fit statistics of the model.Fourth, future studies should incorporate family support into the conceptual model toassess its moderating role on the relationships between: family-work conflict andexhaustion and family-work facilitation and exhaustion. In addition, inclusion ofpersonal resources such as self-efficacy and positive affectivity in the model wouldenhance the understanding concerning their moderating roles on the relationshipsbetween two directions of conflict and facilitation and exhaustion.
Fifth, future empirical studies should use cross-national samples in order toinvestigate the relationships demonstrated in the model. By doing so, it would bepossible to find out whether the model’s measures and effects are similar acrossstudies. Finally, replication studies with large sample sizes in the other hospitalityservice settings in developing countries would be beneficial to broaden the database forfurther generalisations.
Despite such limitations, this study adds to the existing knowledge base in thehospitality management literature by examining the effects of two facets of conflictand facilitation simultaneously on exhaustion and investigating work social support asa moderator in the relationship between such conflicts and facilitation in thework-family interface and exhaustion based on data obtained from a sample offull-time frontline hotel employees in Albania.
References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review andrecommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, May, pp. 411-23.
Aryee, S., Srinivas, E.S. and Tan, H.H. (2005), “Rhythms of life: antecedents and outcomes ofwork-family balance in employed parents”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 1,pp. 132-46.
Bakiu, V. and Baum, T. (1999), “Tourism in Albania: competing in the medeiterranean region”,Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 10 No. 1,pp. 4-14.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Verbeke, W. (2004), “Using the job demands-resources model topredict burnout and performance”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 43 No. 1,pp. 83-104.
Boyar, S.L., Maertz, C.P. Jr, Pearson, A.W. and Keough, S. (2003), “Work-family conflict: a modelof linkages between work and family domain variables and turnover intentions”, Journalof Managerial Issues, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 175-90.
IJCHM22,6
852
Brotheridge, C.M. and Lee, R.T. (2005), “Impact of work-family interference on generalwell-being: a replication and extension”, International Journal of Stress Management,Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 203-21.
Cannon, D.F. (1998), “Better understanding the impact of work interferences on organizationalcommitment”, Marriage and Family Review, Vol. 28 Nos 1/2, pp. 153-66.
Carlson, D.S. and Perrewe, P.L. (1999), “The role of social support in the stressor-strainrelationship: an examination of work-family conflict”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25,pp. 513-40.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Erlbaum,Hillsdale, NJ.
Cole, M.S. and Bedeian, A.G. (2007), “Leadership consensus as a cross-level contextual moderatorof the emotional exhaustion-work commitment relationship”, The Leadership Quarterly,Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 447-62.
Deery, M. (2008), “Talent management, work-life balance and retention strategies”, InternationalJournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 792-806.
Deery, M. and Jago, L. (2009), “A framework for work-life balance practices: addressing the needsof the tourism industry”, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 97-108.
Demerouti, E., Geurts, S.A.E. and Kompier, M. (2004), “Positive and negative work-homeinteraction: prevalence and correlates”, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 23 Nos 1/2,pp. 6-35.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “The jobdemands-resources model of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3,pp. 499-512.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Vardakou, I. and Kantas, A. (2003), “The convergent validity of twoburnout instruments: a multitrait-multimethod analysis”, European Journal ofPsychological Assessment, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 12-23.
Dormann, C. and Zapf, D. (2004), “Customer-related social stressors and burnout”, Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 61-82.
Etzion, D. (1984), “Moderating effect of social support on the stress-burnout relationship”, Journalof Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 615-22.
Frone, M.R. (2003), “Work-family balance”, in Quick, J.C. and Tetrick, L.E. (Eds), Handbook ofOccupational Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,pp. 143-62.
Frye, N.K. and Breaugh, J.A. (2004), “Family-friendly policies, supervisor support, work-familyconflict, family-work conflict, and satisfaction: a test of a conceptual model”, Journal ofBusiness and Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 197-220.
Glaveli, N., Petridou, E., Liassides, C. and Spathis, C. (2006), “Bank service quality: evidence fromfive Balkan countries”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 380-94.
Grandey, A.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1999), “The conservation of resources model applied towork-family conflict and strain”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 350-70.
Graves, L.M., Ohlott, P.J. and Ruderman, M.N. (2007), “Commitment to family roles: effects onmanagers’ attitudes and performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1,pp. 44-56.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Powell, G.N. (2006), “When work and family are allies: a theory ofwork-family enrichment”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 72-92.
Work-familyinteraction
853
Grzywacz, J.G. and Marks, N.F. (2000), “Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: an ecologicalperspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family”,Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 111-26.
Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2006), “Sources of social support and burnout: a meta-analytic test of theconservation of resources model”, Journal of applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 1134-45.
Halbesleben, J.R.B. and Buckley, M.R. (2004), “Burnout in organizational life”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 859-79.
Halbesleben, J.R.B. and Rotondo, D.M. (2007), “Developing social support in employees: humanresource development lessons from same-career couples”, Advances in Developing HumanResources, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 544-55.
Hall, D.R. (1990), “Stalinism and tourism: a study of Albania and North Korea”, Annals ofTourism Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 36-54.
Hall, D.R. (2000), “Tourism as sustainable development? The Albanian experience of‘transition’”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 31-46.
Heuven, E. and Bakker, A.B. (2003), “Emotional dissonance and burnout among cabinattendants”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1,pp. 81-100.
Hill, E.J. (2005), “Work-family facilitation and conflict, working fathers and mothers, work-familystressors and support”, Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 793-819.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”,American Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-24.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2001), “The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stressprocess: advancing conservation of resources theory”, Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 337-421.
Innstrand, S.T., Langballe, E.M., Espnes, G.A., Falkum, E. and Aasland, G.A. (2008), “Positiveand negative work-family interaction and burnout: a longitudinal study of reciprocalrelations”, Work and Stress, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Johns, N., Chan, A. and Yeung, H. (2003), “The impact of Chinese culture on servicepredisposition”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 107-22.
Joreskog, K. and Sorbom, D. (1996), LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide, Scientific SoftwareInternational, Chicago, IL.
Karatepe, O.M. (2008), “Work-family conflict and facilitation: implications for hospitalityresearchers”, in Tesone, D. (Ed.), Handbook of Hospitality Human Resources Management,Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 237-64.
Karatepe, O.M. and Baddar, L. (2006), “An empirical study of the selected consequences offrontline employees’ work-family conflict and family-work conflict”, TourismManagement, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 1017-28.
Karatepe, O.M. and Kilic, H. (2007), “Relationships of supervisor support and conflicts in thework-family interface with the selected job outcomes of frontline employees”, TourismManagement, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 238-52.
Karatepe, O.M. and Kilic, H. (2009), “The effects of two directions of conflict and facilitation onfrontline employees’ job outcomes”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 29 No. 7,pp. 977-93.
Karatepe, O.M. and Magaji, A.B. (2008), “Work-family conflict and facilitation in the hotelindustry: a study in Nigeria”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 395-412.
IJCHM22,6
854
Karatepe, O.M. and Sokmen, A. (2006), “The effects of work role and family role variables onpsychological and behavioral outcomes of frontline employees”, Tourism Management,Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 255-68.
Karatepe, O.M. and Uludag, O. (2007), “Conflict, exhaustion, and motivation: a study of frontlineemployees in Northern Cyprus hotels”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 645-65.
Karatepe, O.M. and Uludag, O. (2008), “Affectivity, conflicts in the work-family interface, andhotel employee outcomes”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 1,pp. 30-41.
Karatepe, O.M., Kilic, H. and Isiksel, B. (2008), “An examination of the selected antecedents andoutcomes of work-family conflict and family-work conflict in frontline service jobs”,Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1-24.
Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., Geurts, S. and Pulkkinen, L. (2006), “Types of work-family interface:well-being correlates of negative and positive spillover between work and family”,Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 149-62.
Koyuncu, M., Burke, R.J. and Fiksenbaum, L. (2007), “Work engagement among womenmanagers and professionals in a Turkish bank: potential antecedents and consequences”,Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 299-310.
Lu, J-F., Siu, O.-L., Spector, P.E. and Shi, K. (2009), “Antecedents and outcomes of a fourfoldtaxonomy of work-family balance in Chinese employed parents”, Journal of OccupationalHealth Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 182-92.
Morris, J.A. and Feldman, D.C. (1996), “The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences ofemotional labor”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 986-1010.
Mulvaney, R.H., O’Neill, J.W., Cleveland, J.N. and Crouter, A.C. (2007), “A model of work-familydynamics of hotel managers”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 66-87.
Namasivayam, K. and Mount, D.J. (2004), “The relationship of work-family conflicts andfamily-work conflict to job satisfaction”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research,Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 242-50.
Namasivayam, K. and Zhao, X. (2007), “An investigation of the moderating effects oforganizational commitment on the relationships between work-family conflict and jobsatisfaction among hospitality employees in India”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 5,pp. 1212-23.
Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S. and McMurrian, R. (1996), “Development and validation ofwork-family conflict and family-work conflict scales”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 400-10.
Netemeyer, R.G., Maxham, J.G. and Pullig, C. (2005), “Conflicts in the work-family interface: linksto job stress, customer service employee performance, and customer purchase intent”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, April, pp. 130-43.
O’Driscoll, M.P., Brough, P. and Kalliath, T.J. (2004), “Work/family conflict, psychologicalwell-being, satisfaction and social support: a longitudinal study in New Zealand”, EqualOpportunities International, Vol. 23 Nos 1/2, pp. 36-56.
O’Neill, J.W., Harrison, M.M., Cleveland, J., Almeida, D., Stawski, R. and Crouter, A.C. (2009),“Work-family climate, organizational commitment, and turnover: multilevel contagioneffects of leaders”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 18-29.
Parameswaran, R. and Yaprak, A. (1987), “A cross-national comparison of consumer researchmeasures”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 35-49.
Work-familyinteraction
855
Pjero, E. (2008), “Albania tourism market and its promotional strategy”, Economic Development,No. 3, pp. 229-47.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biasesin behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Rowley, G. and Purcell, K. (2001), “As cooks go, she went: is labor churn inevitable?”,International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 163-85.
Schwepker, C.H. and Hartline, M.D. (2005), “Managing the ethical climate of customer-contactservice employees”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 377-97.
Thomas, L.T. and Ganster, D.C. (1995), “Impact of family-supportive work variables onwork-family conflict and strain: a control perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 6-15.
Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J.I. and Fisher, J. (1999), “The role of social support in the process ofwork stress: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 314-34.
Westman, M., Hobfoll, S.E., Chen, S., Davidson, O.B. and Laski, S. (2004), “Organizational stressthrough the lens of conservation of resources (COR) theory”, in Perrewe, P.L. and Ganster,D.C. (Eds), Exploring Interpersonal Dynamics: Research in Occupational Stress and WellBeing, Vol. 4, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 167-220.
Yavas, U., Babakus, E. and Karatepe, O.M. (2008), “Attitudinal and behavioral consequences ofwork-family conflict and family-work conflict: does gender matter?”, International Journalof Service Industry Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 7-31.
Corresponding authorOsman M. Karatepe can be contacted at: [email protected]
IJCHM22,6
856
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints