Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 2014 Zhao 408 21

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


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



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




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.



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




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



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.




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



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.




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



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:




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.



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.



Documents

Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 2014 Zhao 408 21