Attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of work-life balance among hotel employees: The mediating role of psychological contract breach

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhtm

Attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of work-life balance among hotel employees: The mediating role of psychological contract breach

T

Bahar Kayaa, Osman M. Karatepeb,∗ a b

Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Business and Economics, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, TRNC, Via Mersin 10, 99628, Turkey Faculty of Tourism, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, TRNC, Via Mersin 10, 99628, Turkey

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Hotel employees Nonattendance intentions Psychological contract breach Task performance Voice behavior Work-life balance

Drawing from theory of role balance, social justice and conservation of resources theories, this study proposes a research model where psychological contract breach mediates the influence of work-life balance (WLB) on propensity to leave work early (PWE), propensity to be late for work (PLW), task performance, and voice behavior. Data gathered from hotel employees in a three-wave design (time lag: one month) and their direct supervisors in Turkey were utilized to gauge these relationships. These linkages were assessed via structural equation modeling. The findings disclose that WLB reduces employees’ perceptions of psychological contract breach, PWE, and PLW and fosters task performance and voice behavior. On the other hand, psychological contract breach heightens PWE and PLW and erodes task performance and voice behavior. The findings further demonstrate that psychological contract breach is a partial mediator in the aforementioned relationships. This study discusses the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.

1. Introduction Employees suffer from a lack of work-life balance (WLB), which refers to “…an individual's subjective appraisal of the accord between his/her work and non-work activities and life more generally” (Brough et al., 2014, p. 2728). Recent research indicated that most of the workers reported a lack of WLB (HOSCO, 2019). Therefore, WLB is the most important problem in the hospitality industry. In addition, a recent report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) highlighted that almost 33% of employees in Turkey suffered from very long working hours (OECD, 2019). This report further indicated that Turkey ranked last among 40 countries in terms of very long working hours (OECD, 2019). This is a significant problem because the absence of WLB initiatives makes employees perceive that management breaches its promised obligations (Kraak, Russo, & Jiménez, 2018). Theory of role balance proposes that WLB initiatives mitigate employees' stress and strain (Marks & MacDermid, 1996). As highlighted by social justice theory (Lewis & Smithson, 2001), WLB is a legitimate expectation and is different from favors. However, according to conservation of resources theory, individuals are likely to lose their valued resources while trying to manage stress at work (Hobfoll, 2001). In case employees are devoid of WLB initiatives, they may easily suffer from heightened stress and/or possess insufficient resources and therefore ∗

exhibit negative attitudinal and behavioral consequences (Shaffer, Harrison, Gilley, & Luk, 2001). These consequences may be in the form of propensity to leave work early (PWE), propensity to be late for work (PLW), poor task performance, and low levels of voice behavior. PLW is “an individual's specific affective and cognitive responses to being late for work” (Foust, Elicker, & Levy, 2006, p. 122). Similarly, PWE refers to employees' specific cognitive and affective responses to leaving work early (Ozturk & Karatepe, 2019). Voice behavior refers to “…making innovative suggestions for change and recommending modifications to standard procedures even when others disagree” (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998, p. 109). Task performance highlights employees' behaviors needed to be displayed while dealing with customer needs and requests (Netemeyer & Maxham, 2007). The abovementioned nonattendance intentions are among the signs of voluntary turnover, which would result in substantial costs for the company (cf. Ozturk & Karatepe, 2019). High levels of task performance are needed to create a pool of satisfied customers, while employees' voice behavior significantly contributes to improvement in service delivery (Netemeyer & Maxham, 2007; Van Dyne & LePline, 1998). In short, they are among the organizationally relevant and valued outcomes of WLB. Psychological contract between employees and the company is a critical constitutive part of the employment relationship (Bal, De Lange, Jansen, & Van Der Velde, 2008). It has been claimed that WLB is an important sign of psychological contract between employees and the

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Kaya), [email protected] (O.M. Karatepe).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.01.003 Received 3 April 2019; Received in revised form 10 January 2020; Accepted 14 January 2020 1447-6770/ © 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of CAUTHE - COUNCIL FOR AUSTRALASIAN TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY EDUCATION

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209

B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe

‘family-friendly policies’ (e.g., Frone, 2003). In her conceptual study, Deery (2008) stated that a number of factors such as anti-social and inflexible working hours and excessive workload created work-life imbalance, which led to many negative outcomes such as absenteeism, turnover intentions, low organizational commitment, and poor job satisfaction as well as marital dissatisfaction. In their past qualitative inquiry, Cullen and McLaughlin (2006) reported that managers in the Irish hotel sector treated WLB as a priority for their subordinates. O'Neill's (2012) research implicitly revealed that employees worried about stress and burnout though long working hours could contribute to their career path in the company. However, managers' persistence in long working hours engendered contradictory practices. According to Wong and Ko's (2009) research carried out in the hotel sector in Hong Kong, enough time off from work, commitment to work, work social support, and flexible work schedules enhanced WLB, while life orientation had a negative impact on WLB. According to Deery and Jago's (2015) past review, the absence of sufficient WLB initiatives aggravates stress and burnout, which in turn lead to substance use. In their recent review, Deery et al. (2018) highlight the critical role of WLB policies in attracting, motivating, and retaining the talented employees. Clark, Dimanche, Cotter, and LeeRosen (2017) discuss that poor WLB is one of the challenges the industry professionals are faced with. Baum (2019) notes that various sustainable high-performance work systems including WLB are not consistently present in the hotel industry. After reviewing different studies in the field of WLB, Sirgy and Lee (2018) concluded that having WLB initiatives in the company results in desirable outcomes (e.g., job performance). Based on a careful examination of the hospitality and tourism writings, WLB-related studies are summarized in Table 1. The abovementioned studies as well as the ones in Table 1 implicitly highlight the absence of evidence appertaining to the influence of WLB on psychological contract breach, PWE, PLW, task performance, and voice behavior among hotel employees. This study set out to fill in these research voids. The following section delineates the development of research hypotheses based on theory of role balance, social justice and conservation of resources theories and limited evidence borrowed from the relevant literature and depicts the research model.

company (cf. Sturges & Guest, 2004). However, psychological contract breach, which refers to “…the employee's perception regarding the extent to which the organization has failed to fulfill its promises or obligations …” (Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski, & Bravo, 2007, p. 649), results in negative emotions, attitudes, and behaviors (Bal et al., 2008; Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Zhao et al., 2007). In light of this, the effect of WLB on PWE, PLW, task performance, and voice behavior can be understood through the lens of psychological contract breach. Taking note of the above information, this study fills in the research gap by proposing a research model that focuses on psychological contract breach as a mediator of the influence of WLB on employees’ PWE, PLW, task performance, and voice behavior. That is, this study examines: (1) the impact of WLB on psychological contract breach and the aforesaid outcomes; (2) the linkage between psychological contract breach and these consequences; and (3) psychological contract breach as a mediator in these relationships. These linkages are assessed via data collected from hotel employees in Turkey, which is a very popular destination (Atadil, Sirakaya-Turk, & Altintas, 2015). In light of the vision of 2023 goals, the number of local and international chain hotels is increasing and the country targets 75 million tourists and 65 billion United States dollars in tourism revenues (Daily Sabah Tourism, 2019). In such a competitive market environment, management of hotels has to offer a bundle of WLB initiatives to acquire and retain employees for better service delivery. This study intends to contribute to the hospitality and tourism management literature as well as the broader human resource management literature in various ways. First, empirical investigations appertaining to WLB in the relevant hospitality and tourism research are in the developmental stage (Cain, Busser, & Kang, 2018; Deery, Jago, Harris, & Liburd, 2018). Though there are studies which have tested the outcomes of WLB (e.g., Sirgy & Lee, 2018), WLB and its consequences have been rarely examined so far (Chan et al., 2017). This echoes the works of Haar, Brougham, Roche, and Barney (2017) and Talukder, Vickers, and Khan (2018), which have emphasized that limited empirical attention has been given to WLB. Second, Casper, Vaziri, Wayne, DeHauw, and Greenhaus's (2018) meta-analytic study reports that WLB is strongly associated with job, family, and life satisfaction. Their study also claims that empirical research is needed whether and how WLB is linked to work and non-work outcomes. In addition, the mechanism(s) underlying the association between WLB and outcomes is (are) not clear (Sirgy & Lee, 2018; Thakur & Bhatnagar, 2017). This study responds to these calls for research.

2.2. Psychological contract breach MacNeil (1985) underscored two views of psychological contract: transactional and relational. Transactional psychological contract is centered on economic, tangible, and short-term contract obligations. As employees rely on a short-term relationship with the organization, they are unlikely to expect a bundle of family-friendly policies or job security. However, relational contract focuses on non-economic and longterm relational exchanges that maintain the relationship between the employer and employees. WLB is in the center of both transactional and relational contracts since work means ‘paid employment’ and life means ‘activities outside the workplace’ (cf. Sun, Xu, Koseoglu, & Okumus, 2019). Psychological contract breach happens when employees perceive that the company has failed in an attempt to fulfill its promise(s) (Rousseau, 1989). According to Morrison and Robinson (1997), reneging and incongruence are the conditions that make employees perceive violation in psychological contract. Reneging is when the employer explicitly makes a promise and fails in its attempt to keep it, while incongruence is when the employer and employees have different views about the content of an obligation (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Grounded in social justice theory, Lewis and Smithson (2001) indicated that WLB is a non-reciprocal right (legitimate expectation) and differs from favors. Thus, the absence of WLB can trigger employees' perceptions of psychological contract breach. Theory of role balance proposes that an individual's balance between multiple life roles leads to positive functioning and higher quality performance since balanced

2. Literature review and hypotheses 2.1. Work-life balance During the last two decades, advances in information technology, massive information load, narrow border between work and life, the need for fast and constant customer service, intensified workload, heightened exhaustion, and an increase in the number of weekend and evening working hours led to erosion in quality of life (cf. Guest, 2002). This was also true for single parents and working women, who were faced with an imbalance of work and non-work activities (Fleetwood, 2007; Guest, 2002). Participation of generation X and Y individuals in the workforce underscored the need for the establishment of WLB, which would enable them to do a good job (e.g., Smola & Sutton, 2002). In addition, non-work activities encompass a broad range of activities in life beyond traditional family responsibilities (Hall, Kossek, Briscoe, Pichler, & Lee, 2013). This makes WLB important for individuals who seek free time for their sports and social activities. Consequently, “…the demands of work begin to dominate life and a sense of work-life imbalance ensues” (Guest, 2002, p. 257). This resulted in empirical studies, which focused on the investigation of WLB and related topics such as ‘work social support’, ‘work-family balance’, ‘family-supportive environment’, and 200

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209

B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe

Table 1 Summary of empirical hospitality and tourism studies of WLB between 2010 and 2019. Source

Country

Sample

Main results

Andringa, Poulston, and Pernecky (2016) Boone et al. (2013) Bouzari and Karatepe (2019)

New Zealand

Hospitality entrepreneurs

Mostly United States Iran

Hotel employees Hotel salespeople

Brown et al., (2015)

United States

Graduates of hospitality program

Cain et al. (2018)

United States

Executive chefs

Chan (2019)

Hong Kong

Chiang, Birtch, and Kwan (2010) Hofmann and Stokburger-Sauer (2017) Remington and Kitterlin-Lynch (2018) Sonnenschein, Barker, and Hibbins (2019) Sun et al. (2019)

Hong Kong

Managerial and non-managerial hotel frontline staff Food service employees in the hotel and catering industry Hotel employees

Lack of WLB emerged as one of the consistent factors in the decision to leave and sell the business. WLB emerged as one of the important priorities for both men and women. Optimism acted as a full mediator of the effect of WLB on life satisfaction and creative performance. Inadequate WLB initiatives would make hospitality graduates exhibit quitting intent. However, sufficient WLB practices would encourage some of hospitality graduates to remain in the industry. WLB was a mediator between calling and life satisfaction as well between work engagement and life satisfaction. Workplace fun was reported to foster WLB.

Germany, Austria, and/or Italy United States China China

Female managers in the hospitality and tourism industry Chinese graduates with an Australian degree Hospitality and tourism entrepreneurs

When job control and WLB initiatives were low and job demands were high, employees suffered from stress. WLB was found to mediate the effects of emotional dissonance and positive emotions on organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Work-life imbalance was reported to be the most important issue impeding female leaders entering the hospitality industry. WLB was the most important issue for one of the graduates working in a stateowned hotel. Personal (e.g., time management) and contextual (e.g., family demands) factors affected entrepreneurs' WLB related to tourism destinations.

Note: WLB = Work-life balance.

workplace. Specifically, WLB enables employees to possess the balance between work and non-work roles and such employees do not need to make sacrifices from one role to obtain possession of balance again (Vanderpool & Way, 2013). Under these conditions, employees are less likely to display nonattendance intentions. The literature presents evidence about the effect of WLB on withdrawal cognitions. For instance, satisfaction with WLB was negatively associated with turnover intent (Wayne, Butts, Casper, & Allen, 2017). Kraak et al.’s (2018) study documented that delivered WLB practices reduced quitting intentions. Sirgy and Lee's (2018) integrative review highlighted that as WLB increased, employees' quitting intentions and absenteeism decreased. However, research regarding the linkage between WLB and nonattendance intentions is meager. In short, this study posits that employees with favorable perceptions of WLB initiatives are unlikely to exhibit PWE and PLW. Therefore, it is postulated that:

lifestyle contributes to stronger self-experience and results in reduced life strain (Marks & MacDermid, 1996). In support of this, WLB initiatives which are promoted as ‘win-win’ for the two parties reduce workers' stress (Deery et al., 2018). WLB initiatives also mitigate employees' psychological contract breach, which is a work-related stress. Anchored in theory of role balance, the present study develops the hypothesis regarding the linkage between WLB and psychological contract breach. In empirical terms, Collins, Cartwright, and Hislop (2013) showed that temporal flexibility for home working was an important sign of WLB, which was associated with the fulfillment of psychological contract. Vanderpool and Way (2013) reported that WLB weakened health care and senior services employees' job anxiety. Kraak et al. (2018) showed that delivered WLB inducements mitigated employees’ feelings of psychological contract breach. In short, employees perceive WLB initiatives (e.g., flexible working hours, training, and workshops) as the signs of the company's care about employees and the signs of promises kept by the company in the hospitality industry. Under these circumstances, such initiatives reduce employees' perceptions of psychological contract breach. Therefore, it is proposed that:

H2. WLB relates negatively to (a) PWE and (b) PLW. According to conservation of resources theory, objects, conditions, personal characteristics, and energies are the resources employees can use to achieve or protect valued resources (Hobfoll, 2001). Conservation of resources theory suggests that employees are likely to lose their valued resources while trying to cope with stress in the workplace (Hobfoll, 2001). If they suffer from heightened stress and/or possess inadequate resources within their work domain, they exhibit negative job outcomes (Shaffer et al., 2001). Psychological contract breach is a stressor and an indicator of the organizations’ failure in the provision of adequate work-related resources. This engenders negative job consequences for employees. As employees perceive that their psychological contract is breached, they will report quitting and nonattendance intentions. That is, they decrease the amount of time to be allocated to the work and engage in some withdrawal behaviors such as going to work late without permission, taking a longer break than allowed, and leaving work early (cf. Spector et al., 2006). However, research concerning the linkage between psychological contract breach and nonattendance intentions is sparse. Based on conservation of resources theory and limited evidence, it is proposed that:

H1. WLB relates negatively to psychological contract breach.

2.3. Propensity to leave work early and propensity to be late for work Withdrawal behaviors (e.g., lateness) are when employees voluntarily exhibit physical removal from the organization (Berry, Lelchook, & Clark, 2012). Non-attendance behavior is a form of withdrawal behavior in which employees intentionally reduce the amount of time they devote to work by arriving late at work, leaving work earlier, not attending work at all, or taking long permissions (e.g., Koslowsky, 2000). As discussed by Deery and Jago (2015), withdrawal behaviors ensue when the amount of time devoted to one role makes it difficult to devote adequate time to the other role. Koslowsky (2000) pointed out that employees opt for being late at work or leaving work early in order to meet their non-work demands and reduce work-family conflict. Theory of role balance contends that individuals tend to become fully engaged in the performance of every role in their total role system (Marks & MacDermid, 1996). This can be provided by WLB in the

H3. Psychological contract breach relates positively to (a) PWE and (b) PLW.

201

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209

B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe

and complaints to correct any injustice. This is especially critical when these employees had positive working relationships with supervisors. Lu, Capezio, Restubog, Garca, and Wang (2016) reported that psychological contract activated hotel employees' service-oriented in-role performance in Philippines. On the other hand, Kim, Karatepe, and Lee's (2018) study in South Korea indicated that psychological contract breach eroded employees' service innovation behaviors. Ng, Feldman, and Butts (2014) demonstrated a negative association between psychological contract breach and constructive voice behavior. Based on what has been presented and discussed so far, it is proposed that:

2.4. Task performance and voice behavior Customer-contact employees are expected to deal with customer demands in a friendly manner. Task performance refers to employees' effectiveness in delivering services and responding to customers' needs (Netemeyer & Maxham, 2007). Employee's voice behavior is viewed as one of the citizenship behaviors because employees sympathetically state their suggestions and ideas with the hope of improvement in the organization (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). However, employees may not always be willing to exhibit voice behavior since it can produce both positive and negative consequences for them (cf. Morrison & Milliken, 2000). As proposed by theory of role balance (Marks & MacDermid, 1996), an established balance between multiple life roles gives rise to positive functioning and employees will be fully engaged in the performance of their role due to such initiatives. Consequently, this makes employees center on their work and motivates them to display better task performance. Likewise, a supportive environment which consists of WLB initiatives can motivate employees to contribute to the organization through innovative suggestions and new ideas for changes in procedures. It appears that there is evidence demonstrating the linkage between WLB and task performance. When there are WLB initiatives, employees are not supposed to sacrifice their responsibilities in one role domain to meet the expectations of the other role domain (Vanderpool & Way, 2013). Specifically, Sirgy and Lee's (2018) work demonstrated that WLB fostered job performance. Research indicated that satisfaction with WLB activated job performance (Wayne et al., 2017). Haider, Jabeen, and Ahmad (2018) reported that WLB stimulated job performance among bank employees in Pakistan. On the other hand, there are some contradictory findings regarding the linkage between WLB and task performance across the empirical studies. For instance Brummelhuis and Van Der Lippe's (2010) study conducted in Dutch organizations illustrated that family-responsive culture was significantly and positively linked to task performance, while WLB initiatives such as flexible work arrangement, telecommuting, flextime, and supervisor support were not. A study conducted in South Korea revealed that WLB was not significantly linked to task performance (Kim, 2014). Having an understanding of the association between WLB and task performance and testing such relationship is important due to the inconsistent findings. Regarding the linkage between WLB and voice behavior, it appears that there is only one study, which has tested the influence of WLB on hotel employees’ voice behavior (Koyuncu, Burke, Fiksenbaum, & Tekin, 2013). This void in the current knowledge base warrants further investigation. In view of theory of role balance and the information presented above, it is posited that:

H5. Psychological contract breach relates negatively to (a) task performance and (b) voice behavior. 2.5. Mediating effects of psychological contract breach The discussion regarding the influence of WLB on PWE and PLW as well as the influence of psychological contract breach on these nonattendance intentions presented before implicitly highlights the mediating effects. Specifically, WLB mitigates employees’ feelings of psychological contract breach. Employees with favorable perceptions of WLB also exhibit positive affective consequences. Management is likely to observe positive attitudinal outcomes if it keeps its promises by enabling employees to avail themselves of family-friendly initiatives (e.g., Kraak et al., 2018). However, employees would be unlikely to contribute to the organization by displaying higher PWE and PLW if the company failed to deliver on its promises. Hence, it is posited that: H6. Psychological contract breach partly mediates the influence of WLB on (a) PWE and (b) PLW. As mentioned earlier, employees' favorable perceptions of WLB initiatives reduce psychological contract breach. Such perceptions also give rise to positive behavioral consequences such as task performance and voice behavior. Employees engage in the accomplishment of their daily tasks as a result of WLB initiatives (Haider et al., 2018; Marks & MacDermid, 1996). They provide management with specific suggestions and novel ideas to contribute to service delivery. In short, employees would perform their roles effectively in return for the company's fulfillment of promises given to employees. On the other hand, employees would be unlikely to exhibit good task performance and offer potential/alternative solutions to operational problems at work if management failed to deliver on its promises. This leads to the following hypotheses: H7. Psychological contract breach partly mediates the influence of WLB on (a) task performance and (b) voice behavior.

H4. WLB relates positively to (a) task performance and (b) voice behavior.

2.6. Research model

In agreement with conservation of resource theory (Hobfoll, 2001), employees who are plagued with insufficient resources at work are likely to lose their limited resources to handle stress. Consequently, these employees exhibit undesirable behavioral consequences (Shaffer et al., 2001). Employees cannot exhibit high levels of task performance and communicate their opinions about work issues to their colleagues when they perceive that the organization fails in adhering to its promised commitments. That is, psychological contract breach lessens employees’ task performance and voice behavior, which is a form of extra-role behavior (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Management of companies failing in fulfilling the promised obligations and securing a longterm employment has a pool of employees who are not motivated to carry out the responsibilities of the job successfully (i.e., task performance) and display organizational citizenship behaviors (Restubog, Bordia, & Tang, 2007). Turnley and Feldman (1999) discussed that employees would respond to psychological contract breach by voicing their ideas, feedback,

The study model in Fig. 1 presents the relationships among the study constructs. The presence of WLB initiatives mitigates psychological contract breach, reduces nonattendance intentions such as PWE and PLW, and enhances task performance and voice behavior. However, breach of perceived promises gives rise to undesirable responses such as higher nonattendance intentions and lower task performance and reduced voice behavior. The model further proposes that psychological contract breach partly mediates the aforesaid linkages. 3. Method 3.1. Respondents and data collection The sample comprised full-time hotel customer-contact employees in Antalya in Turkey. This study considered selecting these employees because they have daily frequent interactions with customers, have a significant role in the provision of quality services to customers and 202

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209

B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe

Fig. 1. Research model on the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of work-life balance mediated by psychological contract breach.

to 325 customer-contact employees. Two hundred and ninety-six surveys were received at Time 2. However, 15 surveys were eliminated because of missing information. Consequently, 281 customer-contact employees completed the Time 2 surveys. Two hundred and eight-one Time 3 surveys were distributed to the same employees. In the third wave, 242 Time 3 surveys were returned. Sixteen surveys were discarded because they were incomplete. Two hundred and twenty-six customer-contact employees filled out the Time 3 surveys. This led to a response rate of 64.6%. Twenty-nine supervisors assessed customercontact employees’ task performance and voice behavior. Demographic breakdown of the sample is presented in Table 2.

service recovery, and give information to management about customer needs (e.g., Ghosh & Khatri, 2018; Ozturk & Karatepe, 2019). In addition, in a recent review, Deery et al. (2018) discuss that the findings emerging from the majority of the WLB research are based on the samples derived from the over-representation of professional employees. This restricts the ability to make generalizations to other industries such as the hospitality industry (Deery et al., 2018). In short, since these employees play a critical role in customer service experience (Chen, Hu, & King, 2018; Milliman, Gatling, & Kim, 2018), a sample of hotel customer-contact employees serves as the study setting. According to the information received from Antalya City of Culture and Tourism Directorate, the majority of the international and national five-star hotels were situated in the Manavgat area. Only 14 hotels could be contacted. However, one international five-star hotel as well as three national five-star hotels accepted the invitation to take part in this study. Data were gathered through the human resource managers of the abovementioned hotels. Data were collected between June–September 2017. The time lag used between each wave was one month. The current study utilized procedural remedies to reduce common method variance (e.g., Ozturk & Karatepe, 2019; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). First, there were three waves of data. As mentioned above, the time lag was one month. Moreover, employees' task performance and voice behavior were rated by their direct supervisors. Second, each survey's cover page comprised detailed information. It was as follows: “There are no right or wrong answers in this questionnaire”, “Any sort of information collected during our research will be kept confidential”, “Participation is voluntary but encouraged”, and “Management of your hotel fully endorses participation.” Third, anonymity was guaranteed as each employee or supervisor was asked to seal the survey in an envelope given to him or her and place the sealed envelope in the designated box. Lastly, identification codes were used to match the questionnaires. Three hundred and fifty customer-contact employees were requested to complete the Time 1 surveys. Three hundred and twenty-five surveys were obtained at Time 1. The Time 2 surveys were distributed

3.2. Instrumentation The back-translation technique was utilized to prepare all of the surveys. That is, the English language surveys were translated into Turkish via the back-translation technique. These surveys were piloted with five employees who commented on readability and ease of understanding. Likewise, the supervisor survey was piloted with five supervisors regarding readability and ease of understanding. The findings illustrated that there were no compelling reasons to make amendments in the aforementioned instruments. Participants completed the WLB scale (Time 1 survey) devised and validated by Brough et al. (2014). This scale consisted of four items. In this scale, one item was negatively worded. The items to operationalize psychological contract breach (Time 2 survey) were borrowed from the work of Robinson and Morrison (2000). This scale included five items. Three of the items were positively worded. Three items from Foust et al. (2006) were tapped to gauge PLW (Time 3 survey). Congruent with Ozturk and Karatepe's (2019) work, the items used to assess lateness attitude were adapted from Foust et al. (2006) for the assessment of PWE (Time 3 survey). For example, the item “Tardiness to work should be acceptable as long as the work gets finished” was adapted to “Leaving work early should be acceptable as long as the work gets finished”. In short, PWE was assessed using three items. Customer203

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209

B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe

models (Nunkoo, Ramkissoon, & Gursoy, 2013; Ozturk & Karatepe, 2019): “χ2/df, comparative fit index (CFI), parsimony normed fit index (PNFI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)”.

Table 2 Respondents’ profile (n = 226).

Age 18-27 28–37 38–47 48–57 58 and above Gender Male Female Education Primary school Secondary and high school Two-year college degree Four-year college degree Graduate degree Organizational tenure Less than 1 year 1–5 6–10 11–15 16 years and longer Marital status Single or divorced Married The number of children None 1–2 3–4 5–6

Number of respondents

%

66 78 60 19 3

29.2 34.5 26.5 8.4 1.3

124 102

54.9 45.1

23 89 84 26 4

10.2 39.4 37.2 11.5 1.8

52 90 54 23 7

23.0 39.8 23.9 10.2 3.1

89 137

39.4 60.6

93 78 52 3

41.2 34.5 23.0 1.3

4. Results 4.1. The measurement model Before proceeding with the assessment of hypotheses, the fit of the six-factor measurement model was tested. Table 3 presents fit indices of the model, standardized loadings, t-values, composite reliabilities, and coefficient alphas. Two items from the psychological contract breach measure were dropped because of the fact that their standardized loadings were below 0.50. The findings associated with fit statistics showed that the six-factor measurement model fit the data well (χ2 = 324.62, df = 174; χ2/df = 1.866; CFI = 0.96; PNFI = 0.76; RMSEA = 0.062; SRMR = 0.044). All items loaded significantly on latent factors (t-values > 2.58, p < 0.01). One of the loadings that belonged to the WLB measure was 0.52. The rest of the loadings were > 0.70. The average variance extracted by WLB, psychological contract breach, PWE, PLW, task performance, and voice behavior was 0.48, 0.78, 0.78, 0.87, 074, and 0.71, respectively. The average variance extracted by each latent construct (excluding WLB) was > 0.50. Though the average variance extracted by WLB (0.48) was slightly smaller than 0.50, the standardized loadings of the WLB items were above 0.50. In addition, the average variance extracted is a conservative test and can be less than 0.50, even though composite reliability of that measure is above 0.70 (Jiang, Klein, & Carr, 2002). This has also been reported/observed in other studies (e.g., Huang & Van der Veen, 2018; Karatepe & Vatankhah, 2014). To sum up, the findings given above effectively supported convergent validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Jiang et al., 2002). The average variance extracted by each latent variable exceeded the shared variances between each variable pairing, revealing that discriminant validity was corroborated (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As for the internal reliability estimates, composite reliabilities and coefficient alphas were computed. As demonstrated in Table 3, composite reliability scores and coefficient alphas were deemed acceptable. That is, all the measures were reliable since they exceeded the recommended cutoff level (> 0.70) (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). The skewness (kurtosis) value for the scale items were given in Table 3. These values were lower than the 3.00 threshold for skewness and the 8.00 cutoff level for kurtosis, demonstrating that the data seemed to be normally distributed (Kline, 2011). Descriptive statistics and correlations were reported in Table 4.

contact employees' task performance (the supervisor survey) was measured utilizing three items from Netemeyer and Maxham (2007). Five items came from Van Dyne and LePine (1998) to assess employee voice behavior (the supervisor survey). Employees used a seven-response format for the items in psychological contract breach, PWE, PLW, and voice behavior, which was anchored by “7 (strongly agree)” to “1 (strongly disagree)”. Participants used a five-response format (”5 = strongly agree” to “1 = strongly disagree”) for the WLB items. Respondents utilized a seven-response format for the items in task performance (”7 = always” to “1 = never”). Higher scores consistently showed higher WLB, psychological contract breach, PWE, PLW, task performance, and voice behavior. Gender, marital status, and the number of children were used as the control variables since they may be significantly linked to the study variables and lead to statistical confounds (e.g., Chan et al., 2017; Ozturk & Karatepe, 2019). Higher scores demonstrated more children. 3.3. Data analyses

4.2. Common method variance check The measurement and structural models were assessed in two steps (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). First, the psychometric properties of the measures were tested (i.e., validity and reliability). Second, the linkages among the study variables were gauged via structural equation modeling. Before assessing the hypothesized relationships, it is a common practice to gauge the alternative models to ascertain which model best fits the data better. Therefore, these models were compared via the chisquare difference test and other relevant fit statistics. The Sobel test was used for the assessment of the mediating effects (e.g., Ozturk & Karatepe, 2019). Data were analyzed using Linear Structural Relationships (LISREL) 8.30 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996). LISREL which has been preferred in a plenty of empirical studies enables the researcher to assess the measurement model through confirmatory factor analysis and the structural model via structural equation modeling (e.g., Chen & Kao, 2012; Kara, Uysal, Sirgy, & Lee, 2013; Reisinger & Turner, 1999). The present study utilized several fit statistics for the measurement and hypothesized

Though a time-lagged survey design was employed in this study, participants rated their perceptions of WLB, psychological contract breach, PWE, and PLW. To check the risk common method variance, exploratory factor analysis was employed. Task performance and voice behavior were excluded from this analysis because the supervisors rated employees’ behavioral outcomes. The findings associated with unrotated exploratory factor analysis revealed the first factor, which accounted for 50.7% of the total variance. A four-factor measurement model that included WLB, psychological contract breach, PWE, and PLW was also compared with a single-factor model using confirmatory factor analysis. The findings for a singlefactor model (χ2 = 1125.67, df = 65; χ2/df = 17.32; CFI = 0.61; PNFI = 0.49; RMSEA = 0.269; SRMR = 0.11) were worse than the ones with a four-factor measurement model (χ2 = 92.89, df = 59; χ2/ df = 1.574; CFI = 0.98; PNFI = 0.73; RMSEA = 0.051; SRMR = 0.047). The χ2 test also showed that the single-factor model 204

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209

B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe

Table 3 Scale items, sources, and confirmatory factor analysis results. Scale items

M (SD)

S (K)

Standardized loading

t-value

3.67 (0.88)

−0.20 (−0.65)

0.52

7.70

3.92 (0.85) 3.92 (0.88) 3.96 (0.95)

−0.68 (0.07) −0.89 (0.91) −0.91 (0.57)

0.71 0.80 0.71

11.41 13.37 11.37

Psychological contract breach (Robinson & Morrison, 2000) (AVE = 0.78, CR = 0.91, α = 0.91) Almost all the promises made by my employer during recruitment have been kept so far (−) I feel that my employer has come through in fulfilling the promises made to me when I was hired (−) So far my employer has done an excellent job of fulfilling its promises to me (−) I have not received everything promised to me in exchange for my contributions My employer has broken many of its promises to me even though I've upheld my side of the deal

2.56 (1.23) 2.68 (1.21) 2.64 (1.27) – –

1.13 (1.34) 0.74 (0.51) 1.08 (1.78) – –

0.92 0.94 0.78 -* -*

17.60 18.28 13.76 – –

Propensity to leave work early (Adapted from Foust et al., 2006) (AVE = 0.78, CR = 0.91, α = 0.91) Leaving work early should be acceptable as long as the work gets finished Leaving work early occasionally should be acceptable I find it acceptable to leave work 10 min early

2.54 (1.26) 2.51 (1.30) 2.58 (1.28)

1.00 (0.64) 0.94 (0.45) 1.27 (1.45)

0.89 0.92 0.83

16.56 17.54 15.09

Propensity to be late for work (Foust et al., 2006) (AVE = 0.87, CR = 0.95, α = 0.95) Tardiness to work should be acceptable as long as the work gets finished Occasional tardiness for work should be acceptable I find it acceptable to be 10 min late to work

2.70 (1.56) 2.59 (1.46) 2.58 (1.48)

1.00 (0.12) 1.10 (0.52) 1.06 (0.27)

0.92 0.94 0.94

17.95 18.63 18.61

5.41 (1.11) 5.31 (1.17) 5.38 (1.14)

−1.51 (2.40) −1.00 (1.30) −1.28 (2.12)

0.90 0.87 0.80

16.92 16.01 14.18

5.41 (1.21) 5.39 (1.23) 5.38 (1.18)

−1.08 (0.96) −1.28 (1.76) −1.11 (1.44)

0.73 0.78 0.84

12.49 13.70 15.49

5.29 (1.16) 5.25 (1.20)

−1.12 (1.40) −1.09 (1.46)

0.90 0.95

17.25 19.05

Work-life balance (Brough et al., 2014) (AVE = 0.48, CR = 0.78, α = 0.77) I currently have a good balance between the time I spend at work and the time I have available for non-work activities I have difficulty balancing my work and non-work activities (−) I feel that the balance between my work demands and non-work activities is currently about right Overall, I believe that my work and non-work life are balanced

Task performance (Netemeyer & Maxham, 2007) (AVE = 0.74, CR = 0.89, α = 0.89) How often did this employee meet formal performance requirements when serving customers How often did this employee perform all those tasks for customers that were required of him/her How often did this employee adequately complete all expected customer service behaviors Voice behavior (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) (AVE = 0.71, CR = 0.93, α = 0.91) This employee develops and makes recommendations concerning issues that affect this company This employee speaks up and encourages others in this company to get involved in issues that affect the company This employee communicates his or her opinions about work issues to others in this company even if others in the company disagree with him or her This employee gets involved in issues that affect the quality of work life here in this company This employee speaks up in this company with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures

Model fit statistics: χ2 = 324.62, df = 174, χ2/df = 1.866; CFI = 0.96; PNFI = 0.76; RMSEA = 0.062; SRMR = 0.044

Note: All loadings are significant at the 0.01 level. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation; S = Skewness; K = Kurtosis; AVE = Average variance extracted; CR = Composite reliability; α = Coefficient alpha; CFI = Comparative fit index; PNFI = Parsimony normed fit index; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual. (−) denotes reverse-scored item. * dropped during confirmatory factor analysis.

was worse than the four-factor measurement model (Δχ2 = 1032.78, Δdf = 6, p < 0.05). One-dimensional model explained only 46.7% of the total variance. Since the variance explained by the first factor or one-dimensional model is less than 50–60% of the variance among the constructs, common method variance does not appear to be a threat (e.g., Fuller, Simmering, Atinc, Atinc, & Babin, 2016).

calculation revealed that the recommended sample size was 161 [anticipated effect size = 0.3 medium effect size; desired statistical power level = 0.8; number of latent constructs = 6 (WLB, psychological contract breach, PWE, PLW, task performance, and voice behavior); number of observed variables = 24 (WLB 4 items; psychological contract 3 items, PWE 3 items; PLW 3 items; task performance 3 items; voice behavior 5 items, and 3 control variables); and probability level = 0.05]. The study's sample size was 226 and was greater than the recommended sample size for structural equation modeling. The extant literature also delineates studies with sample sizes lower than 226 but uses more than 21 items to test the associations via SEM (e.g., Ozturk &

4.3. Test of the research model Soper's (2017) a-priori sample size calculator was utilized to determine the sample size of the study. The results based on this Table 4 Descriptive statistics and correlations of observed variables. Variables

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

0.45 0.61 0.85 3.87 2.63 2.54 2.63 5.36 5.35

0.50 0.49 0.82 0.69 1.13 1.18 1.43 1.03 1.02

– 0.058 −0.002 −0.001 0.024 −0.055 −0.015 −0.013 −0.049

– 0.588* −0.118 0.044 0.102 0.046 −0.008 −0.083

– 0.001 −0.021 −0.031 −0.034 0.032 −0.035

– −0.503* −0.492* −0.510* 0.598* 0.552*

– 0.595* 0.464* −0.623* −0.582*

– 0.574* −0.614* −0.548*

– −0.409* −0.367*

– 0.758*

–

Gender Marital status The number of children Work-life balance Psychological contract breach Propensity to leave early Propensity to be late for work Task performance Voice behavior

Note: Composite scores for each variable were computed by averaging scores across items representing that variable. Gender was coded as a dichotomous variable (0 = male and 1 = female). Marital status was coded as a binary variables (0 = single or divorced and 1 = married). The number of children was measured through four categories (0 = none, 1 = 1–2, 2 = 3–4, 3 = 5–6). SD: Standard deviation. * Correlations are significant (p < 0.01) (two-tailed test). 205

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209

B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe

Table 5 Results of model comparisons. Models

χ2

df

Δχ2

Δdf

MC

CFI

PNFI

RMSEA

SRMR

I. Hypothesized model (partially mediated model) WLB → PCB, PWE, PLW, TP, VB PCB → PWE, PLW, TP, VB

449.46

225

–

–

–

0.93

0.72

0.067

0.059

II. Fully mediated model WLB → PCB PCB → PWE, PLW, TP, VB

602.53

229

153.07

4

I and II

0.91

0.71

0.085

0.082

503.08

226

53.62

1

I and III

0.92

0.71

0.074

0.16

III. Non-mediated model WLB → PWE, PLW, TP, VB PCB → PWE, PLW, TP, VB

Note: The control variables were included in the analysis. The hypothesized model was the best-fitting model. WLB = Work-life balance; PCB = Psychological contract breach; PWE = Propensity to leave work early; PLE = Propensity to be late for work; TP = Task performance; VB = Voice behavior; MC = Model comparison; CFI = Comparative fit index; PNFI = Parsimony normed fit index; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual.

the findings highlighted that WLB depicted a negative association with PWE (hypothesis 2a, β31 = −0.47, t = −4.86) and PLW (hypothesis 2b, β41 = −0.49, t = −4.66). In support of hypotheses 3a and 3b, the findings revealed that psychological contract breach was positively associated with PWE (hypothesis 3a, β32 = 0.35, t = 4.76) and PLW (hypothesis 3b, β42 = 0.18, t = 2.22). Consistent with the study predictions, WLB portrayed a positive linkage with task performance (hypothesis 4a, β51 = 0.67, t = 5.99) and voice behavior (hypothesis 4b, β61 = 0.60, t = 5.38). Hence, these findings supported hypotheses 4a and 4b. In addition, psychological contract breach related negatively to task performance (hypothesis 5a, β52 = −0.28, t = −4.00) and voice behavior (hypothesis 5b,

Karatepe, 2019; Yang, Zhang, Kwan, & Chen, 2018). The comparison of the measurement model (χ2 = 324.62, df = 174) with the structural model without the control variables (χ2 = 404.29, df = 180) produced a significant result (Δχ2 = 79.67, Δdf = 6, p < 0.05). The partially mediated model was compared with the fully mediated model and non-mediated model through chi-square difference test and other relevant fit statistics. As given in Table 5, the partially mediated model was the best-fitting model. Model fit statistics for the partially mediated model was presented in Fig. 2. The findings demonstrated that WLB had a negative association with psychological contract breach (β21 = −0.61, t = −5.83). This provided support for hypothesis 1. In support of hypotheses 2a and 2b,

Fig. 2. Model test results on the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of work-life balance mediated by psychological contract breach. Notes: All parameter estimates are significant at 0.05 or better (Two-tailed test: t > 1.96, p < 0.05 and t > 2.58, p < 0.01). WLB = Work-life balance; PCB = Psychological contract breach; PWE = Propensity to leave work early; PLW = Propensity to be late for work; TP = Task performance; VB = Voice behavior; CFI = Comparative fit index; PNFI = Parsimony normed fit index; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual. 206

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209

B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe

β62 = −0.25, t = −3.51). Hence, hypotheses 5a and 5b were supported. The model highlights the mediated impacts exhibited by psychological contract breach in the association between WLB and outcomes based on the results of the Sobel test. In support of hypothesis 6a, psychological contract breach displayed a partial mediating role in the linkage between WLB and PWE (z = −3.97, p < 0.01). Likewise, hypothesis 6b was confirmed because psychological contract breach had a partial mediating role in the relationship between WLB and PLW (z = −2.17, p < 0.05). In line with the study expectations, psychological contract breach partially mediated the influence of WLB on task performance (hypothesis 7a, z = 3.65, p < 0.01) and voice behavior (hypothesis 7b, z = 3.26, p < 0.01). Therefore, hypotheses 7a and 7b were confirmed. When the control variables were not included, the significance of the effects did not change.

balance (Marks & MacDermid, 1996), this study has linked WLB to psychological contract breach, PWE, PLW, task performance, and voice behavior. Investigating the abovementioned linkages is significant and relevant because most of the WLB-related studies have utilized traditional variables such as job satisfaction and turnover intentions (cf. Deery & Jago, 2015). To contribute to the existing knowledge base, this study used two important nonattendance intentions variables, which are PWE and PLW (Ozturk & Karatepe, 2019). This study also utilized voice behavior as one of the behavioral outcomes of WLB (Koyuncu et al., 2013). Second, the current study has taken into consideration Casper et al.’s (2018) meta-analytic investigation and other relevant studies (Sirgy & Lee, 2018; Thakur & Bhatnagar, 2017) and responded to the question of how WLB is related to work-related outcomes. In this regard, using theory of role balance (Marks & MacDermid, 1996), social justice (Lewis & Smithson, 2001) and conservation of resources theories (Hobfoll, 2001), psychological contract breach has been treated as a mediator linking WLB to PWE, PLW, task performance, and voice behavior. The results shown earlier are important additions to the relevant literature since no empirical research has linked WLB to the aforesaid outcomes via the mediating role of psychological contract breach so far. Third, evidence about WLB in emerging economies/developing countries is scarce (e.g., Mushfiqur et al., 2018; Wang, Kwan, & Zhou, 2017). Obtaining data in an emerging economy is likely to enhance the understanding about the consequences of WLB. Accordingly, this study has utilized data received from hotel employees in Turkey. The findings have enhanced the understanding that psychological contract breach partly mediates the influence of WLB on PWE, PLW, task performance, and voice behavior.

5. Discussion 5.1. Conclusions A research model examining psychological contract breach as a mediator of the impact of WLB on PWE, PLW, task performance, and voice behavior was proposed and tested with data gathered from hotel employees and their direct supervisors in Turkey. All hypotheses received support from the data. Specifically, WLB lessens employees' perceptions of psychological contract breach. This is significant since WLB is one of the signs of promises kept by the company (Kraak et al., 2018) and is an opportunity-enhancing human resource practice alleviating employees’ feelings of psychological contract breach. The findings suggest that WLB is an antidote to employees’ PWE and PLW, while psychological contract breach is a work-related stressor aggravating their PWE and PLW. The presence of WLB initiatives enables employees to establish the balance between their work and nonwork roles. These employees do not need to spend much time at work at the expense of family time due to WLB initiatives (cf. Vanderpool & Way, 2013). Under these circumstances, they exhibit lower PWE and PLW. However, employees who perceive that management breaches its promises or have feelings of betrayal display heightened PWE and PLW. This makes employees lose their motivation to have attendance intentions. PWE and PLW are the reflection of breaches of psychological contract. In agreement with Sirgy and Lee's (2018) integrative review and the work of Koyuncu et al. (2013), the presence of WLB initiatives fosters employees' behavioral outcomes in the form of task performance and voice behavior. However, psychological contract breach has a detrimental impact on employees' task performance and voice behavior. Such employees fail in meeting basic in-role responsibilities and are unwilling to contribute to the company via innovative suggestions and novel ideas for better service delivery due to feelings of betrayal. The findings further suggest that psychological contract partly mediates the influence of WLB on PWE, PLW, task performance, and voice behavior. That is, employees who are able to establish the balance between their multiple life roles and have positive functioning due to management's WLB initiatives are unlikely to observe violations in psychological contract. These employees in turn display positive outcomes such as task performance and voice behaviors as well as reduced PWE and PLW.

5.3. Management implications WLB is a critical human resource practice reducing psychological contract breach, PWE, and PLW. It also activates task performance and voice behavior. With this realization, management should offer a bundle of WLB initiatives (e.g., flexible work hours, paid-time off-family sick days) to fulfill psychological contract, reduce employees' PWE and PLW, and boost their task performance and voice behavior. This would strengthen employees’ competency in coping with multiple roles and enable them to fulfill their work-related responsibilities successfully. As a matter of fact, the initiatives mentioned above refer to the existence of a healthy family-friendly environment. However, such an environment could be maintained in the companies, which have been able to “…institutionalize a new way of working and managing the workforce …” (Talukder et al., 2018, p. 738). In this environment, employees should know that they do not endanger their career when they avail themselves of WLB initiatives in the company. Employees may not be able to allocate sufficient time to their social activities. Therefore, management can collaborate with educational institutions and sports and recreational clubs to enable employees to attend various workshops for the achievement of a better WLB and participate in sports and recreational activities. These activities would make employees become one of the participants of different social activities. Employees’ participation in these activities should also be supported by supervisors. The findings suggest that psychological contract breach aggravates employees' PWE and PLW, while it mitigates their task performance and voice behavior. These findings implicitly indicate that management should reconsider the promises given to employees. Therefore, management needs to arrange workshops to show that employees’ PWE and PLW impede their productivity and amplify their turnover. In these workshops, management can obtain feedback from employees regarding the factors influencing their PWE and PLW, which are costly for the company. If there are any problems emanating from breaches in psychological contract, management should take immediate actions to

5.2. Theoretical implications This study enhances current knowledge in the extant hospitality and tourism research and the broader human resource management literature. First, in today's competitive environment, employees need to establish the balance between their work and life domains. However, evidence about WLB and its consequences is scarce (e.g., Deery et al., 2018; Sirgy & Lee, 2018; Talukder et al., 2018). Using theory of role 207

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209

B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe

find remedies to such problems (e.g., insufficient career opportunities, limited information-sharing, and/or inadequate rewards). If management finds that insufficient WLB initiatives are responsible for nonattendance intentions, it should put more effort into curtailing nonattendance intentions of employees through flextime scheduling and compressed workweeks. In addition, due to their boundary-spanning roles, such employees provide detailed information about customers' requests, problems, and expectations. With this recognition, management should encourage and motivate employees to provide new ideas and feedback about how to make improvements in service delivery. This can be done through training programs or workshops where employees can freely share ideas and give suggestions for improvements in the organization. Encouraging employees to display voice behavior is important because such employees’ novel suggestions and ideas about the potential improvements in a number of service encounters would enable the company to gain a competitive advantage.

Bal, P. M., De Lange, A. H., Jansen, P. G., & Van Der Velde, M. E. (2008). Psychological contract breach and job attitudes: A meta-analysis of age as a moderator. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(1), 143–158. Baum, T. (2019). Does the hospitality industry need or deserve talent? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. Berry, C. M., Lelchook, A. M., & Clark, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the interrelationships between employee lateness, absenteeism, and turnover: Implications for models of withdrawal behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(5), 678–699. Boone, J., Veller, T., Nikolaeva, K., Keith, M., Kefgen, K., & Houran, J. (2013). Rethinking a glass ceiling in the hospitality industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(3), 230–239. Bouzari, M., & Karatepe, O. M. (2019). Does optimism mediate the influence of work-life balance on hotel salespeople's life satisfaction and creative performance? Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 19(1), 82–101. Brough, P., Timms, C., O'Driscoll, M. P., Kalliath, T., Siu, O.-L., Sit, C., et al. (2014). Worklife balance: A longitudinal evaluation of a new measure across Australia and New Zealand workers. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(19), 2724–2744. Brown, E. A., Thomas, N. J., & Bosselman, R. H. (2015). Are they leaving or staying? A qualitative analysis of turnover issues for generation Y hospitality employees with a hospitality education. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 46(April), 130–137. Brummelhuis, L. L. T., & Van Der Lippe, T. (2010). Effective work-life balance support for various household structures. Human Resource Management, 49(2), 173–193. Cain, L., Busser, J., & Kang, H. J. (2018). Executive chefs' calling: Effect on engagement, work-life balance and life satisfaction. A. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(5), 2287–2307. Casper, W. J., Vaziri, H., Wayne, J. H., DeHauw, S., & Greenhaus, J. (2018). The jinglejangle of work and nonwork balance: A comprehensive and meta-analytic review of its meaning and measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(2), 182–214. Chan, S. C. H. (2019). The antecedents of workplace fun in the hospitality industry: A qualitative study. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 18(4), 425–440. Chan, X. W., Kalliath, T., Brough, P., O'Driscoll, M. P., Siu, O.-L., & Timms, C. (2017). Selfefficacy and work engagement: Test of a chain model. International Journal of Manpower, 38(6), 819–834. Chen, T.-H., Hu, H.-H. S., & King, B. (2018). Shaping the organizational citizenship behavior or workplace deviance: Key determining factors in the hospitality workforce. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 35(June), 1–8. Chen, C.-F., & Kao, Y.-L. (2012). Investigating the antecedents and consequences of burnout and isolation among flight attendants. Tourism Management, 33(4), 868–874. Chiang, F. F. T., Birtch, T. A., & Kwan, H. K. (2010). The moderating role of job control and work-life balance practices on employee stress in the hotel and catering industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1), 25–32. Clark, H., Dimanche, F., Cotter, R., & Lee-Rosen, D. (2017). Human capital challenges in the events industry of Canada: Finding innovative solutions. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 9(4), 424–432. Collins, A., Cartwright, S., & Hislop, D. (2013). Homeworking: Negotiating the psychological contract. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(2), 211–225. Cullen, C., & McLaughlin, A. (2006). What drives the persistence of presenteeism as a managerial value in hotels? Observations noted during an Irish work-life balance research project. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(3), 510–516. Daily Sabah Tourism (2019). Turkey revises 2023 tourism targets, says will make up for Thomas Cook losses. https://www.dailysabah.com/tourism/2019/09/28/turkeyrevises-2023-tourism-targets-says-will-make-up-for-thomas-cook-losses, Accessed date: 8 January 2020. Deery (2008). Talent management, work-life balance and retention strategies. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(7), 792–806. Deery, M., & Jago, L. (2015). Revisiting talent management, work-life balance and retention strategies. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(3), 453–472. Deery, M., Jago, L., Harris, C., & Liburd, J. (2018). Work-life balance for sustainable tourism development. In J. Liburd, & D. Edwards (Eds.). Collaboration for sustainable tourism development (pp. 151–166). Goodfellow Publishers Limited. Fleetwood, S. (2007). Why work–life balance now? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(3), 387–400. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. Foust, M. S., Elicker, J. D., & Levy, P. E. (2006). Development and validation of a measure of an individual's lateness attitude. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 119–133. Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.). Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common method variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–3198. Ghosh, K., & Khatri, N. (2018). Does servant leadership work in hospitality sector? A representative study in the hotel organizations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 37(December), 117–127. Guest, D. E. (2002). Perspectives on the study of work-life balance. Social Science Information, 41(2), 255–279. Haar, J., Brougham, D., Roche, M., & Barney, A. (2017). Servant leadership and work engagement: The mediating role of work-life balance. New Zealand Journal of Human Resources Management, 17(2), 56–72. Haider, S., Jabeen, S., & Ahmad, J. (2018). Moderated mediation between work-life

5.4. Limitations and avenues for future research In considering the results of this study, several limitations should be kept in mind. First, this empirical investigation was confined to customer-contact employees in a single industry. However, using data in a single industry eliminates problems that may arise from the industry differences. Nevertheless, future research may collect data from such employees in different contexts and use the service setting as a moderator. For example, future research may test the following hypothesis: the indirect effect of WLB on PWE through psychological contract breach is stronger among employees in the quick-service industry than among employees in the hotel industry. This would shed light on the WLB-related investigations in the hospitality and tourism research. Second, there is limited evidence about employees’ nonattendance intentions/behaviors in the extant hospitality and tourism research (Ozturk & Karatepe, 2019). Using absenteeism/absence intentions, taking longer breaks than allowed, PWE, and PLW simultaneously in future studies would enhance the understanding about the factors mitigating or heightening nonattendance intentions/behaviors. Third, to expand the database in the literature, future research may focus on cross-national data. Specifically, data from employees in hotels in the United States, restaurants in Turkey, and casinos in Macau may be gathered and the hypotheses proposed in the present study may be assessed based on this cross-national data. Such an investigation would enable scholars to make further generalizations about the mediating role of psychological contract breach in the linkage between WLB and the nonattendance intentions/behaviors. Fourth, this study measured WLB via data gathered from customercontact employees. Future research may assess managers’ perceptions of WLB strategies implemented by the organization. By doing so, it would be possible to determine whether WLB as rated by managers is linked to job outcomes via psychological contract breach. In closing, the present study invites scholars to gauge the linkages in the research model using data from emerging economies such as Brazil, India, and South Africa. Acknowledgment Data used in our study came from part of a larger project. References Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. Andringa, S., Poulston, J., & Pernecky, T. (2016). Hospitality entrepreneurship: A link in the career chain. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(4), 717–736. Atadil, H. A., Sirakaya-Turk, E., & Altintas, V. (2015). An analysis of destination image for emerging markets of Turkey. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 23(1), 37–54.

208

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209

B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe

759–771. OECD (2019). OECD better life index. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/worklife-balance/, Accessed date: 15 June 2019. Ozturk, A., & Karatepe, O. M. (2019). Frontline hotel employees' psychological capital, trust in organization, and their effects on nonattendance intentions, absenteeism, and creative performance. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 28(2), 217–239. O'Neill, J. W. (2012). Using focus groups as a tool to develop a hospitality work-life research study. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(6), 873–885. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (1999). Structural equation modeling with Lisrel: An application in tourism. Tourism Management, 20(1), 71–88. Remington, J., & Kitterlin-Lynch, M. (2018). Still pounding on the glass ceiling: A study of female leaders in hospitality, travel, and tourism management. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 17(1), 22–37. Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2007). Behavioral outcomes of psychological contract breach in a non-Western culture: The moderating role of equity sensitivity. British Journal of Management, 18(4), 376–386. Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. M. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5), 525–546. Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 121–139. Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., Gilley, K. M., & Luk, D. M. (2001). Struggling for balance amid turbulence on international assignments: Work-family conflict, support and commitment. Journal of Management, 27(1), 99–121. Sirgy, M. J., & Lee, D. J. (2018). Work-life balance: An integrative review. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 13(1), 229–254. Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 363–382. Sonnenschein, K., Baker, M., & Hibbins, R. (2019). Expectations of returned Chinese graduates and hotel managers regarding entry-level work in the hotel industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 18(1), 1–25. Soper, D. S. (2017). A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models. [software]. Available from http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc. Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446–460. Sturges, J., & Guest, D. (2004). Working to live or living to work? Work/life balance early in the career. Human Resource Management Journal, 14(4), 5–20. Sun, X., Xu, H., Koseoglu, M. A., & Okumus, F. (2019). How do lifestyle hospitality and tourism entrepreneurs manageme their work-life balance? International Journal of Hospitality Management. Talukder, A. K. M., Vickers, M., & Khan, A. (2018). Supervisor support and work-life balance: Impacts on job performance in the Australian financial sector. Personnel Review, 47(3), 727–744. Thakur, S. J., & Bhatnagar, J. (2017). Mediator analysis of job embeddedness: Relationship between work-life balance practices and turnover intentions. Employee Relations, 39(5), 718–731. Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human Relations, 52(7), 895–922. Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119. Vanderpool, C., & Way, S. A. (2013). Investigating work-family balance, job anxiety, and turnover intentions as predictors of health care and senior services customer-contact employee voluntary turnover. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(2), 149–160. Wang, M., Kwan, H. K., & Zhou, A. (2017). Effects of servant leadership on work-family balance in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 55(4), 387–407. Wayne, J. H., Butts, M. M., Casper, W. J., & Allen, T. D. (2017). In search of balance: A conceptual model and empirical investigation of multiple meanings of work-family balance. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 167–210. Wong, S. C.-k., & Ko, A. (2009). Exploratory study of understanding hotel employees' perception on work-life balance issues. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(2), 195–203. Yang, Z., Zhang, H., Kwan, H. K., & Chen, S. (2018). Crossover effects of servant leadership and job social support on employee spouses: The mediating role of employee organization-based self esteem. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(3), 595–604. Zhao, H. A., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 647–680.

balance and employee job performance: The role of psychological wellbeing and satisfaction with coworkers. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 34(1), 29–37. Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education. Hall, D. T., Kossek, E. E., Briscoe, J. P., Pichler, S., & Lee, M. D. (2013). Nonwork orientations relative to career: A multidimensional measure. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 539–550. Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: International Review, 50(3), 337–421. Hofmann, V., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2017). The impact of emotional labor on employees' work-life balance perception and commitment: A study in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 65(August), 47–58. HOSCO (2019). Summit 19 friday conference 13-14 June, Barcelona, Spain. Huang, S.(S.)., & Van der Veen, R. (2018). The moderation of gender and generation in the effects of perceived destination image on tourist attitude and visit intention: A study of potential Chinese visitors to Australia. Journal of Vacation Marketing. Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., & Carr, C. L. (2002). Measuring information system service quality: SERVQUAL from the other side. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 145–166. Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: user's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International, Inc. Karatepe, O. M., & Vatankhah, S. (2014). The effects of high-performance work practices and job embeddedness on flight attendants' performance outcomes. Journal of Air Transport Management, 37(May), 27–35. Kara, D., Uysal, M., Sirgy, M. J., & Lee, G. (2013). The effects of leadership style on employee well being in hospitality. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34(September), 9–18. Kim, H. K. (2014). Work-life balance and employees' performance: The mediating role of affective commitment. Global Business and Management Research: International Journal, 6(1), 37–51. Kim, T. T., Karatepe, O. M., & Lee, G. (2018). Psychological contract breach and service innovation behavior: Psychological capital as a mediator. Service Business, 12(2), 305–329. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Koslowsky, M. (2000). A new perspective on employee lateness. Applied Psychology: International Review, 49(3), 390–407. Koyuncu, M., Burke, R. J., Fiksenbaum, L., & Tekin, Y. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of employee voice behavior among frontline employees in Turkish hotels. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 24(3), 427–437. Kraak, J. M., Russo, M., & Jiménez, A. (2018). Work-life balance psychological contract perceptions for older workers. Personnel Review, 47(6), 1194–1210. Lewis, S., & Smithson, J. (2001). Sense of entitlement to support for the reconciliation of employment and family life. Human Relations, 54(11), 1455–1481. Lu, V. N., Capezio, A., Restubog, S. L. D., Garcia, P. R. J. M., & Wang, L. (2016). In pursuit of service excellence: Investigating the role of psychological contracts and organizational identification of frontline hotel employees. Tourism Management, 56(October), 8–19. MacNeil, I. R. (1985). Relational contract: What we do and do not know. Wisconsin Law Review, 483–525. Marks, S. R., & MacDermid, S. M. (1996). Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(2), 417–432. Milliman, J., Gatling, A., & Kim, J.(S.) (2018). The effect of workplace spirituality on hospitality employee engagement, intention to stay, and service delivery. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 35(June), 56–65. Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725. Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 226–256. Mushfiqur, R., Mordi, C., Oruh, E. S., Nwagbara, U., Mordi, T., & Turner, I. M. (2018). The impacts of work-life balance (WLB) challenges on social sustainability: The experience of Nigerian female medical doctors. Employee Relations, 40(5), 868–888. Netemeyer, R. G., & Maxham, J. G. (2007). Employee versus supervisor ratings of performance in the retail customer service sector: Differences in predictive validity for customer outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 83(1), 131–145. Ng, T. W. H., Feldman, D. C., & Butts, M. M. (2014). Psychological contract breaches and employee voice behavior: The moderating effects of changes in social relationships. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 23(4), 537–553. Nunkoo, R., Ramkissoon, H., & Gursoy, D. (2013). Use of structural equation modeling in tourism research: Past, present, and future. Journal of Travel Research, 52(6),

209