The effect of psychological capital on conflicts in the work–family interface, turnover and absence intentions

International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 132–143

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

The effect of psychological capital on conflicts in the work–family interface, turnover and absence intentions Osman M. Karatepe ∗ , Georgiana Karadas 1 Faculty of Tourism, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, TRNC, Via Mersin 10, Turkey

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Absence intentions Family–work conflict Hotel employees Psychological capital Romania Turnover intentions Work–family conflict

Using Conservation of Resources (COR) and congruence theories as the theoretical underpinnings, the present study develops and tests a research model that investigates the impact of psychological capital (PsyCap) on work–family conflict, family–work conflict, and turnover and absence intentions. The model also examines the effects of two directions of conflict on these employee outcomes. Self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience are the components representing PsyCap. Based on data obtained from frontline hotel employees with a time lag of two weeks in three waves in Romania, the results suggest that PsyCap mitigates work–family conflict, family–work conflict, and turnover and absence intentions. The results further suggest that PsyCap influences the aforesaid employee outcomes indirectly through family–work conflict. However, work–family conflict has no bearing on these outcomes. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed in the study. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

regarding the effects of both directions of conflict on absenteeism (Boyar et al., 2005). PsyCap which is manifested by self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience is a relatively emerging personality construct in positive organizational behavior. PsyCap is defined as “an individual’s positive psychological state of development and is characterized by: (1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success” (Luthans et al., 2007, p. 3). According to COR theory, individuals can use their personal resources (e.g., self-efficacy, optimism) to cope with stressful and demanding situations (Hobfoll, 1989) and have favorable outcomes (Hobfoll, 2002). Employees high in PsyCap can handle problems arising from both work and family domains. Such employees also display lower turnover and absence intentions.

Today’s astute hospitality managers recognize that they need to acquire and retain a pool of employees who are supposed to deliver quality services to customers and manage a number of customer requests and complaints. Such employees should be the right individuals who fit the demands of frontline service jobs in terms of personality, skills, and ability (e.g., Jang and George, 2012; Karatepe and Demir, 2014; Magnini et al., 2011). Otherwise, employees cannot manage various problems that emerge from work and family domains. If employees are unable to balance the demands of work and family roles, they experience work–family conflict. Similarly, if they are incapable of meeting the expectations of family and work roles, they experience family–work conflict. Work–family conflict and family–work conflict are conflicts in the work–family interface that lead to undesirable job outcomes. Specifically, research shows that work–family conflict and/or family–work conflict erodes job satisfaction (e.g., Choi and Kim, 2012; Zhao and Namasivayam, 2012), hinders job performance (e.g., Karatepe, 2013), heightens turnover intentions (e.g., Karatepe and Azar, 2013; Karatepe and Uludag, 2008), and reduces customer satisfaction (Zhao and Mattila, 2013). Though limited, research also presents evidence

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 392 630 1116; fax: +90 392 365 1584. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (O.M. Karatepe), [email protected] (G. Karadas). 1 Tel.: +90 392 630 2199; fax: +90 392 365 1584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.09.005 0278-4319/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.1. Purpose and contribution to current knowledge Using COR and congruence theories as the theoretical frameworks, this study proposes and tests a research model that investigates the simultaneous effects of self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience as the indicators of PsyCap on work–family conflict, family–work conflict, and turnover and absence inten-

O.M. Karatepe, G. Karadas / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 132–143

tions. The model also examines the effects of conflicts in the work–family interface on the abovementioned job outcomes. The relationships in the research model are tested based on data gathered from frontline hotel employees with a two-week time lag in three waves in Romania. This study contributes to current knowledge in five important ways. First, according to COR theory, PsyCap is a personal characteristic resource that enables individuals to cope with stress (Avey et al., 2009). Surprisingly, very little is known about the relationship between PsyCap and work–family issues (cf. Siu, 2013; Wang et al., 2012). Such gap is observed in Avey et al.’s (2011) meta-analytic study that has examined a limited number of studies regarding the effect of PsyCap on employee attitudes and behaviors. According to the results of a recent meta-analytic study, dispositions are significantly related to work–family conflict and/or family–work conflict and therefore calls for research are made to assess PsyCap as a predictor of conflicts in the work–family interface (Allen et al., 2012). The hospitality management literature demonstrates empirical studies that focus on personality variables influencing work–family conflict, family–work conflict, and/or job outcomes (e.g., Jang and George, 2012; Karatepe and Magaji, 2008). However, empirical research about the effect of PsyCap on conflicts in the work–family interface and job outcomes is still sparse. Recognizing the void in the current literature, this study proposes that PsyCap is a personal resource that can be used for reducing both work–family conflict and family–work conflict frontline hotel employees often experience. Accordingly, this paper assesses the joint effects of selfefficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience as the indicators of PsyCap on work–family conflict and family–work conflict. Second, employee turnover that diminishes productivity and erodes morale is a serious problem in the global workforce (Huffman et al., 2014). So is the case for the hospitality industry. Specifically, the average turnover rate among non-managerial employees in the hotel industry in the United States is about 50% (Mohsin et al., 2013). Turnover rate in the hospitality industry in different countries such as Australia and New Zealand is likely to be about 45–50% (Magnini et al., 2011). A number of companies in Romania also have high labor turnover and are devoid of talented employees (Ineson and Berechet, 2011). Given that turnover is still a significant problem in the hospitality industry, it is important to understand whether employees with specific personal resources remain in the organization. With this realization, this study tests the joint effects of self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience as the indicators of PsyCap on turnover intentions. Third, as a nonattendance behavior in the workplace, absenteeism results in costs for companies (Kocakulah et al., 2009). Despite this realization, empirical research about the relationship between PsyCap and absence intentions/absenteeism is scarce (Avey et al., 2006). Avey et al.’s (2011) meta-analytic investigation does not delineate any evidence regarding the relationship between the two constructs, either. This gap is also evident in the hospitality management literature. Therefore, this study gauges the joint effects of self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience representing PsyCap on absence intentions. Fourth, the results of a past meta-analytic study indicate that there are only two studies that have assessed the effect of work–family conflict on absenteeism (Allen et al., 2000). Lack of empirical research about the relationship between conflicts in the work–family interface and absenteeism is highlighted in Boyar et al.’s (2005) study. Such paucity is also echoed in Amstad et al.’s (2011) meta-analytic inquiry. Not surprisingly, conflicts in the work–family interface are increasingly important topics in the hospitality industry due to their detrimental effects on organizational/job outcomes (Karatepe, 2013; Zhao and Mattila, 2013). Accordingly, the present study tests the impacts of work–family

133

conflict and family–work conflict simultaneously on turnover and absence intentions. Lastly, the preponderance of empirical research on PsyCap has been conducted in North America (Abbas et al., 2012; Choi and Lee, 2014). Extension of this research stream to other societies is important for the applicability and validity of the PsyCap concept. This is also stressed by Mills et al. (2013) that PsyCap is a personal resource that is not “. . . yet widely accepted or utilized in practice” (p. 160). In closing, the results of this study will yield useful implications regarding the acquisition and retention of talented employees as well as management of work and family roles. 2. Theoretical background, hypotheses, and research model 2.1. Background Work–family conflict and family–work conflict are two stressors in the work–family interface. A careful examination of the hospitality management literature demonstrates studies about conflicts in the work–family nexus. For instance, the results of an investigation among frontline hotel employees in Jordan revealed that the interaction of organizational tenure and supervisor support reduced family–work conflict (Karatepe, 2009). Using a sample of frontline hotel employees in Albania, Karatepe (2010) reported that work social support buffered the impact of work–family conflict on exhaustion. Zhao et al.’s (2011) study of hotel sales managers found that two stressors in the work–family interface were negatively associated with affective reaction to the job, while only family–work conflict was negatively related to the cognitive appraisal of a job. They further reported that family–work conflict mitigated life satisfaction, while work–family conflict did not. Tromp and Blomme’s (2012) study conducted in the Netherlands found that work–home arrangements alleviated time- and strainbased work–home conflict. A study conducted in South Korea by Choi and Kim (2012) indicated that work–family conflict eroded frontline hotel employees’ job satisfaction, while family–work conflict heightened their job satisfaction. Recently, Karatepe (2013) showed that emotional exhaustion acted as a full mediator of the effects of conflicts in the work–family interface on job embeddedness and job performance among frontline hotel employees in Romania. In Zhao and Mattila’s (2013) recent investigation of frontline hotel employees and customers, work–family conflict was negatively linked to customer satisfaction through affective reactions, while family–work conflict negatively influenced customer satisfaction directly and indirectly via emotional attachment. In a study of frontline hotel employees in China, Zhao et al.’s (2014a) study indicated that family–work conflict was positively related to physical, mental, and emotional exhaustion among frontline hotel employees in China. In a study of frontline hotel employees in China, Zhao and his colleagues (2014b) reported that family–work conflict increased job tension and reduced relaxation and social intentions, while work–family conflict heightened job tension and social intentions. According to Tromp and Blomme’s (2014) study conducted in the Netherlands, work–home arrangements lessened time- and strain-based work–home conflict, while higher levels of autocratic leadership intensified strain-based work–home conflict. A synthesis of the hospitality management literature reveals that few empirical studies have examined personality variables as moderators in the relationship between conflicts in the work–family interface and job outcomes or investigated the effects of personality variables on two stressors in the work–family interface and job outcomes. For example, Karatepe and Uludag’s (2008) past study conducted with frontline hotel employees in Turkey demonstrated that positive affectivity weakened conflicts in the work–family interface, while negative affectivity exacerbated only

134

O.M. Karatepe, G. Karadas / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 132–143

work–family conflict. In a study of frontline employees in the Nigerian hotel industry, Karatepe and Magaji (2008) found that negative affectivity intensified work–family conflict and family–work conflict and aggravated turnover intentions. An investigation of frontline hotel employees in China demonstrated that chronic promotion focus reduced the effect of work–family conflict on job satisfaction, while chronic prevention focus mitigated the relationship between family–work conflict and job satisfaction (Zhao and Namasivayam, 2012). However, Karatepe and Azar’s (2013) investigation of frontline hotel employees in Iran showed that core selfevaluations did not act as a moderator of the effects of work–family conflict and family–work conflict on turnover intentions. A careful analysis of recent studies in the hospitality management literature reveals findings pertaining to the effects of personality variables on work engagement and job outcomes. For example, Jang and George (2012) found that job satisfaction partially mediated the relationship between polychronicity and turnover intentions among frontline hotel employees. In a study of frontline hotel employees in Northern Cyprus, Karatepe et al. (2013) found that work engagement fully mediated the effect of polychronicity on in- and extra-role performances. The results of Zhao et al.’s (2013) study showed that the interaction of proactive personality and political skill mitigated counterproductive work behaviors for a sample of hotel employees in China. In another study, it was reported that high levels of core self-evaluations led to low levels of turnover intentions (Karatepe and Azar, 2013). Karatepe and Demir’s (2014) recent investigation among frontline employees in the Turkish hotel industry also demonstrated a positive relationship between core self-evaluations and work engagement. As can be inferred from the abovementioned studies, there are decided voids regarding the effect of PsyCap on two stressors in the work–family interface and job outcomes such as turnover and absence intentions. Specifically, the aforementioned empirical studies have shed significant light on the understanding concerning the effects of personality variables on conflicts in the work–family interface, work engagement, and job/organizational outcomes. They have also provided evidence regarding the moderating role of personality variables. However, what is missing in the hospitality management literature is empirical research pertaining to PsyCap as a personal resource that can alleviate two directions of conflict and mitigate turnover and absence intentions. The research void regarding the effect of PsyCap on conflicts in the work–family interface is also highlighted in Allen et al.’s (2012) meta-analytic investigation. More importantly, having an understanding of the joint effects of self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience as the indicators of PsyCap on conflicts in the work–family interface and the aforesaid job outcomes contributes to existing knowledge in the PsyCap research stream. With this realization, to respond to such voids, the current study tests the effect of PsyCap on conflicts in the work–family interface, turnover and absence intentions. This study also assesses the impacts of two directions of conflict on turnover and absence intentions. The study hypotheses are discussed below. 2.2. Hypotheses 2.2.1. Direct effects COR theory proposes that there are four types of resources individuals can use to cope with problems arising from stress. These resources are objects, personal characteristics, conditions, and energies (Hobfoll, 1989). According to Hobfoll (2002), individuals who possess key resources (e.g., self-efficacy, optimism) “. . .might be more capable of selecting, altering, and implementing their other resources to meet stressful demands” (p. 308). Individuals can invest their personal resources in being able to manage conflicts in the work–family interface and recovering from losses.

For example, employees high in PsyCap have confidence in their ability to solve problems and carry out sophisticated tasks. Such employees can also find alternative ways to overcome problems, make positive internal attributions about current and future success, and bounce back in the case of difficulties and failures (Abbas et al., 2012; Avey et al., 2009). As a result, they can establish a balance between their work (family) and family (work) roles. However, if these employees are devoid of adequate personal resources, they are unable to deal with various problems in the work–family interface. Congruence theory also provides guidance to develop the relationship between personality variables and conflicts in the work–family interface. Specifically, congruence refers to “similarity between work and family. . .” (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000, p. 182). Congruence attributes this similarity to a third variable that influences both work and family domains (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000). The third variable mentioned here functions as a common cause that consists of personality variables, social and cultural forces, and general behavioral styles (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000). According to Michel et al. (2011), personality variables may serve as a third variable and dually influence employees’ perceptions of work–family conflict and family–work conflict. A close examination of the current literature also delineates findings pertaining to the direct effects of personality variables (e.g., core self-evaluations, internal locus of control) on both work–family conflict and family–work conflict (Haines et al., 2013; Michel et al., 2011). Accordingly, this study proposes that employees’ PsyCap influences their perceptions of work–family conflict and family–work conflict and results in sufficient control over the interplay between work and family roles. Managing work and family roles in frontline service jobs in the hospitality industry is important, because work–family conflict and family–work conflict are among the stressors frontline hotel employees are often confronted with (Karatepe and Uludag, 2008; Zhao et al., 2014b). This study contends that employees with high PsyCap can shield themselves from greater experience of conflicts in the work–family interface. However, very little is known about the joint effects of self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience as the indicators of PsyCap on both directions of conflict. In empirical terms, Wang et al.’s (2012) study among Chinese doctors reveals that males’ PsyCap is positively associated with work–family conflict, while females’ PsyCap is negatively associated with family–work conflict. Allen et al.’s (2012) meta-analytic study demonstrates that self-efficacy and optimism are negatively related to work–family conflict and/or family–work conflict. Based on the precepts of COR and congruence theories and limited evidence, it is hypothesized that: H1. PsyCap is negatively related to (a) work–family conflict and (b) family–work conflict. The present study proposes that PsyCap is also a personal characteristic resource reducing turnover and absence intentions (cf. Hobfoll, 2002). Although limited, there is evidence to support these relationships. Specifically, Avey et al. (2006) concluded that PsyCap was a predictor of involuntary absenteeism. An empirical study by Avey et al. (2009) demonstrated a negative relationship between PsyCap and intentions to quit. Avey et al.’s (2011) metaanalytic inquiry showed a negative correlation between PsyCap and turnover intentions. There is also evidence regarding the components of PsyCap as antecedents or moderators of turnover intentions in the hospitality management literature. For example, in a recent empirical study, self-efficacy was found to diminish employees’ turnover intentions (Michel et al., 2013). Yavas et al.’s (2013) study provided support for hope as an antidote to the detrimental effects of hindrance stressors on turnover intentions. Despite such findings, there is still a

O.M. Karatepe, G. Karadas / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 132–143

dearth of empirical research pertaining to PsyCap, as manifested by self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience, on both turnover intentions and absence intentions. Accordingly, it is hypothesized that: H2. PsyCap is negatively related to (a) turnover and (b) absence intentions. COR theory presents guidance regarding the relationship between conflicts in the work–family interface and job outcomes. Specifically, COR theory states, “. . . excessive demands and/or insufficient resources within a particular role domain or between domains can result in negative affective and dysfunctional behaviors” (Shaffer et al., 2001, p. 100). Lack of resources (e.g., family-supportive supervision) in the workplace appears to prevent frontline hotel employees from coping with conflicts in the work–family interface. COR theory posits that such employees tend to preserve their scarce resources via intention to leave the organization and absence intentions, because they recognize that they may not be able to handle problems arising from both work–family and family–work conflicts (cf. Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999). There are empirical studies in the hospitality management literature indicating that work–family conflict and/or family–work conflict heighten frontline hotel employees’ turnover intentions (e.g., Karatepe and Azar, 2013; Karatepe and Magaji, 2008; Karatepe and Uludag, 2008). However, empirical evidence about the effects of work–family conflict and family–work conflict on absence intentions/absenteeism is scarce. More importantly, such evidence across the studies is mixed. For example, Goff et al.’s (1990) past study demonstrated that employees displayed absenteeism due to work–family conflict. Kirchmeyer and Cohen’s (1999) study found that family–work conflict exacerbated absenteeism, while work–family conflict did not. Boyar et al. (2005) reported that neither work–family conflict nor family–work conflict significantly influenced absenteeism. In light of the tenets of COR theory and evidence given above, this study proposes that frontline hotel employees exhibit heightened turnover and absence intentions due to elevated levels of conflicts in the work–family interface. Therefore, it is hypothesized that: H3. Work–family conflict is positively related to (a) turnover and (b) absence intentions. H4. Family–work conflict is positively related to (a) turnover and (b) absence intentions. 2.2.2. Mediating effects As congruence theory proposes, similarity between work and family can be generated by a personality variable that acts as a common cause. Personality variables should reduce individuals’ perceptions of conflicts in the work–family interface. This is due to the fact that such employees can manage high levels of demands in both work and family domains (Boyar and Mosley, 2007). Personality variables (e.g., core self-evaluations) also influence individuals’ attitudes and behaviors (Boyar and Mosley, 2007). Likewise, individuals with high PsyCap should be able to minimize negative situations in both work and family domains and have a successful general management of stressful situations that will not lead to elevated levels of turnover and absence intentions. Accordingly, employees’ PsyCap mitigates their conflicts in the work–family interface. Under these circumstances, such employees will be capable of dealing with difficulties arising from management of work and family roles and therefore will report reduced turnover and absence intentions. There are limited empirical studies that link personality variables to outcomes via work–family conflict and family–work conflict. For example, Boyar and Mosley (2007) reported that

135

core self-evaluations were negatively linked to job satisfaction through work–family conflict. Braunstein-Bercovitz et al.’s (2012) study showed that the relationship between personality variables (e.g., resilience) and life satisfaction was partially mediated by work–family conflict and family conflict. Haines et al. (2013) also demonstrated that both work–family conflict and family–work conflict partially mediated the effects of core self-evaluations on burnout. These findings are consistent with the argument that personality variables are unique in that they can be used to control two directions of conflict and thus contribute to low levels of turnover and absence intentions (cf. Braunstein-Bercovitz et al., 2012). Based on the previously mentioned relationships and the information given above, work–family conflict and family–work conflict act as mediators of the effect of PsyCap on turnover and absence intentions. As COR theory proposes, frontline employees high in PsyCap are able to manage their work and family roles and experience low levels of work–family conflict and family–work conflict, because the presence of personal resources is among key resources that enables employees to have better stress resistance (Hobfoll, 2002). If this is the case, such employees will not be willing to display intentions to leave the organization and will not have absence intentions from work. However, lack of personal resources leads to negative job outcomes, since they want to protect their scarce resources by exhibiting turnover and absence intentions (cf. Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999). As a result, PsyCap, as manifested by self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience, reduces turnover and absence intentions directly and indirectly through conflicts in the work–family interface. To the best of authors’ knowledge, the hospitality management literature does not present any known evidence pertaining to the aforementioned relationships in frontline service jobs. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are advanced: H5. Work–family conflict partially mediates the effect of PsyCap on (a) turnover and (b) absence intentions. H6. Family–work conflict partially mediates the effect of PsyCap on (a) turnover and (b) absence intentions. 2.3. Research model The research model shown in Fig. 1 delineates the hypothesized relationships. Specifically, the model proposes that PsyCap, as manifested by self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience, mitigates both work–family conflict and family–work conflict and reduces turnover and absence intentions. According to the model, conflicts in the work–family interface heighten turnover and absence intentions. The model also contends that PsyCap influences the aforementioned job outcomes indirectly via both directions of conflict. Consistent with past and recent studies (e.g., Boyar et al., 2005; Karatepe, 2013; Karatepe and Magaji, 2008), gender, marital status, and the number of children are used as control variables. This is important, because these control variables may significantly influence study variables (e.g., work–family conflict, turnover intentions) and have confounding effects on the hypothesized relationships. 3. Method 3.1. Sample and procedure Data were collected from full-time frontline employees in the international five- and four-star chain hotels. The participating organizations were located in Sibiu and Bucharest in Romania. These frontline employees had intense face-to-face or voiceto-voice interactions with customers and worked as front desk agents, reservations agents, waiters or waitresses, guest relations

136

O.M. Karatepe, G. Karadas / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 132–143

Self-efficacy H2(a) (-)

H1(a) (-)

Time II Work-family conflict H5(a) and H5(b)

Time III Turnover intentions

H3(a) (+)

Hope H4(a) (+) Time I Psychological capital

Resilience

H3(b) (+)

H1(b) (-)

Time II Family-work conflict H6(a) and H6(b)

H4(b) (+)

Time III Absence intentions

H2(b) (-) Optimism Control variables Gender, marital status, and the number of children

Fig. 1. Research model.

representatives, bartenders, door attendants, bell attendants, and concierges. Information received from the Romanian Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism’s web page at the time of this study indicated that there were two international four-star and one international five-star chain hotels in Sibiu. In addition, there were 13 four-star and four five-star international chain hotels in Bucharest. The researcher contacted management of these hotels through a letter to present the purpose of the study and obtain permission for data collection. However, management of one five-star hotel and one four-star hotel in Sibiu and four four-star and three five-star hotels in Bucharest agreed to participate in this study. Although management of these hotels provided permission for data collection, the researcher was not allowed to distribute the questionnaires to employees directly. Instead, human resource managers coordinated the data collection process. They were requested to distribute the questionnaires to a broad range of frontline employees in different departments. The abovementioned data collection process is also observed in studies whose samples include frontline hotel employees in Romania (Karatepe, 2013) or the United States (Lee and Ok, 2014). Consistent with the guidelines given by Podsakoff et al. (2003), this study used a temporal separation using a time lag between the predictor (i.e., PsyCap), mediator (e.g., work–family conflict), and criterion (e.g., turnover intentions) variables to minimize the potential threat of common method bias. Accordingly, data were gathered from frontline employees with a time lag of two weeks in three waves. Although limited, there are recent empirical studies in the hospitality management literature that have collected data in different waves for controlling common method bias (e.g., Karatepe, 2013; Kim and Lee, 2013; Lam and Chen, 2012). Identification numbers assigned to the Time I, Time II, and Time III questionnaires enabled the researcher to match the questionnaires with each other. The Time I questionnaire consisted of the selfefficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience measures and items about respondents’ profile (e.g., education, age). The Time II questionnaire

included the work–family conflict and family–work conflict measures and the Time III questionnaire consisted of the turnover and absence intentions measures. Each employee sealed the questionnaire in an envelope to assure anonymity and confidentiality. Two hundred and eighty-five Time I questionnaires were distributed to frontline employees. Two hundred and eighty-two questionnaires were received, yielding a response rate of 99%. This response rate remained the same by the cut-off dates for data collection at Time II and Time III. This study used response-enhancing techniques to achieve this high response rate. Specifically, obtaining data from employees in three waves and using identification numbers to match the questionnaires with each other, receiving strong management support and cooperation for data collection, and giving advance notice to respondents through managers enabled the researcher to reach such a response rate (cf. Anseel et al., 2010). In addition, employees were informed that participation was voluntary but encouraged and that each hotel management fully endorsed participation. Each questionnaire included information about anonymity and confidentiality. Information given in each questionnaire also assured respondents that there were no right or wrong answers to items. Overall, the abovementioned techniques led to a high response rate for this empirical study. High response rate obtained in this study is also comparable to other recent studies in the extant literature (e.g., Michel et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2014). Sixty-seven (24%) respondents were aged between 18 and 27 years, while 158 (56%) respondents ranged in age from 28 to 37 years. The rest were older than 37. The sample was almost balanced in gender (142 male respondents, 140 female respondents). In terms of educational attainment, the sample included 10 (4%) respondents who had secondary and high school education. One hundred and fifty-six (55%) respondents had four-year college degrees, while 97 (34%) respondents had two-year college degrees. The rest had graduate degrees. Two hundred and nineteen (78%) respondents had tenures of five years or less. The rest had been with their hotel for more than five years. With respect to marital

O.M. Karatepe, G. Karadas / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 132–143

status and the number of children, 118 (42%) respondents were single or divorced and 164 (58%) were married. The sample consisted of 127 (45%) respondents who had children between one and two. Six (2%) respondents had more than two children. The rest had no children. 3.2. Measures 3.2.1. PsyCap PsyCap was manifested by self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience. By doing so, it is possible to test the joint effects of the indicators of PsyCap on conflicts in the work–family interface, turnover and absence intentions. PsyCap was operationalized through 24 items obtained from Luthans et al. (2007). Each of the indicators of PsyCap was measured with six items. Responses to items in PsyCap were recorded on a six-point scale ranging from 6 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). 3.2.2. Conflicts in the work–family interface Ten items taken from Netemeyer et al. (1996) were used to measure work–family conflict and family–work conflict. Work–family conflict and family–work conflict each included five items. These items were also used in other studies in the current literature (e.g., Casper et al., 2011; Karatepe, 2013). Responses to items in work–family conflict and family–work conflict were rated on a fivepoint scale ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). 3.2.3. Turnover intentions A three-item scale taken from Singh et al. (1996) was used to measure turnover intentions. This scale was used in various empirical studies (e.g., Karatepe and Azar, 2013; Karatepe and Magaji, 2008). Responses to items in turnover intentions were rated on a five-point scale ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). 3.2.4. Absence intentions Absence intentions were operationalized using three items from Baba and Harris (1989). Such items were also used in a past research (Baba et al., 1999). Response options for items in absence intentions included a seven-point scale ranging from 7 (extremely important) to 1 (not at all important). 3.2.5. Control variables Gender, marital status, and the number of children were treated as control variables in this study. Gender was coded as a binary variable (0 = male and 1 = female). Marital status was also coded as a binary variable (0 = single or divorced and 1 = married). The number of children was measured with a single, close-ended item with responses ranging from ‘0 , ‘1–2 , ‘3–4 , and ‘5–6 . A similar category can be observed in measuring the number of relatives (cf. Boyar et al., 2005). There are also similar empirical studies that have measured the number of children through a single, close-ended item (e.g., Choi and Kim, 2012; Karatepe, 2010; Karatepe and Uludag, 2008). The Time I, Time II, and Time III questionnaires were prepared according to the guidelines of the back-translation method. Each questionnaire was tested with a pilot sample of 10 frontline hotel employees. The results of these pilot studies demonstrated that respondents did not have any difficulty understanding items in each questionnaire. 3.3. Strategy of data analysis The current study used Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-step approach to assess both the measurement and structural models. In the first step, all the measures were subjected to confirmatory

137

factor analysis for assessing the measurement model in terms of convergent and discriminant validity as well as internal consistency reliability (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In the second step, the relationships in the structural or hypothesized model were tested using structural equation modeling. Before this, average item scores of self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism were computed as the indicators of PsyCap. The structural model was compared with the alternative models. This is congruent with the guidelines provided by James et al. (2006) for testing the mediating effects. Sobel test was used to test the significance of the mediating effects. The overall 2 measure, Comparative fit index (CFI), Incremental fit index (IFI), Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) were used to assess model fit. The abovementioned analyses were employed using LISREL 8.30 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996). 4. Results 4.1. Measurement model A careful examination of the results from confirmatory factor analysis suggested deletion of several items due to correlation measurement errors. Specifically, three items each from the optimism and resilience measures were discarded. Deletion of items from these measures is also observed in the current literature (e.g., Chen and Lim, 2012). The final results demonstrated that the proposed eight-factor measurement model fit the data reasonably based on a number of fit statistics (2 = 1209.60, df = 499; 2 /df = 2.42; CFI = .92; IFI = .92; RMSEA = .071; SRMR = .059). As shown in Table 1, the magnitudes of the loadings ranged from .46 to .95 and all t-values were significant. The average variance extracted by self-efficacy, hope, resilience, optimism, work–family conflict, family–work conflict, turnover intentions, and absence intentions was .71, .68, .63, .64, .74, .84, .78, and .66, respectively. Collectively, model fit statistics and the magnitudes of the loadings as well as average variances extracted provided support for convergent validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The average variance extracted by each latent variable was greater than the shared variance between pairs of constructs, excluding the one between optimism and resilience (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Therefore, discriminant validity was re-checked based on pairwise 2 difference test (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The result was significant (2 = 63.44, df = 1, p < 0.05). Overall, there was evidence of discriminant validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Table 1 also presents composite reliability score for each latent variable. Specifically, composite reliability scores for variables were as follows: self-efficacy .94; hope .93; resilience .84; optimism .83; work–family conflict .93; family–work conflict .96; turnover intentions .92; absence intentions .84. These results revealed that all measures were reliable, since composite reliability score for each variable was greater than .60 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Means, standard deviations, and correlations of observed variables are given in Table 2. 4.2. Hypotheses testing Covariance matrix used in the analysis is given in the Appendix A. (Table A.1). The results in Table 3 demonstrated that the partially mediated model or hypothesized model that linked PsyCap to turnover and absence intentions directly and indirectly through work–family conflict and family–work conflict was a better representation of the data than the alternative models

138

O.M. Karatepe, G. Karadas / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 132–143

Table 1 Confirmatory factor analysis results (n = 282). Scale items

Loading

t-Value

Self-efficacy Item # 1 Item # 2 Item # 3 Item # 4 Item # 5 Item # 6

.74 .91 .95 .72 .64 .51

17.96 19.93 19.91 19.07 14.13 13.84

Hope Item # 7 Item # 8 Item # 9 Item # 10 Item # 11 Item # 12

.50 .55 .51 .57 .60 .60

14.33 18.08 15.72 16.08 19.45 17.09

Resilience Item # 13 Item # 14 Item # 15 Item # 16 Item # 17 Item # 18

– .51 – .66 .66 –

– 12.80 – 17.54 15.42 –

Optimism Item # 19 Item # 20 Item # 21 Item # 22 Item # 23 Item # 24

.46 – .68 .59 – –

10.54 – 18.76 17.89 – –

.94 .94 .89 .91 .81

19.34 20.47 19.46 17.17 13.86

.82 .89 .93 .95

18.99 19.62 21.24 20.23

Work–family conflict The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfill family responsibilities Things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands my job puts on me My job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfill family duties Due to work-related duties, I have to make changes to my plans for family activities Family–work conflict The demands of my family or spouse/partner interfere with work-related activities I have to put off doing things at work because of demands on my time at home Things I want to do at work don’t get done because of the demands of my family or spouse/partner My home life interferes with my responsibilities at work such as getting to work on time, accomplishing daily tasks, and working overtime Family-related strain interferes with my ability to perform job-related duties

.89

19.57

Turnover intentions It is likely that I will actively look for a new job next year I often think about quitting I will probably look for a new job next year

.83 .66 .73

19.50 16.31 19.72

Absence intentions How important do you think never missing a day’s work is? How important is having a good attendance record to you? How important is having a good attendance record as your boss makes it out to be?

.69 .66 .69

13.21 18.21 15.88

AVE

CR

.71

.94

.68

.93

.63

.84

.64

.83

.74

.93

.84

.96

.78

.92

.66

.84

Model fit statistics: 2 = 1209.60; df = 499; 2 /df = 2.42; CFI = .92; IFI = .92; RMSEA = .071; SRMR = .059. Note: All loadings are significant at the .01 level. CFI, comparative fit index; IFI, incremental fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability. - Dropped during confirmatory factor analysis.

based on the 2 difference test and other fit statistics. Accordingly, the hypothesized model fit the data well based on the following fit statistics (2 = 438.04, df = 205; 2 /df = 2.14; CFI = .95; IFI = .95; RMSEA = .064; SRMR = .041). Fig. 2 presents the results of structural equation modeling. Self-efficacy (1 = .63) seems to be the most reliable indicator of PsyCap, followed by optimism (4 = .55, t = 16.63), resilience (3 = .55, t = 15.46), and hope (2 = .41, t = 13.05). The results demonstrate that PsyCap is negatively related to work–family conflict (ˇ21 = −.40, t = −6.47) and family–work conflict (ˇ31 = −.44, t = −6.98). Hence, there is empirical support for hypotheses 1a and 1b. The results also show that PsyCap has a negative influence on turnover (ˇ41 = −.53, t = −8.38) and absence intentions (ˇ51 = −.49, t = −6.82). Hence, hypotheses 2a and 2b are supported.

As presented in Fig. 2, work–family conflict does not significantly influence turnover (ˇ42 = .02, t = .20) and absence intentions (ˇ52 = .13, t = 1.44). Therefore, hypotheses 3a and 3b are not supported. The results demonstrate that family–work conflict exerts a positive effect on turnover (ˇ43 = .28, t = 3.52) and absence intentions (ˇ53 = .16, t = 1.87). Therefore, hypotheses 4a and 4b are supported. Hypotheses 5a and 5b as well as hypotheses 6a and 6b refer to the mediating effects of work–family conflict and family–work conflict. The results show that the indirect effect of PsyCap on turnover intentions (z = −3.16, p < .01) and absence intentions (z = −1.73, p < .05) via family–work conflict is significant and negative based on Sobel test. There is empirical support for hypotheses 6a and 6b. However, there is no empirical support for hypotheses 5a and

O.M. Karatepe, G. Karadas / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 132–143

139

Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and correlations of observed variables. Variables

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1. Gender 2. Marital status 3. The number of children 4. Self-efficacy 5. Hope 6. Optimism 7. Resilience 8. Work–family conflict 9. Family–work conflict 10. Turnover intentions 11. Absence intentions Mean Standard deviation

– −.049 −.096 .109* .114* .114* .092 −.056 −.044 −.089 −.013 .50 .50

– .631** −.002 .031 .028 .013 .226** .078 −.011 −.024 .58 .49

– .004 −.008 .035 −.014 .274** .128* .030 .003 .50 .56

– .613** .701** .657** −.354** −.345** −.549** −.530** 4.72 .77

– .646** .587** −.239** −.321** −.432** −.377** 5.28 .58

– .749** −.273** −.351** −.521** −.506** 4.92 .63

– −.316** −.364** −.537** −.466** 4.90 .66

– .728** .373** .358** 2.46 .93

– .481** .401** 1.98 .91

– .667** 1.96 .77

– 1.98 .74

Note: Composite scores for each variable were computed by averaging scores across items representing that variable. * Correlations are significant at the .05 level. ** Correlations are significant at the .01 level.

Table 3 Results of model comparisons. Models

2

df

1. Partially mediated model (Hypothesized model) PsyCap → WFC, FWC, TI, ABI WFC → TI, ABI FWC → TI, ABI

438.04

205

2. Alternative model (no mediation) PsyCap → TI, ABI WFC → TI, ABI FWC → TI, ABI

479.19

207

3. Alternative model (full mediation) PsyCap → WFC, FWC WFC → TI, ABI FWC → TI, ABI

522.31

207

2

df

RMSEA

SRMR

IFI

CFI

Model comparison

–

.064

.041

.95

.95

–

41.15

2

.068

.140

.94

.94

2 and 1

84.27

2

.074

.092

.94

.94

3 and 1

–

Note: The hypothesized model appears to have the best fit to the data when compared with the other alternative models. PsyCap, psychological capital; WFC, work–family conflict; FWC, family–work conflict; TI, turnover intentions; ABI, absence intentions; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; IFI, incremental fit index; CFI, comparative fit index.

5b, because work–family conflict has no bearing on turnover and absence intentions. Gender is positively related to PsyCap ( 11 = .27, t = 2.11) and absence intentions ( 51 = .18, t = 1.66), while the number of children is positively related to work–family conflict ( 23 = .40, t = 3.13) and family–work conflict ( 33 = .24, t = 1.92). The results suggest that employees with more children experience elevated levels of work–family conflict and family–work conflict. The results further suggest that female employees are high in PsyCap. However, such employees display higher absence intentions. This may be due to children female employees should take care of. The results explain 2% of the variance in PsyCap, 24% in work–family conflict, 21% in family–work conflict, 50% in turnover intentions, and 43% in absence intentions. The results without the control variables are presented in the Appendix B (B.1).

5. Discussion 5.1. Evaluation of findings and theoretical implications Using COR and congruence theories as the theoretical underpinnings, the current study develops and tests a research model to address the question of whether PsyCap is linked to turnover and absence intentions through work–family conflict and family–work conflict. The relationships given above are tested based on data gathered from frontline employees with a time lag of two weeks in three waves in the international five- and four-star chain hotels

in Romania. The results reveal that most of the relationships are supported. There are several key contributions to existing knowledge as a result of this empirical investigation. What is new in the present study is that PsyCap is a personal resource that exerts a significant negative effect on work–family conflict and family–work conflict. Consistent with the tenets of COR theory (Hobfoll, 2002), self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience as the indicators of PsyCap jointly mitigate frontline hotel employees’ conflicts in the work–family interface. Employees high in PsyCap can manage work and family roles successfully and protect themselves from greater experience of conflicts in the work–family interface. As discussed by Allen et al. (2012), employees high in PsyCap can deal with a number of problems emerging from work–family conflict and family–work conflict. Specifically, such employees believe in their ability to perform specific roles and reach challenging goals, can find alternative ways to manage or overcome problems, show zestful and energetic approaches to work and family life, and have a more positive approach to stressful and demanding situations (Allen et al., 2012; Rego et al., 2012). This finding is also in agreement with the precepts of congruence theory that PsyCap is a third variable dually influencing employees’ perceptions of work–family conflict and family–work conflict. Another key contribution of this study is that frontline hotel employees who are high in PsyCap display low levels of turnover and absence intentions. As a personal resource, PsyCap, as manifested by self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience, alleviates undesirable job outcomes such as turnover and absence intentions.

140

O.M. Karatepe, G. Karadas / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 132–143

Self-efficacy β41 = -.53, t = -8.38

λ1 = .63

λ2 = .41, t = 13.05

β21 = -.40, t = -6.47

Time II Work-family conflict

Hope

β42 = .02, t = .20, ns

Time III Turnover intentions

β52 = .13, t = 1.44, ns Time I Psychological capital

β43 = .28, t = 3.52

λ3 = .55, t = 15.46 Resilience β31 = -.44, t = -6.98

Time III Absence intentions

Time II Family-work conflict β53 = .16, t = 1.87

λ4 = .55, t = 16.63

β51 = -.49, t = -6.82 Optimism Model fit statistics: χ2 = 438.04, df = 205, χ2 / df = 2.14; CFI = .95; IFI = .95; RMSEA = .064; SRMR = .041 R2 for psychological capital = .02 R2 for work-family conflict = .24 R2 for family-work conflict = .21 R2 for turnover intentions = .50 R2 for absence intentions = .43 Fig. 2. Structural model test results. Note: CFI, comparative fit index; IFI, incremental fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; ns, not significant. The indirect effect of psychological capital on turnover and absence intentions through family–work conflict is significant based on Sobel test. The results regarding the effects of control variables on study variables are not shown for the sake of clarity. *T-values are given except for the loading of self-efficacy that was initially fixed to 1.00 to set the metric for the underlying PsyCap variable. T-values: one-tailed test t > 1.3, p < .10; t > 1.65, p < .05; and t > 2.33, p < .01.

That is, their joint presence is the key for reducing these outcomes. Employees having confidence in their ability to carry out their job-related tasks in service delivery and complaint-handling processes and finding alternative ways to meet both customers’ and management’s expectations when their initial strategies fail are less inclined to leave the organization and exhibit low levels of absence intentions. Employees who are optimist and can manage difficulties in the workplace also report diminished turnover and absence intentions. These results are not only congruent with the precepts of COR theory (cf. Hobfoll, 2002), but also lend empirical support to limited empirical studies in the current literature (Avey et al., 2006, 2011). This study also adds to the existing knowledge base by assessing the effects of work–family conflict and family–work conflict simultaneously on turnover and absence intentions. As COR theory contends, employees lose resources while juggling family and work roles (Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999). The actual loss of scarce resources results in employees’ propensity to leave the organization and absence intentions. Therefore, they preserve their scarce resources by having propensity to leave the organization and displaying absence intentions. The finding that family–work conflict leads to absence intentions is in line with the tenets of COR theory (Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999) and limited empirical studies (Amstad et al., 2011; Kirchmeyer and Cohen, 1999). As predicted by COR theory, the result concerning the effect of family–work conflict on turnover intentions is consistent with the hypothesized relationship and receives empirical support from other studies (Karatepe and Azar, 2013; Karatepe and Uludag, 2008). More importantly, the results suggest that family–work conflict acts as a partial mediator of the effect of PsyCap on turnover and absence intentions. Employees high in PsyCap are capable of minimizing negative situations associated with work

and family roles and displaying an effective management of stressful situations in the work–family interface that will not lead to elevated levels of turnover and absence intentions. The finding that family–work conflict plays a partial mediating role in the relationship between personality variables and employee outcomes lends empirical support to recent studies (cf. Braunstein-Bercovitz et al., 2012). Contrary to what is hypothesized in this study, work–family conflict does not significantly influence turnover and absence intentions. This is surprising. There appear to be two plausible explanations for these findings. First, it seems that frontline hotel employees are unlikely to leave the organization and display absence intentions even if their work responsibilities interfere with their family responsibilities. This may be true for employees working in the Romanian hotel industry, because they may not be able to find alternative employment (cf. Ineson and Berechet, 2011). Second, inclusion of family–work conflict might have attenuated the effect of work–family conflict on the aforementioned job outcomes. Whatever the theoretical explanation is, there is a need for additional research regarding the effects of work–family conflict and family–work conflict on turnover and absence intentions, since the findings across the studies are mixed (e.g., Boyar et al., 2005; Karatepe and Magaji, 2008; Kirchmeyer and Cohen, 1999). The results suggest that PsyCap is significant and relevant in frontline service jobs in the hotel industry, because it reduces work–family conflict, family–work conflict, and turnover and absence intentions. It also influences turnover and absence intentions indirectly through family–work conflict. A number of similarities can be observed when the results reported in this study are compared to the results of other empirical studies conducted in North America. For example, the result regarding the

O.M. Karatepe, G. Karadas / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 132–143

relationship between PsyCap and turnover intentions is consistent with empirical studies conducted in North America (Avey et al., 2011). The result concerning the effect of PsyCap on absence intentions is also congruent with Avey et al.’s (2006) research in North America. Since the overwhelming majority of empirical research on PsyCap has been done in North America (e.g., Choi and Lee, 2014), evidence arising from data obtained from frontline hotel employees in Romania enhances current knowledge.

5.2. Limitations and avenues for future research Although the current study significantly contributes to existing knowledge by linking PsyCap to turnover and absence intentions through conflicts in the work–family interface, several limitations are of note. First, this study collected data with a time lag of two weeks in three waves. Such time-lagged designs delineate some evidence about causality, but they are not enough. Therefore, obtaining data via a longer period of time in three waves would be more useful. Second, gathering data from frontline hotel employees through their managers is observed in various empirical studies (Karatepe, 2013; Lee and Ok, 2014). Though the researcher had given information to managers to distribute the questionnaires to a wide array of employees in frontline service jobs, this practice might have created a selection bias (Blair and Zinkhan, 2006). If possible, in future studies the researchers can distribute the questionnaires to frontline employees directly to control and reduce the potential risk of selection bias. Third, the present study measured absence intentions. If possible, in future studies receiving company records regarding employees’ actual absences from work would lead to an objective evaluation of absenteeism. Fourth, very little is known regarding the antecedents and consequences of PsyCap among frontline employees in the hospitality industry in the current literature. In future studies various critical antecedents (e.g., job resources) and outcomes (e.g., leaving work early) for frontline service jobs can be identified and the potential relationships can be developed based on a theoretical lens (e.g., COR theory, the Job Demands-Resources model). This would enhance the current understanding in the PsyCap research. Fifth, the sample of this study included frontline employees with or without children. This is consistent with other studies in the current literature, because frontline employees without children also experience conflicts in the work–family interface (e.g., Karatepe, 2010). However, it should be noted that there are a number of empirical studies reporting that employees with children are confronted with conflicts in the work–family interface. For example, Netemeyer et al. (1996) demonstrated that employees with more children living at home had elevated levels of work–family conflict and family–work conflict. Similarly, Bruck and Allen’s (2003) study revealed that employees with more children living at home displayed higher family–work conflict. Aryee et al. (2005) also argue that children who are aged 12 years or below require parental role demands. Given that employees with more children living at home experience high levels of conflicts in the work–family interface, in future studies investigating children living at home as a moderator of the effects of conflicts in the work–family interface on organizationally valued job outcomes such as turnover, absenteeism, tardiness, and overall job performance seems worthwhile. For example, the hypothesis that the positive impact of family–work conflict on tardiness is stronger among employees with children living at home can be tested. Alternatively, the hypothesis that the positive effect of family–work conflict on tardiness is stronger among employees with children than the ones who do not have any children can also be tested. On a closing note, replication studies in Romania and

141

other countries in the Eastern Europe using data obtained with a proper time lag and/or supervisors would broaden the database in the PsyCap research.

5.3. Practical implications There are important implications for managerial practice emerging from this study. First, the results suggest that selfefficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience jointly decrease conflicts in the work–family interface and undesirable outcomes such as turnover and absence intentions. Therefore, having rigorous selective staffing will enable management to select individuals high in PsyCap. During and after the selection process managers can use the PsyCap questionnaire to understand whether individuals hired in the company need training interventions. If there is a need for training interventions, management can help employees to set challenging goals, avoid undesirable goals, and give some advice about how to overcome various obstacles in the workplace. According to Youssef and Luthans (2007), such training increases employees’ psychological capacities by 1.5% to 3%. Acquiring and retaining a pool of employees high in PsyCap is important, because they can contribute to a resourceful work environment, serve as role models, and generate a demonstration effect among current employees low in PsyCap. Second, the results implicitly suggest that management should establish and maintain a family-supportive work environment. Management may have already offered family-friendly benefits to current employees. However, management should make sure that employees are willing to take advantage of these benefits, and their careers in the organization are not jeopardized due to the frequent use of such benefits (Karatepe, 2013). As the results reveal, family–work conflict exacerbates both turnover and absence intentions. Accordingly, management can organize workshops and invite employees’ family members. Management can seek each family member’s advice about how conflict between family and work roles can be reduced. This will at least make employees feel less stressed and perceive that management really considers employees’ and their family members’ feedback in solving problems associated with family–work conflict. Third, according to Ineson and Berechet (2011), retention of employees in the Romanian hotel industry can be achieved through a planned career path and job challenges. It appears that employees who are high in PsyCap and have satisfactory career opportunities are less inclined to display negative job outcomes. As a result, management can create a climate where employees feel that they are regarded as strategic partners and have planned career paths and job challenges in the organization. Fourth, after establishing and maintaining a resourceful work environment, management of hotels should arrange specific training programs that focus on the cost of turnover and absenteeism to the organization. Employees may think that actual turnover and absenteeism do not give substantial costs to the organization. In these training programs, management can share tangible and intangible costs of turnover and absenteeism with current employees and ask for their feedback regarding the potential sources of these undesirable outcomes. For example, employees may think that their supervisors are not supportive enough to help protect them from work–family conflict. This may exacerbate their turnover and absence intentions. Therefore, management should take into account such feedback and share it with the relevant supervisors in the organization. If necessary, management should organize training programs that focus on the critical role of supportive supervision via case studies.

142

O.M. Karatepe, G. Karadas / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 132–143

Appendix A.

Table A.1 Covariance matrix.

1. GEN 2. MST 3. NC 4. SEFF 5. HOPE 6. RES 7. OPT 8. WFC1 9. WFC2 10. WFC3 11. WFC4 12. WFC5 13. FWC1 14. FWC2 15. FWC3 16. FWC4 17. FWC5 18. TI1 19. TI2 20. TI3 21. ABI1 22. ABI2 23. ABI3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

.25 −.01 −.03 .04 .03 .03 .04 −.05 −.02 .00 .02 −.07 −.04 −.03 −.02 −.01 −.01 −.04 −.03 −.04 −.01 .02 −.02

.24 .17 .00 .01 .00 .01 .12 .10 .09 .09 .11 .03 .03 .03 .04 .04 .00 −.01 .00 .00 −.01 −.01

.31 .00 .00 −.01 .01 .15 .15 .12 .14 .14 .07 .06 .07 .07 .06 .01 .01 .02 .03 −.01 −.01

.59 .27 .33 .34 −.27 −.29 −.28 −.16 −.26 −.24 −.24 −.27 −.23 −.23 −.41 −.28 −.29 −.31 −.27 −.32

.33 .22 .23 −.13 −.15 −.13 −.10 −.13 −.15 −.16 −.19 −.17 −.17 −.24 −.16 −.18 −.16 −.14 −.18

.44 .31 −.21 −.24 −.21 −.12 −.19 −.20 −.20 −.25 −.22 −.23 −.34 −.23 −.25 −.26 −.17 −.26

.40 −.17 −.21 −.18 −.08 −.15 −.19 −.18 −.23 −.20 −.22 −.30 −.21 −.24 −.26 −.20 −.25

1.09 .92 .81 .84 .77 .57 .59 .57 .61 .59 .34 .26 .28 .26 .25 .29

1.03 .82 .84 .78 .60 .59 .60 .63 .63 .37 .28 .30 .28 .26 .30

.96 .86 .71 .61 .65 .61 .67 .65 .35 .23 .27 .21 .26 .33

1.18 .67 .67 .68 .61 .65 .64 .27 .15 .21 .13 .19 .25

1.26 .61 .61 .54 .65 .58 .30 .19 .23 .21 .23 .25

.86 .76 .76 .76 .73 .40 .26 .31 .20 .25 .31

.97 .82 .87 .76 .40 .28 .31 .20 .25 .33

.96 .88 .85 .44 .31 .35 .22 .29 .36

1.06 .85 .40 .28 .32 .21 .25 .35

.98 .41 .29 .33 .20 .28 .36

.82 .52 .60 .49 .39 .46

.65 .50 .38 .31 .34

.63 .37 .33 .37

.94 .48 .42

.55 .46

.71

Note: GEN, gender; MST, marital status; NC, number of children; SEFF, self-efficacy; RES, resilience; OPT, optimism; WFC, work–family conflict; FWC, family–work conflict; TI, turnover intentions; ABI, absence intentions.

Appendix B.

References

B.1. Hypotheses testing

Abbas, M., Raja, U., Darr, W., Bouckenooghe, D., 2012. Combined effects of perceived politics and psychological capital on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. J. Manag., http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206312455243. Allen, T.D., Herst, D.E.L., Bruck, C.S., Sutton, M., 2000. Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 5 (2), 278–308. Allen, T.D., Johnson, R.C., Saboe, K.N., Cho, E., Dumani, S., Evans, S., 2012. Dispositional variables and work–family conflict: a meta-analysis. J. Vocat. Behav. 80 (1), 17–26. Amstad, F.T., Meier, L.L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A., Semmer, N.K., 2011. A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on crossdomain versus matching-domain relations. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 16 (2), 151–169. Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103 (3), 411–423. Anseel, F., Lievens, F., Schollaert, E., Choragwicka, B., 2010. Response rates in organizational science, 1995–2008: a meta-analytic review and guidelines for survey researchers. J. Bus. Psychol. 25 (3), 335–349. Aryee, S., Srinivas, E.S., Tan, H.H., 2005. Rhythms of life: antecedents and outcomes of work–family balance in employed parents. J. Appl. Psychol. 90 (1), 132–146. Avey, J.B., Luthans, F., Jensen, S.M., 2009. Psychological capital: a positive resource for combating employee stress and turnover. Hum. Resour. Manage. 48 (5), 677–693. Avey, J.B., Patera, J.L., West, B.J., 2006. The implications of positive psychological capital on employes absenteeism. J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 13 (2), 42–60. Avey, J.B., Reichard, R.J., Luthans, F., Mhatre, K.H., 2011. Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 22 (2), 127–152. Baba, V.V., Galperin, B.L., Lituchy, T.R., 1999. Occupational mental health: a study of work–related depression among nurses in the Caribbean. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 36 (2), 163–169. Baba, V.V., Harris, M.J., 1989. Stress and absence: a cross-cultural perspective. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 12, 483–493. Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 16 (1), 74–94. Blair, E., Zinkhan, G.M., 2006. Nonresponse and generalizability in academic research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 34 (1), 4–7. Boyar, S.L., Maertz Jr., J.P., Pearson, A.W., 2005. The effects of work–family conflict and family–work conflict on nonattendance behaviors. J. Bus. Res. 58 (7), 919–925. Boyar, S.L., Mosley Jr., D.J., 2007. The relationship between core self-evaluations and work and family satisfaction. The mediating role work–family conflict and facilitation. J. Vocat. Behav. 71 (2), 265–281.

As a comparison, the relationships in the hypothesized model were also tested without the control variables. The hypothesized model fit the data well (2 = 397.14, df = 160; 2 /df = 2.48; CFI = .95; IFI = .95; RMSEA = .073; SRMR = .045). The results reveal that selfefficacy (1 = .63, t = 16.05) appears to be the most reliable indicator of PsyCap, followed by optimism (4 = .55, t = 17.79), resilience (3 = .55, t = 16.30), and hope (2 = .41, t = 13.49). The results demonstrate that PsyCap is negatively related to work–family conflict ( 11 = −.39, t = −6.19), family–work conflict ( 21 = −.44, t = −6.99), turnover intentions ( 31 = −.53, t = −8.70), and absence intentions ( 41 = −.49, t = −6.92). These results provide empirical support for hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2c. According to the results without the control variables, work–family conflict is not significantly related to turnover (ˇ31 = .01, t = .12) and absence intentions (ˇ41 = .10, t = 1.19). Hence, there is no empirical support for hypotheses 3a and 3b. The results from structural equation modeling show that family–work conflict is positively related to turnover (ˇ32 = .28, t = 3.58) and absence intentions (ˇ42 = .17, t = 2.00). Therefore, hypotheses 4a and 4b are supported. The indirect impact of PsyCap on turnover intentions via family–work conflict is negative and significant based on Sobel test (z = −3.16, p < .01). The indirect effect of PsyCap on absence intentions through family–work conflict is also negative and significant (z = −1.83, p < .05). Hence, hypotheses 6a and 6b are supported. Hypotheses 5a and 5b are not supported, because work–family conflict has no bearing on turnover and absence intentions. The results explain 15% of the variance in work–family conflict, 19% in family–work conflict, 50% in turnover intentions, and 42% in absence intentions. In closing, the results implicitly indicate that the control variables do not lead to any statistical confounds.

O.M. Karatepe, G. Karadas / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 132–143 Braunstein-Bercovitz, H., Frish-Burstein, S., Benjamin, B.A., 2012. The role of personal resources in work–family conflict: implications for young mothers’ well-being. J. Vocat. Behav. 80 (2), 317–325. Bruck, C.S., Allen, T.D., 2003. The relationship between big five personality traits, negative affectivity, type A behavior, and work–family conflict. J. Vocat. Behav. 63 (3), 457–472. Casper, W.J., Harris, C., Taylor-Bianco, A., Wayne, J.H., 2011. Work–family conflict, perceived supervisor support and organizational commitment among Brazilian professionals. J. Vocat. Behav. 79 (3), 640–652. Chen, D.J.Q., Lim, V.K.G., 2012. Strength in adversity: the influence of psychological capital on job search. J. Org. Behav. 33 (6), 811–839. Choi, H.J., Kim, Y.T., 2012. Work–family conflict, work–family facilitation, and job outcomes in the Korean hotel industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 24 (7), 1011–1028. Choi, Y., Lee, D., 2014. Psychological capital, big five traits, and employee outcomes. J. Manag. Psychol. 29 (2), 122–140. Edwards, J.R., Rothbard, N.P., 2000. Mechanisms linking work and family: clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Acad. Manage. Rev. 25 (1), 178–199. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50. Goff, S.J., Mount, M.K., Jamison, R.L., 1990. Employer supported child care, work/family conflict, and absenteeism: a field study. Pers. Psychol. 43 (4), 793–809. Grandey, A.A., Cropanzano, R., 1999. The conservation of resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain. J. Vocat. Behav. 54 (2), 350–370. Haines, V.Y., Harvey, S., Durand, P., Marchand, A., 2013. Core self-evaluations, work–family conflict, and burnout. J. Marriage Family 75 (June), 778–793. Hobfoll, S.E., 1989. Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 44 (3), 513–524. Hobfoll, S.E., 2002. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 6 (4), 307–324. Huffman, A.N., Casper, W.J., Payne, S.C., 2014. How does spouse career support relate to employee turnover? Work interfering with family and job satisfaction as mediators. J. Org. Behav. 35 (2), 194–212. Ineson, E.M., Berechet, G., 2011. Employee loyalty in hotels: Romanian experiences. J. Hum. Resour. Hosp. Tour. 10 (2), 129–149. James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., Brett, J.M., 2006. A tale of two methods. Org. Res. Methods 9 (2), 233–244. Jang, J., George, R.T., 2012. Understanding the influence of polychronicity on job satisfaction and turnover intention: a study of non-supervisory hotel employees. IJHM 31 (2), 588–595. Joreskog, K., Sorbom, D., 1996. LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide. Scientific Software International, Inc., Chicago. Karatepe, O.M., 2009. An investigation of the joint effects of organizational tenure and supervisor support on work–family conflict and turnover intentions. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 16, 73–81. Karatepe, O.M., 2010. The effect of positive and negative work–family interaction on exhaustion: does work social support make a difference? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 22 (6), 836–856. Karatepe, O.M., 2013. The effects of work overload and work–family conflict on job embeddedness and job performance: the mediation of emotional exhaustion. Int. J. Contemp. Hos. Manag. 25 (4), 614–634. Karatepe, O.M., Azar, A.K., 2013. The effects of work–family conflict and facilitation on turnover intentions: the moderating role of core self-evaluations. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 14 (3), 255–281. Karatepe, O.M., Demir, E., 2014. Linking core self-evaluations and work engagement to work–family facilitation: a study in the hotel industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 26 (2), 307–323. Karatepe, O.M., Karadas, G., Azar, A.K., Naderiadib, N., 2013. Does work engagement mediate the effect of polychronicity on performance outcomes? A study in the hospitality industry in Northern Cyprus. J. Hum. Resour. Hosp. Tour. 12 (1), 52–70. Karatepe, O.M., Magaji, A.B., 2008. Work–family conflict and facilitation in the hotel industry: a study in Nigeria. Cornell Hosp. Q. 49 (4), 395–412. Karatepe, O.M., Uludag, O., 2008. Affectivity, conflicts in the work–family interface, and hotel employee outcomes. IJHM 27 (1), 30–41. Kim, T.T., Lee, G., 2013. Hospitality employee knowledge-sharing behaviors in the relationship between goal orientations and service orientation behavior. IJHM 34 (September), 324–337. Kirchmeyer, C., Cohen, A., 1999. Different strategies for managing the work/nonwork interface: a test for unique pathways to work outcomes. Work Stress 13 (1), 59–73.

143

Kocakulah, M.C., Galligan, A., Mitchell, K.M., Ruggieri, M.P., 2009. Absenteeism problems and costs: causes, effects and cures. Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 8 (5), 81–88. Lam, W., Chen, Z., 2012. When I put on my service mask: determinants and outcomes of emotional labor among hotel service providers according to affective event theory. IJHM 31 (1), 3–11. Lee, J.H. (Jay), Ok, C.M., 2014. Understanding hotel employees’ service sabotage: emotional labor perspective based on conservation of resources theory. IJHM 36 (January), 176–187. Liu, X.-Y., Kwan, H.K., Chiu, R.K., 2014. Customer sexual harassment and frontline employees’ performance in China. Hum. Relat. 67 (3), 333–356. Luthans, F., Youssef, C.M., Avolio, B.J., 2007. Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Magnini, V.P., Lee, G., Kim, B.C. (Peter)., 2011. The cascading affective consequences of exercise among hotel workers. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 23 (5), 624–643. Michel, J.W., Kavanagh, M.J., Tracey, J.B., 2013. Got support? The impact of supportive work practices on the perceptions, motivation, and behavior of customercontact employees. Cornell Hosp. Q. 54 (2), 161–173. Michel, J.S., Kotrba, L.M., Mitchelson, J.K., Clark, M.A., Baltes, B.B., 2011. Antecedents of work–family conflict: a meta-analytic review. J. Org. Behav. 32 (5), 689–725. Mills, M.J., Fleck, C.R., Kozikowski, A., 2013. Positive psychology at work: a conceptual review, state-of-practice assessment, and a look ahead. J. Posit. Psychol. 8 (2), 153–164. Mohsin, A., Lengler, J., Kumar, B., 2013. Exploring the antecedents of intentions to leave the job: the case of luxury staff hotel staff. IJHM 35 (December), 48–58. Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S., McMurrian, R., 1996. Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. J. Appl. Psychol. 81 (4), 400–410. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903. Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., e Cunha, M.P., 2012. Authentic leadership promoting employees’ psychological capital and creativity. J. Bus. Res. 65 (3), 429–437. 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. J. Manag. 27 (1), 99–121. Singh, J., Verbeke, W., Rhoads, G.K., 1996. Do organizational practices matter in role stress processes? A study of direct and moderating effects for marketingoriented boundary spanners. J. Mark. 60 (3), 69–86. Siu, O.L., 2013. Psychological capital, work well-being, and work–life balance among Chinese employees: a cross-lagged analysis. J. Pers. Psychol. 12 (4), 170–181. Tromp, D.M., Blomme, R.J., 2012. The effect of effort expenditure, job control and work–home arrangements on negative work–home interference in the hospitality industry. IJHM 31 (4), 1213–1221. Tromp, D.M., Blomme, R.J., 2014. Leadership style and negative work–home interference in the hospitality industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 26 (1), 85–106. Wang, Y., Liu, L., Wang, J., Wang, L., 2012. Work–family conflict and burnout among Chinese doctors: the mediating role of psychological capital. J. Occup. Health 54 (3), 232–240. Yavas, U., Karatepe, O.M., Babakus, E., 2013. Does hope buffer the impacts of stress and exhaustion on frontline hotel employees’ turnover intentions? Tour.: Int. Interdiscip. J. 61 (1), 29–39. Youssef, C.M., Luthans, F., 2007. Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: the impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. J. Manag. 33 (5), 774–800. Zhao, H., Peng, Z., Sheard, G., 2013. Workplace ostracism and hospitality employees’ counterproductive work behaviors: the joint moderating effects of proactive personality and political skill. IJHM 33 (June), 219–227. Zhao, X.(R), Mattila, A.S., 2013. Examining the spillover effect of frontline employees’ work–family conflict on their affective work attitudes and customer satisfaction. IJHM 33 (June), 310–315. Zhao, X.(R), Mattila, A.S., Ngan, N.N., 2014a. The impact of frontline employees’ work–family conflict on customer satisfaction: the mediating role of exhaustion and emotional displays. Cornell Hosp. Q. 55 (4), 422–432. Zhao, X.(R), Namasivayam, K., 2012. The relationship of chronic regulatory focus to work–family conflict and job satisfaction. IJHM 31 (2), 458–467. Zhao, X(R)., Qu, H., Ghiselli, R., 2011. Examining the relationship of work–family conflict to job and life satisfaction: a case of hotel sales managers. IJHM 30 (1), 46–54. Zhao, X.(R)., Qu, H., Liu, J., 2014b. An investigation into the relationship between hospitality employees’ work–family conflicts and their leisure intentions. Cornell Hosp. Q. 55 (4), 408–421.