Karatepe and Azar (2013)

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271671971
The Effects of WorkFamily Conflict

and Facilitation on Turnover
Intentions: The Moderating Role of
Core Self-Evaluations
Article in International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration July 2013

DOI: 10.1080/15256480.2013.809987
CITATIONS READS
4 101
2 authors, including:
Osman M. Karatepe
Eastern Mediterranean University
109 PUBLICATIONS 2,836 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Osman M. Karatepe on 03 September 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original docum
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
This article was downloaded by: [Dogu Akdeniz University]
On: 22 August 2013, At: 23:49
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Hospitality &

Tourism Administration
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjht20
The Effects of WorkFamily Conflict and

Facilitation on Turnover Intentions: The
Moderating Role of Core Self-Evaluations
a a
Osman M. Karatepe & Arezou Khabbaz Azar
a
Faculty of Tourism, Eastern Mediterranean University, Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus , Turkey
Published online: 22 Aug 2013.
To cite this article: Osman M. Karatepe & Arezou Khabbaz Azar (2013) The Effects of WorkFamily
Conflict and Facilitation on Turnover Intentions: The Moderating Role of Core Self-Evaluations,
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 14:3, 255-281
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2013.809987
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Administration, 14:255281, 2013
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1525-6480 print/1525-6499 online
DOI: 10.1080/15256480.2013.809987
The Effects of WorkFamily Conflict and

Facilitation on Turnover Intentions: The
Moderating Role of Core Self-Evaluations
OSMAN M. KARATEPE
Faculty of Tourism, Eastern Mediterranean University,
Downloaded by [Dogu Akdeniz University] at 23:49 22 August 2013
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Turkey
AREZOU KHABBAZ AZAR

Faculty of Tourism, Eastern Mediterranean University,
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Turkey
The purpose of this study is to examine core self-evaluations as

a moderator of the effects of workfamily conflict, familywork
conflict, workfamily facilitation, and familywork facilitation
on turnover intentions. This study also investigates the effects
of two directions of conflict and facilitation on turnover inten-
tions. Based on data collected from a sample of full-time frontline
hotel employees in Iran, the previously mentioned relationships
were tested using hierarchical multiple regression analysis. The
results reveal that core self-evaluations strengthen the negative
effects of workfamily facilitation and familywork facilitation on
turnover intentions. The results further indicate that workfamily
conflict and familywork conflict exacerbate turnover intentions,
while only familywork facilitation alleviates turnover intentions.
Implications of the findings are discussed, and their future research
directions are offered.
KEYWORDS core self-evaluations, Iran, turnover intentions,

workfamily conflict, workfamily facilitation
Received December 6, 2010; accepted April 15, 2011.

Address correspondence to Osman M. Karatepe, Faculty of Tourism, Eastern
Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, TRNC, Via Mersin 10, Turkey. E-mail:
osman.karatepe@emu.edu.tr
255
256 O. M. Karatepe and A. K. Azar
INTRODUCTION
Employees in frontline service jobs in the hotel industry play a critical role
in service delivery, and establishing and maintaining long-term relationships
with customers. Therefore, it is important for hotel managers to retain a
pool of motivated, satisfied and committed frontline employees who can
consistently deliver service quality. However, frontline hotel employees are
faced with problems arising from long work hours, excessive shift duties, low
pay, and inadequate promotional and career opportunities (e.g., Karatepe,
2009; Karatepe & Sokmen, 2006; King, Funk, & Wilkins, 2011; Magnini, 2009;
Wong & Ko, 2009). As argued by Deery and Jago (2009), it is also difficult
for these employees to maintain a healthy balance between their work and
family responsibilities. As a result, they experience workfamily conflict and
familywork conflict. Conflicts in the workfamily interface will cause strain.

Therefore, hotel employees may adopt the strategy of quit the job or quit
the organization as a solution to such conflicts.
Workfamily conflict refers to a form of interrole conflict in which
the general demands of, time devoted to, and strain created by the job
interfere with performing family-related responsibilities; and familywork
conflict refers to a form of interrole conflict in which the general demands
of, time devoted to, and strain created by the family interfere with performing
work-related responsibilities (Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996, p. 401).
Employees with elevated levels of conflicts in the workfamily interface have
job dissatisfaction, demonstrate high levels of turnover intentions, and per-
form ineffectively in the workplace (Blomme, Van Rheede, & Tromp, 2010;
Karatepe & Sokmen, 2006; Zhao, Qu, & Ghiselli, 2011).
On the other hand, work and family can facilitate one another. Work
family facilitation refers to the extent to which participation at work (or
home) is made easier by virtue of the experiences, skills, and opportunities
gained or developed at home (or work) (Frone, 2003, p. 145). Employees
who can integrate their work and family roles are satisfied with the job,
have low levels of turnover intentions, and display effective job performance
(Balmforth & Gardner, 2006; Karatepe & Kilic, 2009).
As a dispositional variable, core self-evaluations (CSE) are the funda-
mental assessments that people make about their worthiness, competence,
and capabilities and are the aggregation of self-esteem, generalized self-
efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability (Judge, Bono, Erez, &
Locke, 2005). The direct effects of CSE on outcomes, such as burnout, job
satisfaction, and life satisfaction have been well documented in the rele-
vant literature (e.g., Best, Stapleton, & Downey, 2005; Crawford, Hubbard,
ONeill, & Guarino, 2010; Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998). Research
shows that emotional regulation reflected in surface acting partially medi-
ates the relationship between CSE and burnout (Yagil, Luria, & Gal, 2008).
Research also illustrates that coworker support influences vigor directly and
The Effects of WorkFamily Conflict 257
indirectly via CSE and further demonstrates that CSE fully mediates the impact
of coworker support on dedication (Karatepe, Keshavarz, & Nejati, 2010).
There are also other personality traits, such as conscientiousness, agree-
ableness, and proactive personality that influence workfamily conflict
and/or workfamily facilitation (Aryee, Srinivas, & Tan, 2005; Bhargava &
Baral, 2009; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004). According to conservation
of resources (COR) theory, personal resources can reduce the effects of
stressors on employee outcomes (Hobfoll, 1989; Witt & Carlson, 2006). As a
personal resource, CSE can mitigate the positive effects of workfamily con-
flict and familywork conflict on turnover intentions. Turnover intentions
refer to employees willingness to leave an organization (Thoresen, Kaplan,
Barsky, Warren, & De Chermont, 2003) and lead to turnover, which is a seri-
ous problem in the hospitality industry (Barrows & Ridout, 2010; Karatepe,
2009; Wildes & Parks, 2005). Again consistent with COR theory (Hobfoll,
2001; Innstrand, Langballe, Espnes, Falkum, & Aasland, 2008), workfamily
facilitation or familywork facilitation can be regarded as resource surpluses.
Therefore, CSE, when coupled with workfamily facilitation or familywork
facilitation, can also reduce turnover intentions.
Against this backdrop, this study investigates CSE as a moderator of the
impacts of workfamily conflict, familywork conflict, workfamily facilita-
tion, and familywork facilitation on turnover intentions. Also examined in
the current study are the effects of two directions of conflict and facilitation
on turnover intentions. A sample of full-time frontline hotel employees in
Iran serves as the study setting.
CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY
This study is relevant and significant for at least two reasons. First, empirical
research linking CSE to workfamily conflict and facilitation in the extant
literature is sparse (Westring & Ryan, 2010). Indeed, there is a dearth of
empirical research pertaining to CSE that can act as a buffer in the relation-
ship between stressors and outcomes (Harris, Harvey, & Kacmar, 2009). In his
recent review, Karatepe (2008) also discussed that empirical research on the
moderators of two directions of conflict and facilitation in the hospitality
management literature is scanty. Such gaps in this research stream have been
highlighted in other empirical studies (Karatepe, 2008, 2009, 2010; Mulvaney,
ONeill, Cleveland, & Crouter, 2007). With this realization, this study responds
to such calls and fills in the void in the hospitality management literature by
testing the moderating role of CSE on the relationships between two types
of conflict and facilitation and turnover intentions.
Second, there is a need for more empirical research regarding two types
of conflict and facilitation and their moderators based on data derived from
the developing (non-Western) countries, because work and family roles are
highly correlated with one societys culture (Karatepe, 2008; Karatepe &
Magaji, 2008). Therefore, the present study tests the previously mentioned
relationships using data gathered from frontline hotel employees in Kish
Island and Tehran in Iran.
As a collectivist and male-dominated society (Karimi, 2008), Iran (offi-
cially known as the Islamic Republic of Iran) is a developing Middle East
country. Tehran is the capital city and Kish Island is one of the most
important tourism destinations of the country. The attitudes of employ-
ees in Iran towards their roles as employees and their relationships with
coworkers, friends, family members, and others are largely different from
those of Western employees (Karimi, 2008). Recent empirical studies indi-
cate that both male and female employees in Iran are confronted with
workfamily conflict and familywork conflict (Karimi, 2008; Karimi & Nouri,
2009). Though the percentage of employed men is greater than that of

employed women in the service industries (Trading Economics, 2007), there
is an increasing participation of women in the workforce due to the high
cost of living and the growing number of educated women in Iran (Karimi,
2009). However, there are different role expectations for women when com-
pared to those in Western societies. Broadly speaking, the majority of Iranian
women are still responsible for shouldering housework and taking care of
children (Karimi, 2009; OShea, 2003). As a matter of fact, employed Iranian
women are proud of their domestic capabilities and stay in the kitchen late
at night to prepare food for the following day (OShea, 2003). In addition,
employed mothers may receive help from the members of the extended fam-
ily (e.g., parents, siblings, and relatives) for childcare. This is not surprising,
because as discussed by OShea (2003), the extended family is perceived as
an important source of support and influence as well as a place of comfort.
The Iranian work environment is devoid of contemporary human
resource management practices (e.g., Bidmeshgipour, 2009; Yeganeh & Su,
2008). Specifically, nepotism is prevalent among Iranian companies due to
the national culture of being family oriented and a distrust of outsiders
(Namazie & Frame, 2007). Although managers in Iranian companies are cog-
nizant of the importance of training and development programs, they do
not take sufficient time for planning and preparation activities (Yeganeh &
Su, 2008). Training is not usually linked to performance criteria (Namazie &
Frame, 2007) and is not regarded as a career path development and a life-
long development of employees (Namazie, 2003; OGorman, McLellan, &
Baum, 2007). Employees believe that managers cannot implement a reliable
performance appraisal process due to favoritism, unfairness, and subjectivity
(Namazie & Frame, 2007). When it comes to compensation, it is not trans-
parent (Namazie & Frame, 2007). The compensation policies in most of the
Iranian firms are not linked to performance in the workplace. Therefore, such
policies do not motivate employees for better job performance (Yeganeh &
Su, 2008). In these firms, criteria for promotional and career opportunities are
not clearly defined (Yeganeh & Su, 2008). Under these circumstances, Iranian
employees with sufficient language skills are interested in being employed
in multinational firms where they can have better training and development
programs, fair compensation policies, and a more flexible work environment
(Namazie & Frame, 2007).
In addition, service standards, especially in the major state and quasi-
state hospitality businesses, are very poor (OGorman et al., 2007). As is
the case in other developing and developed countries (e.g., Karatepe, 2009;
Wildes & Parks, 2005), high labor turnover is a critical problem in the hos-
pitality industry in Iran (Anvari, Amin, & Seliman, 2010). The previously
mentioned problems associated with human resource management practices
may be responsible for poor service standards and high labor turnover.
Finally, the results of the present study provide useful insights pertaining
to the management of workfamily balance and turnover in frontline service

jobs in the hotel industry. The next section of the article consists of the back-
ground and study hypotheses. This is followed by discussions of the method
and results of the empirical study conducted with frontline hotel employees.
The article concludes with implications of the results and avenues for future
research.
THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS AND HYPOTHESES

Background
A careful examination of the hospitality management literature reveals
that there are empirical studies, which have examined workfamily con-
flict and/or familywork conflict. For example, past research indicated that
workfamily conflict reduced normative organizational commitment and job
satisfaction among hotel employees, whereas familywork conflict increased
their job satisfaction (Namasivayam & Mount, 2004). Cleveland et al. (2007)
demonstrated that hotel managers were faced with elevated levels of work
family conflict and exhaustion. In a study of hotel sales managers in China,
Zhao et al. (2011) showed that both workfamily conflict and familywork
conflict were negatively associated with affective reaction to the job, while
only familywork conflict decreased the cognitive appraisal of a job. They
further reported that familywork conflict alleviated life satisfaction, while
workfamily conflict did not. A number of past studies also illustrated that
workfamily conflict or familywork conflict influenced job or family out-
comes deleteriously (e.g., Karatepe & Baddar, 2006; Karatepe & Sokmen,
2006).
On the contrary, there is little empirical research concerning work
family facilitation and/or familywork facilitation in the hospitality manage-
ment literature (Karatepe, 2008; Mulvaney et al., 2007). Empirical research
pertaining to the moderators of two directions of conflict and facilitation in
the hospitality management literature is also sparse (e.g., Karatepe, 2008;

Mulvaney et al., 2007). For example, in a study of frontline hotel employees
in Nigeria, Karatepe and Magaji (2008) demonstrated a positive relationship
between familywork facilitation and affective organizational commitment.
The results of a recent study conducted with hotel employees in Hong Kong
found that enough time off from work, allegiance to work, workplace sup-
port, and flexibility on work schedule positively influenced work-life balance
(Wong & Ko, 2009).
In addition, it was reported that affective organizational commitment
moderated the relationship between familywork conflict and job satisfaction
among hotel employees in India (Namasivayam & Zhao, 2007). According to
the results of a study conducted with frontline hotel employees in Jordan, the
interaction of organizational tenure and supervisor support reduced family
work conflict (Karatepe, 2009). Hsieh, Pearson, and Kline (2009) showed
that the effect of workpersonal life conflict on intention to quit was stronger
among hotel managers who were highly involved in their personal lives. In a
study of frontline hotel employees in Albania, Karatepe (2010) reported that
the interaction of workfamily conflict and work social support as well as
the interaction of workfamily facilitation and work social support alleviated
exhaustion.
In short, there is still a clear gap in the hospitality management literature
to learn about the role of individual differences in the experiences of work
family relationships, although the aforementioned studies shed light on our
understanding of two directions of conflict and facilitation.
The relationships to be tested in this study are derived from three the-
oretical frameworks: (a) scarcity theory, (b) expansion-enhancement theory,
and (c) COR theory. The scarcity theory, which has dominated the literature
regarding the workfamily interface research, proposes that individuals par-
ticipating in work and family roles have a fixed amount of time and energy
(Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Under these circumstances, they inevitably
experience workfamily conflict and familywork conflict because of the
devotion of greater resources to one role and the devotion of lesser resources
to another role (Greenhaus & Powell, 2003; Rothbard, 2001).
As Marks (1977) stated, some roles may be performed without any
energy loss at all; they may even create energy for use in that role or in
other role performances (p. 926). The expansion-enhancement theory con-
tends that participation in multiple roles can lead to a number of benefits that
transcend the difficulties or costs associated with work and family roles, lead-
ing to a net gratification rather than strain (Aryee et al., 2005). Employees
with resources emerging from the family domain (e.g., family or spouse
support) can cope with pressures in the workplace and have high quality
job performance. Likewise, employees with resources arising from the work
domain (e.g., family-supportive supervisors and family-friendly benefits) can
carry out family responsibilities. There are empirical studies that have used
the expansion-enhancement theory in the extant literature to develop rela-

tionships regarding the antecedents and outcomes of workfamily facilitation
and familywork facilitation (e.g., Aryee et al., 2005; Karatepe & Magaji, 2008;
Kinnunen, Feldt, Geurts, & Pulkkinen, 2006).
According to COR theory, there are four types of resources, which are
objects, personal characteristics, conditions, and energies (Hobfoll, 1989).
Individuals seek to acquire, maintain and preserve their scarce resources.
Employees in frontline service jobs in the hotel industry lose their scarce
resources in the process of juggling work and family demands. However,
employees may be able to circumvent the resource depletion process, if
they have adequate personal resources (Zellars, Perrew, Hochwarter, &
Anderson, 2006). That is, COR theory posits that individual differences can
be regarded as resources in mitigating the impacts of stressors on out-
comes (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). As indicated before, workfamily

facilitation and familywork facilitation can be regarded as resource sur-
pluses (Hobfoll, 2001). Individuals are motivated to develop and protect
resource surpluses to compensate the possibility of future resource loss
(Innstrand et al., 2008). Personal resources, when coupled with workfamily
facilitation or familywork facilitation, can alleviate negative job outcomes
of employees. COR theory has also been used as a theoretical framework
for the antecedents, outcomes, and moderators of two directions of con-
flict and facilitation (e.g., Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Innstrand et al.,
2008; Karatepe, 2010; Netemeyer, Maxham, & Pullig, 2005; Witt & Carlson,
2006).
Hypotheses
According to the scarcity theory, employees participating in work and family
roles are inevitably faced with workfamily conflict and familywork conflict,
because they cannot manage work and family responsibilities effectively due
to a fixed amount of time and energy. As a result, such employees have
turnover intentions. Empirically, in a study of frontline hotel employees in
Turkey, it was reported that both workfamily conflict and familywork con-
flict exacerbated turnover intentions (Karatepe & Sokmen, 2006). Karatepe
and Magaji (2008) demonstrated that workfamily conflict was positively
related to turnover intentions, while familywork conflict was not. Blomme
et al. (2010) also found that workfamily conflict increased turnover inten-
tions of employees working in the hospitality industry in the Netherlands.
Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1a: Workfamily conflict is positively related to frontline employees

turnover intentions.
H1b: Familywork conflict is positively related to frontline employees
turnover intentions.
The ability to establish a balance between work and family responsibil-

ities or the ability to integrate work and family responsibilities should
result in low levels of turnover intentions. This is consonant with the
expansion-enhancement theory. There are few empirical studies that have
investigated the impacts of workfamily facilitation and familywork facil-
itation on turnover intentions. Specifically, it was shown that workfamily
facilitation and familywork facilitation were negatively related to turnover
intentions (Balmforth & Gardner, 2006). In a study of employees of a major
insurance company, Wayne, Randel, and Stevens (2006) reported that family
work enrichment (facilitation) had a negative impact on turnover intentions,
while workfamily enrichment did not. On the other hand, Karatepe and
Magajis (2008) study failed to find empirical support for the effects of work
family facilitation and familywork facilitation on turnover intentions. In view
of the aforementioned information, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H2a: Workfamily facilitation is negatively related to frontline employ-

ees turnover intentions.
H2b: Familywork facilitation is negatively related to frontline employ-
ees turnover intentions.
There are empirical studies showing that conscientiousness moderates

the effect of familywork conflict on job performance (Witt & Carlson, 2006),
and positive affectivity reduces the impact of workfamily conflict on disen-
gagement (Karatepe, Sokmen, Yavas, & Babakus, 2010). Such findings are
congruent with COR theory, because conscientiousness and positive affectiv-
ity are among the personal resources mitigating the effects of stressors on job
performance and disengagement. As Judge, Van Vianen, and De Pater (2004)
state, Individuals with positive core self-evaluations appraise themselves in
a consistently positive manner across situations; such individuals see them-
selves as capable, worthy, and in control of their lives (pp. 328329). As a
personal resource, CSE can also mitigate the positive effects of workfamily
conflict and familywork conflict on turnover intentions. Employees with
higher CSE appear to have better skills at coping with workfamily conflict
and familywork conflict instead of eliminating them by displaying intentions
to leave the organization. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H3a: CSE moderates the effect of workfamily conflict on turnover

intentions such that the positive effect of workfamily conflict
on turnover intentions is weaker among frontline employees with
higher CSE.
H3b: CSE moderates the effect of familywork conflict on turnover
intentions such that the positive effect of familywork conflict
on turnover intentions is weaker among frontline employees with
higher CSE.
Consonant with COR theory and the works of Innstrand et al. (2008)
and Karatepe (2010), workfamily facilitation and familywork facilitation are
regarded as resource surpluses that make employees less vulnerable to strain
and negative job outcomes, such as turnover intentions. Under these circum-
stances, CSE, when coupled with workfamily facilitation or familywork
facilitation, can reduce turnover intentions. As Westring and Ryan (2010,
p. 1818) stated, individuals with more positive CSE will perceive their multi-
ple life roles as less demanding, less conflicting with one another, and more
likely to provide more opportunities for enrichment. As a result, employees
with positive CSE can integrate their work and family roles and thus display
low levels of turnover intentions. In light of the information given above, the
following hypotheses are proposed:
H4a: CSE moderates the effect of workfamily facilitation on turnover

intentions such that CSE strengthens the negative relationship
between workfamily facilitation and turnover intentions.
H4b: CSE moderates the effect of familywork facilitation on turnover
intentions such that CSE strengthens the negative relationship
between familywork facilitation and turnover intentions.
METHOD
Sample and Procedure
The present study gathered data from a sample of frontline employees
in the four- and five-star hotels in Kish Island and Tehran in Iran. These
frontline employees had full-time jobs and frequent face-to-face or voice-to-
voice interactions with customers. Four- and five-star hotels were considered,
because smaller hotels would have few paid full-time frontline employees.
Frontline employees in several hotels in Iran serve as the study set-
ting for the following reasons. First, frontline employees are important
sources of information regarding customers needs, requests, and expecta-
tions (Bettencourt & Brown, 2003; Rust, Stewart, Miller, & Pielack, 1996).
In addition, they play a critical role in delivery of service quality. Second,
despite their critical role in the success of an organization, they have difficulty
managing work and family responsibilities. Under these circumstances, they
experience elevated levels of conflicts in the workfamily interface (Deery &
Jago, 2009; Karatepe & Sokmen, 2006; Namasivayam & Zhao, 2007).
According to the information obtained from Irans Cultural Heritage,
Handicraft and Tourism Organization at the time of this study, there were
7 four-star and 4 five-star hotels in Kish Island, while there were 11 four-
star and 5 five-star hotels in Tehran. Managements of these hotels were
contacted via a letter showing the objectives of the study. Permission was
given by 6 four-star and 4 five-star hotels. However, the managers did not
allow the researcher to directly contact their frontline employees. Therefore,

270 questionnaires were submitted to these managers. The self-administered
questionnaires consisted of information about the assurance of confidential-
ity. The managers were requested to distribute the questionnaires to a broad
range of frontline employees (e.g., front desk agents, reservations agents,
guest relations representatives, food servers). By the cut-off date for data col-
lection, 141 questionnaires were retrieved, yielding a response rate of 52.2%.
Measurement
In designing the survey instrument, the relevant studies were canvassed.
Sixteen items from Grzywacz and Marks (2000) were used to measure two
directions of conflict and facilitation. Specifically, workfamily conflict and
familywork conflict were measured using four items each. Workfamily

facilitation and familywork facilitation were also measured via four items
each. Three items from Singh, Verbeke, and Rhoads (1996) were used to
operationalize turnover intentions. CSE was measured using 12 items from
Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2003).
Response options for two types of conflict and facilitation ranged from
5 (all the time) to 1 (never). Responses to the items in turnover intentions
and CSE were rated on 5-point scales ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to
1 (strongly disagree). Higher scores indicated higher workfamily conflict,
familywork conflict, workfamily facilitation, familywork facilitation, and
turnover intentions. After the negatively worded items had been reverse
scored, higher scores demonstrated higher CSE. Organizational tenure, mar-
ital status, and the number of children were controlled to avoid statistical
confounds. Organizational tenure was measured using a 6-point scale.
Marital status was coded as a binary variable (0 = single or divorced and
1 = married). The number of children was measured using a 5-point scale.
Higher scores indicated longer tenure and more children.
All items were originally prepared in English and then translated into
Persian via the back-translation method (Parameswaran & Yaprak, 1987).
That is, the researcher prepared the original questionnaire in English. Then,
two bilingual individuals who were fluent in both Persian and English partici-
pated independently in the translation process. Finally, the researcher further
checked the two versions of the questionnaire in English to ensure that the
item contents were cross-linguistically comparable and generated the same
meaning. A pilot sample of five frontline hotel employees was used for the
understandability of the items in the questionnaire. The results showed that
no changes in the wording of the questions were deemed necessary.
Data Analysis
The measures of all the study variables were subjected to a series
of confirmatory factor analyses for addressing issues of convergent and
discriminant validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996).
The internal reliability estimates were evaluated based on the commonly
accepted cut-off level of .70.
The direct effects of workfamily conflict, familywork conflict, work
family facilitation, and familywork facilitation on turnover intentions were
tested using hierarchical multiple regression analysis. The moderating effects
were tested through hierarchical multiple regression analysis using the guide-
lines provided by Baron and Kenny (1986). This is consistent with prior and
recent studies (e.g., Han & Back, 2006; Karatepe, 2010; Yang & Peterson,
2004). Specifically, the predictor (independent variable) is entered first, the
moderator second, and the interaction or product of predictor and modera-
tor third. It should be noted that all predicting variables are centered prior
to multiplication. There is empirical support for the moderator hypothesis, if
the interaction is significant.

In the analysis predicting turnover intentions, organizational tenure,
marital status and the number of children as the control variables were
entered in Step 1, two directions of conflict and facilitation in Step 2. The
control variables were entered in Step 1, workfamily conflict in Step 2, CSE
in Step 3, and the interactive term (WorkFamily Conflict CSE) in Step 4 to
predict turnover intentions. This procedure was also used for the rest of the
moderating analyses.
RESULTS
Respondents Profile
Forty percent of the respondents were between the ages of 18 and 27, 40%
were between the ages of 28 and 37, and the rest were older than 37. Sixty-
two percent of the respondents were male. Forty percent of the respondents
had 2-year college degrees, while 22% had 4-year college degrees. Nine
percent of the respondents had primary school education and 27% secondary
and high school education. The rest had graduate degrees. Fifty-six percent
of the respondents had tenures of 5 years or less. Twenty-six percent of the
respondents had tenures between 6 and 10 years and the rest had more than
10 years. Sixty-two percent of the respondents were married, while the rest
were single or divorced. While 55% of the respondents had no children, 28%
had children between one and two and the rest more than two.
Measurement Results
As demonstrated in Table 1, six items from the CSE measure were dropped
due to low standardized factor loadings. After deletion of these items, the
results of confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated the following results:
( 2 462.57 /df 260 = 1.78; Goodness of Fit [GFI] index = .79; Comparative Fit
index [CFI] = .79; Incremental Fit index [IFI] = .80; Root mean square error
TABLE 1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results (n = 141)
Standardized
Scale items loadings t-value
Core self-evaluations
I am confident I get the success I deserve in life .49 5.20
Sometimes I feel depresseda b

When I try, I generally succeed .41 4.24
Sometimes when I fail I feel worthlessa .33 3.39
I complete tasks successfully .33 3.40
Sometimes, I do not feel in control of my worka b

b
Overall, I am satisfied with myself
I am filled with doubts about my competencea b

b
I determine what will happen in my life
I do not feel in control of my success in my careera .65 6.99
I am capable of coping with most of my problems .37 3.87

There are times when things look pretty bleak and hopeless to mea b

Workfamily conflict
My job reduces the effort I can give to activities at home .57 6.76
Stress at work makes me irritable at home .68 8.44
My job makes me feel too tired to do the things that need attention .74 9.41
at home
Job worries or problems distract me when I am at home .76 9.89
Familywork conflict
Responsibilities at home reduce the effort I can devote to my job .52 6.13
Personal or family worries and problems distract me when I am at .55 6.52
work
Activities and chores at home prevent me from getting the amount of .73 9.25
sleep I need to do my job well
Stress at home makes irritable at work .72 9.02
Workfamily facilitation
The things I do at work help me deal with personal and practical .64 6.98
issues at home
The things I do at work make me a more interesting person at home .75 8.24
Having a good day on my job makes me a better companion when I .47 5.08
get home
The skills I use on my job are useful for things I have to do at home .39 4.09
Familywork facilitation
Talking with someone at home helps me deal with problems at work .39 3.99
Providing for what is needed at home makes me work harder at my .52 5.38
job
The love and respect I get at home makes me feel confident about .62 6.42
myself at work
My home life helps me relax and feel ready for the next days work .53 5.42
Turnover intentions
It is likely that I will actively look for a new job next year .76 9.59
I often think about quitting .72 8.91
I will probably look for a new job next year .79 10.04
Model fit statistics:
2 462.57 /df 260 = 1.78; GFI = .79; CFI = .79; IFI = .80; RMSEA = .075;
SRMR = .085
Note. All loadings are significant beyond the .05 level. GFI = Goodness of fit index; CFI = Comparative
fit index; IFI = Incremental fit index; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; SRMR =
Standardized root mean square residual.
a
Reverse coded. b Dropped during confirmatory factor analysis.
of approximation [RMSEA] = .075; Standardized root mean square residual

[SRMR] = .085). Though the results for RMSEA and SRMR were acceptable,
the results regarding the rest of model fit statistics were poor. A close exam-
ination of the results showed that all observable indicators loaded on their
latent variables and the magnitudes of the loadings ranged from .33 to .79.
Twelve out of twenty-five loadings were above .60. In addition, their t-values
were greater than 2.00. As a result, there was evidence of convergent validity
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
Discriminant validity was evaluated through a series of 2 difference
tests. That is, a two-dimensional model for each pair of constructs was first
fit, and then items representing each construct were forced into a single-
factor solution. The 2 difference test produced a significant result for each
pair of measures. Thus, imposing a single factor solution on the two sets of
items representing different constructs demonstrated a significant deteriora-

tion of the model fit. The results based on 2 difference tests also showed
discriminant validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
A confirmatory factor analysis approach to Harmans single-factor test
was employed to check the presence of common method bias. If common
method bias were a serious problem to the analysis and interpretation of
data, a single latent factor would account for more than 50% of the total vari-
ance of the measures (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). The single-factor model
did not fit the data well ( 2 785.98 /df 275 = 2.86; GFI = .69; CFI = .54; IFI =
.55; RMSEA = .115; SRMR = .11). The single-factor model accounted for only
19% of the total variance. The chi-square test also showed that the six-factor
model was superior to the single-factor model ( 2 = 323.41, df = 15,
p < .001). Consequently, common method bias was not a critical problem in
this study.
Independent samples t-test (p < .05) was employed to investigate dif-
ferences between married and single or divorced respondents in terms
of workfamily conflict, familywork conflict, workfamily facilitation, and
familywork facilitation. The results did not show any significant differences.
One-way analysis of variance (p < .05) was also employed to examine dif-
ferences between respondents having no children and those having children
pertaining to two directions of conflict and facilitation. The results did not
demonstrate any significant differences.
Means, standard deviations, and correlations of study variables are
shown in Table 2. According to the results in Table 2, coefficient alphas
were as follows: CSE .56; workfamily conflict .78; familywork conflict
.71; workfamily facilitation .65; familywork facilitation .58; and turnover
intentions. 80. It appears that relatively low sample size is responsible for
coefficient alphas, which are lower than .70. Indeed, low coefficient alphas
for CSE, workfamily facilitation, and familywork facilitation are reported
in other empirical studies (Haar & Bardoel, 2008; Karatepe, 2010; Karatepe,
Haktanir, & Yorganci, 2010). There are also various empirical studies that
TABLE 2 Scale Reliabilities, Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Study Variables
Variables M SD Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Organizational 2.55 1.09 1.000

tenure
2. Marital status .62 .49 .363 1.000
3. The number of .67 .87 .653 .574 1.000
children
4. Core 3.54 .61 .56 .233 .022 .181 1.000
self-evaluations
5. Workfamily 2.98 .95 .78 .094 .113 .001 .361 1.000
conflict
6. Familywork 2.64 .90 .71 .133 .127 .636 1.000
268
.034 .489
conflict
7. Workfamily 3.48 .80 .65 .040 .071 .085 .126 .097 .004 1.000
facilitation
8. Familywork 3.43 .78 .58 .022 .160 .066 .235 .123 .094 .405 1.000
facilitation
9. Turnover intentions 3.02 1.08 .80 .005 .073 .032 .386 .434 .438 .028 .184 1.000
Note. Composite scores for each measure were obtained by averaging scores across items representing that measure. The scores for core self-evaluations,
workfamily conflict, familywork conflict, workfamily facilitation, familywork facilitation, and turnover intentions ranged from 1 to 5. Organizational
tenure was measured via a 6-point scale. Marital status was coded as a binary variable (0 = single or divorced and 1 = married). The number of children
was measured via a 5-point scale. Higher scores indicated longer tenure and more children.

Correlations are significant at the .05 level. Correlations are significant at the .01 level. Correlations without asterisks are not significant.
have reported lower coefficient alphas than the ones given in this study
(e.g., Babakus, Yavas, & Ashill, 2009; Roehling, Jarvis, & Swope, 2005;
Karatepe, 2010).
Test of Hypotheses
The results regarding the direct effects are demonstrated in Table 3. The
results show that both workfamily conflict ( = .25, p < .05) and family
work conflict ( = .28, p < .01) have significant positive effects on turnover
intentions. That is, two types of conflict between work and family roles
amplify employees turnover intentions. Therefore, Hypotheses 1a and 1b
are supported. The results indicate that workfamily facilitation has no sig-
nificant negative effect on turnover intentions. Therefore, hypothesis 2a is

not supported. On the contrary, the results illustrate that familywork facili-
tation significantly and negatively influences turnover intentions ( = .15,
p < .10). Employees having the integration of their family and work roles
display low levels of turnover intentions.
The results concerning the moderating effects are demonstrated in
Tables 4 and 5. The results in Table 4 show that the interaction of
workfamily conflict and CSE does not significantly and negatively influ-
ence turnover intentions. This is also valid for the interaction of familywork
conflict and CSE. Therefore, Hypotheses 3a and 3b are not supported.
TABLE 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results: Direct Effects
Dependent variable and

standardized regression weights
Turnover intentions
Independent variables Step 1 Step 2
(I) Control variables

Organizational tenure .03 .05
Marital status .08 .03
The number of children .00 .01
(II) Workfamily conflict .25
Familywork conflict .28
Workfamily facilitation .06
Familywork facilitation .15
F .27 11.23
R 2 at each step .00 .25
R 2 .25
Note. Organizational tenure was measured via a 6-point scale. Marital status was coded as a binary
variable (0 = single or divorced and 1 = married). The number of children was measured via
a 5-point scale. Higher scores indicated longer tenure and more children. The results regarding
variance inflation factors did not demonstrate any problems of multicollinearity.

p < .10. p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.
TABLE 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results: Moderating Effects
Dependent variables and standardized regression weights
Turnover intentions Turnover intentions

Independent
variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Independent variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
(I) Control (I) Control variables

variables
Organizational .03 .05 .09 .10 Organizational .03 .01 .05 .05
tenure tenure
Marital status .08 .01 .03 .02 Marital status .08 .01 .02 .01
The number of .00 .00 .05 .02 The number of .00 .08 .10 .08
270
children children
(II) W-FCON .44 .34 .33 (II) F-WCON .45 .33 .32
(III) CSE .29 .29 (III) CSE .25 .22
(IV) W-FCON .11 (IV) F-WCON CSE .13
CSE
F .27 31.05 12.68 2.20 F .27 32.88 8.26 2.67
R 2 at each step .00 .19 .26 .27 R2 at each step .00 .20 .24 .26
R 2 .19 .07 .01 R 2 .20 .04 .02
Note. Organizational tenure was measured via a 6-point scale. Marital status was coded as a binary variable (0 = single or divorced and 1 = married). The
number of children was measured via a 5-point scale. Higher scores indicated longer tenure and more children. W-FCON = Workfamily conflict; F-WCON
= Familywork conflict; CSE = Core self-evaluations. The results regarding variance inflation factors did not demonstrate any problems of multicollinearity.

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.
TABLE 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results: Moderating Effects
Dependent variables and standardized regression weights
Turnover intentions Turnover intentions

Independent
variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Independent variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
(I) Control (I) Control variables

variables
Organizational .03 .02 .05 .04 Organizational .03 .01 .06 .04
tenure tenure
Marital status .08 .08 .01 .03 Marital status .08 .05 .01 .02
The number of .00 .00 .07 .09 The number of .00 .00 .06 .08
271
children children
(II) W-FF .02 .03 .06 (II) F-WF .18 .09 .04
(III) CSE .42 .41 (III) CSE .39 .39
(IV) W-FF CSE .24 (IV) F-WF CSE .19
F .27 .06 25.12 9.12 F .27 4.25 21.62 5.44
R 2 at each step .00 .00 .16 .21 R2 at each step .00 .03 .17 .20
R 2 .00 .16 .05 R 2 .03 .14 .03
Note. Organizational tenure was measured via a 6-point scale. Marital status was coded as a binary variable (0 = single or divorced and 1 = married). The
number of children was measured via a 5-point scale. Higher scores indicated longer tenure and more children. W-FF = Work-family facilitation; F-WF =
Familywork facilitation; CSE = Core self-evaluations. The results regarding variance inflation factors did not demonstrate any problems of multicollinearity.

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.
According to the results in Table 5, the interaction of workfamily facil-

itation and CSE exerts a significant negative effect on turnover intentions
( = .24, p < .01). There was a significant increment in R2 of the model
(R2 = .05, p < .01). Therefore, Hypothesis 4a is supported. In addition, the
interactive term (familywork facilitation CSE) significantly and negatively
affects turnover intentions ( = .19, p < .05). A significant increment in R2
of the model was observed (R2 = .03, p < .05). Therefore, Hypothesis 4b
is supported. Figures 1 and 2 provide graphical illustrations of the moder-
ating role of CSE. The control variables do not significantly affect the study
variables, and the results do not change with or without the control variables.
5
4.5
4
Turnover intentions
3.5
Low CSE
3
High CSE
2.5
1.5
1
Low High
Work-family facilitation
FIGURE 1 CSE as a moderator of workfamily facilitationturnover intentions relationship.

Note. CSE = core self-evaluations.
4.5
4
Turnover intentions
3.5
Low CSE
3
High CSE
2.5
1.5
1
Low High
Family-work facilitation
FIGURE 2 CSE as a moderator of familywork facilitationturnover intentions relationship.

Note. CSE = core self-evaluations.
DISCUSSION
The current study makes contributions to the hospitality management litera-

ture in the following ways. Specifically, this study tests CSE as a moderator
of the effects of two types of conflict and facilitation on turnover intentions.
This study fills in the gap by testing these relationships. The aforementioned
relationships are also tested based on data collected from frontline hotel
employees in Iran. The present study extends the research stream to other
societies to gain richer insights by using data gathered from the hotel industry
of a developing Middle East country. Several inferences emerge from the
results of this empirical study.
First, the results that workfamily conflict and familywork conflict
amplify frontline employees turnover intentions are consistent with the past
and recent studies conducted with managerial and nonmanagerial employees

in the hospitality industry (Blomme et al., 2010; Karatepe & Sokmen, 2006).
Consistent with the scarcity theory (Greenhaus & Powell, 2003), the results
suggest that frontline employees devoting greater resources to work (family)
role and devoting lesser resources to family (work) role experience conflicts
in the workfamily interface and display turnover intentions. In short, quit-
ting the job appears to be a coping strategy used by employees to solve
conflicts in the workfamily interface (Karatepe & Baddar, 2006).
The results also suggest that familywork facilitation alleviates turnover
intentions. Consonant with the expansion-enhancement theory (Aryee et al.,
2005; Greenhaus & Powell, 2003) and the work of Wayne et al. (2006),
frontline employees who achieve the integration of their family and work
responsibilities have low levels of turnover intentions. It appears that
frontline hotel employees in Iran receive support from the members of their
extended family (e.g., parents, siblings, and relatives) to balance family and
work responsibilities. Therefore, there are a number of benefits emerging
from the family domain that make the work easier for frontline employ-
ees. Under these circumstances, their intentions to leave the organization
diminish.
On the other hand, the results do not lend any credence to the relation-
ship between workfamily facilitation and turnover intentions. There are two
plausible explanations for such a finding. First, the benefits received from
the work domain are not sufficient to prevent turnover intentions. This is
not surprising, because frontline employees work in an environment where
there are poor human resource management practices, such as inadequate
family-friendly benefits and social support, favoritism, nepotism, unreliable
performance appraisal, and ineffective training and development programs
(cf. Karatepe et al., 2010; Namazie & Frame, 2007; Yeganeh & Su, 2008).
Second, Karimi and Nouri (2009) discuss that long work hours are linked to
more comfort and pleasure for male employees and their family members
due to the importance of social status and economic difficulties. Despite the
lack of sufficient and satisfactory resources or benefits in the workplace,

frontline employees want to go on working for the same organization till
they find an alternative to choose.
According to COR theory, personal resources can alleviate the detrimen-
tal effects of workfamily conflict and familywork conflict on job outcomes.
As noted earlier, both workfamily conflict and familywork conflict intensify
employees turnover intentions. However, CSE does not reduce the effects
of two directions of conflict on turnover intentions. Such findings are not
consistent with the precepts of COR theory. It appears that employees with
higher CSE are in need of resources from the work domain to be able to
cope with problems arising from workfamily conflict. Though job resources,
such as training, social support, and flexible work hours are not preva-
lent in the Iranian work environment, hotel managers need to provide such
employees with sufficient resources for mitigating the effect of workfamily

conflict on turnover intentions. Similarly, employees with higher CSE need
support from the family domain (e.g., family or spouse support) to reduce
the effect of familywork conflict on turnover intentions. Since there is an
increasing involvement of women in the workforce in Iran, it is important
to obtain support from the members of the extended family to be able to
deal with familywork conflict and have low levels of turnover intentions.
In short, testing three-way interaction (WorkFamily Conflict/FamilyWork
Conflict CSE Supervisor Support/Family Support) in future studies
would be beneficial for predicting turnover intentions.
The results that CSE strengthens the negative effects of workfamily
facilitation and familywork facilitation on turnover intentions are consonant
with the precepts of COR theory (Hobfoll, 2001). Specifically, workfamily
facilitation and familywork facilitation are regarded as resource surpluses.
CSE, when coupled with one of these resource surpluses, mitigates turnover
intentions. Though workfamily facilitation does not have a significant neg-
ative effect on turnover intentions, its interaction with CSE is significant and
decreases turnover intentions.
Management Implications
The results reported in this study provide a number of useful implica-
tions for managers regarding the management of workfamily balance and
turnover. First, management of the hotels should establish and maintain a
family-friendly culture and a family-supportive work environment, because
employees who are unable to balance their work and family roles effectively
have intentions to leave the organization. Such a work environment should
provide a number of family-friendly benefits (e.g., family leave, on-site child
care services, and flexible work hours). Some of the frontline employees may
worry that when they take advantage of these resources, they are likely to
lose the potential career and promotional opportunities. With this realization,
the supervisors need to be trained to encourage frontline employees to take

advantage of family-friendly benefits whenever needed.
Second, management of the hotels need to organize workshops where
employees and their family members can discuss problems associated with
conflicts in the workfamily interface and can offer suggestions for coping
with these stressors. Having feedback in such workshops demonstrates that
the organization sends positive signals to employees and really cares about
employees well-being. In addition, when employees find that the organiza-
tion uses their feedback in shaping several decisions for a family-supportive
work environment and its various family-friendly benefits, they feel more
valued.
Third, it is important for management of the hotels to hire individuals
whose personality characteristics match the requirements of frontline ser-
vice jobs. Managers can use scenario-based tests to understand whether the
personalities, skills, and abilities of individuals match the requirements of
frontline service jobs (Yavas, Karatepe, & Babakus, 2010). Trying to identify
individuals with positive CSE is critical, because such individuals see them-
selves capable and worthy and can control their work environment (Judge
et al., 2004). As a result, CSE, when coupled with workfamily facilitation
or familywork facilitation, can mitigate turnover intentions. On a closing
note, management of the hotels that are not interested in proactive strategies
would have to retain a number of prospective employees for middle man-
agement level who are trained insufficiently, do not fit the job, and work
in an environment where family-friendly benefits are limited (cf. King et al.,
2011).
Limitations and Directions for Future Research

While calling attention to the limitations of the empirical investigation, this
study suggests avenues for future research at the same time. First, respon-
dents were surveyed at a single time point. This constrained the ability to
make causal inferences about the hypothesized relationships. Therefore, lon-
gitudinal designs are needed for making conclusions about causality among
the study variables. Second, this study also tested the study hypotheses
using self-report data. Since this practice is prone to common method bias,
obtaining data from different sources in future studies would be useful for
minimizing this potential problem. Third, management of the hotels did not
permit the researcher to collect data directly from frontline employees. The
relevant managers in each hotel paid great attention to the issue of confi-
dentiality. However, it is acknowledged that this data collection might have
created a potential selection bias, if these managers had not distributed the
questionnaires to employees in light of the instructions (Blair & Zinkhan,
2006). Such problems associated with this data collection practice are also
seen in similar studies whose samples included hotel employees (Hartline &
Ferrell, 1996; Schwepker & Hartline, 2005). Therefore, in future studies

obtaining data directly from employees would be useful for avoiding this
problem.
Fourth, in future studies examining CSE as a moderator of the effects
of two directions of conflict and facilitation on turnover intentions through
cross-national samples (e.g., the United States, Iran, and China) would shed
light on the understanding about the similarity of the effects. Fifth, in future
research testing gender as a potential moderator of the effect of two direc-
tions of conflict and facilitation on turnover intentions among frontline hotel
employees in Iran would be useful (cf. Karatepe, 2008; Karimi, 2009). As a
closing note, replication studies with larger sample sizes in the other regions
of Iran would broaden the database fur further generalizations. Using larger
sample sizes would also improve the internal consistency estimates of the
variables, such as CSE and two types of facilitation.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice:

A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
411423.
Anvari, R., Amin, S. M., & Seliman, S. (2010). Personal needs assessment approach in
strategic training and affective commitment. International Journal of Business
and Management, 5(7), 144157.
Aryee, S., Srinivas, E. S., & Tan, H. H. (2005). Rhythms of life: Antecedents and
outcomes of workfamily balance in employed parents. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(1), 132146.
Babakus, E., Yavas, U., & Ashill, N. J. (2009). The role of customer orientation as a
moderator of the job demand-burnout-performance relationship: A surface-level
trait perspective. Journal of Retailing, 85(4), 480492.
Balmforth, K., & Gardner, D. (2006). Conflict and facilitation between work and
family: Realizing the outcomes for organizations. New Zealand Journal of
Psychology, 35(2), 6976.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable dis-
tinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statis-
tical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6),
11731182.
Barrows, C., & Ridout, M. (2010). Another decade of research in club management: A
review of the literature in academic journals for the period 19942005. Journal
of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 19(5), 421463.
Best, R. G., Stapleton, L. M., & Downey, R. G. (2005). Core self-evaluations and
job burnout: The test of alternative models. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 10(4), 441451.
Bettencourt, L. A., & Brown, S. W. (2003). Role stressors and customer-oriented
boundary-spanning behaviors in service organizations. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 31(4), 394408.
Bhargava, S., & Baral, R. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of work-family

enrichment among Indian managers. Psychological Studies, 54(3), 213225.
Bidmeshgipour, M. (2009). An analysis of strategic human resource management in
Iran. European Journal of Social Sciences, 9(1), 3038.
Blair, E., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006). Nonresponse and generalizability in academic
research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(1), 47.
Blomme, R. J., Van Rheede, A., & Tromp, D. M. (2010). Work-family conflict as a
cause for turnover intentions in the hospitality industry. Tourism and Hospitality
Research, 10(4), 269285.
Cleveland, J. N., ONeill, J. W., Himelright, J. L., Harrison, M. M., Crouter, A.
C., & Drago, R. (2007). Work and family issues in the hospitality industry:
Perspectives of entrants, managers, and spouses. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research, 31(3), 275298.
Crawford, A., Hubbard, S. S., ONeill, M., & Guarino, A. (2010). Does core self-
evaluation have a place among restaurant employees? Journal of Human

Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 9(3), 300317.
Deery, M., & Jago, L. (2009). A framework for work-life balance practices: Addressing
the needs of the tourism industry. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9(2),
97108.
Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.).
Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143162). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model
applied to work-family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
54(2), 350370.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2003). When work and family collide: Deciding
between competing role demands. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 90(2), 291303.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory
of workfamily enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 7292.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the workfamily interface:
An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover
between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(1),
111126.
Haar, J. M., & Bardoel, E. A. (2008). Positive spillover from the workfamily interface:
A study of Australian employees. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,
46(3), 275287.
Han, H., & Back, K.-J. (2006). Investigating the effects of consumption emotions on
customer satisfaction and repeat visit intentions in the lodging industry. Journal
of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 15(3), 530.
Harris, K. J., Harvey, P., & Kacmar, K. M. (2009). Do social stressors impact every-
one equally? An examination of the moderating impact of core self-evaluations.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(2), 153164.
Hartline, M. D., & Ferrell, O. C. (1996). The management of customer-contact service
employees: An empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 5270.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing
stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the
stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 50(3), 337421.
Hsieh, Y.-C. (J.), Pearson, T. E., & Kline, S. F. (2009). The moderating effects of job
and personal life involvement on the relationship between workpersonal life
conflict and intention to quit. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and
Tourism, 8(1), 114.
Innstrand, S. T., Langballe, E. M., Espnes, G. A., Falkum, E., & Aasland, G. A. (2008).
Positive and negative workfamily interaction and burnout: A longitudinal study
of reciprocal relations. Work and Stress, 22(1), 115.
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: Users reference guide. Chicago, IL:
Scientific Software International.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job
and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 257268.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations
scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303331.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional
effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83(1), 1734.
Judge, T. A., Van Vianen, A. E. M., & De Pater, I. E. (2004). Emotional stability, core
self-evaluations, and job outcomes: A review of the evidence and an agenda for
future research. Human Performance, 17(3), 325346.
Karatepe, O. M. (2008). Workfamily conflict and facilitation: Implications
for hospitality researchers. In D. Tesone (Ed.), Handbook of hospitality
human resources management (pp. 237264). Oxford, England: Butterworth-
Heinemann, Elsevier.
Karatepe, O. M. (2009). An investigation of the joint effects of organizational tenure
and supervisor support on workfamily conflict and turnover intentions. Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 16, 7381.
Karatepe, O. M. (2010). The effect of positive and negative workfamily interac-
tion on exhaustion: Does work social support make a difference? International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(6), 836856.
Karatepe, O. M., & Baddar, L. (2006). An empirical study of the selected conse-
quences of frontline employees workfamily conflict and familywork conflict.
Tourism Management, 27(5), 10171028.
Karatepe, O. M., Haktanir, M., & Yorganci, I. (2010). The impacts of core self-
evaluations on customer-related social stressors and emotional exhaustion. The
Service Industries Journal, 30(9), 15651579.
Karatepe, O. M., Keshavarz, S., & Nejati, S. (2010). Do core self-evaluations medi-
ate the effect of coworker support on work engagement? A study of hotel
employees in Iran. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 17, 6271.
Karatepe, O. M., & Kilic, H. (2009). The effects of two directions of conflict and
facilitation on frontline employees job outcomes. The Service Industries Journal,
29(7), 977993.
Karatepe, O. M., & Magaji, A. B. (2008). Workfamily conflict and facilitation in the
hotel industry: A study in Nigeria. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 49(4), 395412.
Karatepe, O. M., & Sokmen, A. (2006). The effects of work role and family role
variables on psychological and behavioral outcomes of frontline employees.
Tourism Management, 27(2), 255268.
Karatepe, O. M., Sokmen, A., Yavas, U., & Babakus, E. (2010). Workfamily conflict
and burnout in frontline service jobs: Direct, mediating and moderating effects.
E + M Ekonomie A Management, 13(1), 6173.
Karimi, L. (2008). A study of a multidimensional model of workfamily conflict
among Iranian employees. Community, Work and Family, 11(3), 283295.
Karimi, L. (2009). Do female and male employees in Iran experience similar work
family interference, job, and life satisfaction? Journal of Family Issues, 30(1),
124142.
Karimi, L., & Nouri, A. (2009). Do work demands and resources predict work-to-
family conflict and facilitation? A study of Iranian male employees. Journal of
Family and Economic Issues, 30(2), 193202.
King, C., Funk, D. C., & Wilkins, H. (2011). Bridging the gap: An examination of the
relative alignment of hospitality research and industry priorities. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(1), 157166.
Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., Geurts, S., & Pulkkinen, L. (2006). Types of workfamily
interface: Well-being correlates of negative and positive spillover between work
and family. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47(2), 149162.
Magnini, V. P. (2009). Understanding and reducing workfamily conflict in the hos-
pitality industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 8(2),
119136.
Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy,
time, and commitment. American Sociological Review, 42(6), 921936.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as
predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy
of Management Journal, 35(3), 626637.
Mulvaney, R. H., ONeill, J. W., Cleveland, J. N., & Crouter, A. C. (2007). A model of
workfamily dynamics of hotel managers. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1),
6687.
Namasivayam, K., & Mount, D. J. (2004). The relationship of workfamily conflicts
and familywork conflict to job satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, 28(2), 242250.
Namasivayam, K., & Zhao, X. (2007). An investigation of the moderating effects
of organizational commitment on the relationships between workfamily con-
flict and job satisfaction among hospitality employees in India. Tourism
Management, 28(5), 12121223.
Namazie, P. (2003). Factors affecting the transferability of HRM practices in joint
ventures based in Iran. Career Development International, 8(7), 357366.
Namazie, P., & Frame, P. (2007). Developments in human resource management
in Iran. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(1),
159171.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and valida-
tion of workfamily conflict and familywork conflict scales. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81(4), 400410.
Netemeyer, R. G., Maxham, J. G., & Pullig, C. (2005). Conflicts in the workfamily
interface: Links to job stress, customer service employee performance, and
customer purchase intent. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 130143.
OGorman, K. D., McLellan, L. R., & Baum, T. (2007). Tourism in Iran: Central con-
trol and indigeneity. In R. Butler & T. Hinch (Eds.). Tourism and indigenous
peoples: Issues and implications (pp. 251264). Oxford, England: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
OShea, M. (2003). Culture shock: Iran. Portland, OR: Graphic Arts Center Publishing.
Parameswaran, R., & Yaprak, A. (1987). A cross-national comparison of consumer
research measures. Journal of International Business Studies, 18(1), 3549.
Roehling, P. V., Jarvis, L. H., & Swope, H. E. (2005). Variations in negative work
family spillover among white, black, and Hispanic American men and women.
Journal of Family Issues, 26(6), 840865.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work
and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 655684.

Rust, R. T., Stewart, G. L., Miller, H., & Pielack, D. (1996). The satisfaction and reten-
tion of frontline employees: A customer satisfaction measurement approach.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 75(5), 6280.
Schwepker, C. H., & Hartline, M. D. (2005). Managing the ethical climate of
customer-contact service employees. Journal of Service Research, 7(4), 377397.
Singh, J., Verbeke, W., & Rhoads, G. K. (1996, July). Do organizational practices
matter in role stress processes? A study of direct and moderating effects for
marketing-oriented boundary spanners. Journal of Marketing, 60, 6986.
Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & De Chermont, K. (2003).
The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic
review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129(6), 914945.
Trading Economics. (2007). Employees; services; female (% of female employment)
in Iran. Retrieved from http://www.tradingeconomics.com/iran/employees-
services-female-percent-of-female-employment-wb-data.html
Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality
in the workfamily experience: Relationships of the big five to workfamily
conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 108130.
Wayne, J. H., Randel, A. E., & Stevens, J. (2006). The role of identity and workfamily
support in workfamily enrichment and its work-related consequences. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 69(3), 445461.
Westring, A. F., & Ryan, A. M. (2010). Personality and inter-role conflict and enrich-
ment: Investigating the mediating role of support. Human Relations, 63(12),
18151834.
Wildes, V. J., & Parks, S. C. (2005). Internal service quality: Marketing strategies can
help to reduce employee turnover for food servers. International Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 6(2), 127.
Witt, L. A., & Carlson, D. S. (2006). The workfamily interface and job performance:
Moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational support.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(4), 343357.
Wong, S. C.-K., & Ko, A. (2009). Exploratory study of understanding hotel employ-
ees perception on worklife balance issues. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 28(2), 195203.
Yagil, D., Luria, G., & Gal, I. (2008). Stressors and resources in customer service
roles: Exploring the relationship between core self-evaluations and burnout.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19(5), 575595.
Yang, Z., & Peterson, R. T. (2004). Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and
loyalty: The role of switching costs. Psychology and Marketing, 21(10), 799822.
Yavas, U., Karatepe, O. M., & Babakus, E. (2010). Relative efficacy of organizational
support and personality traits in predicting service recovery and job perfor-
mances: A study of frontline employees in Turkey. Tourism Review, 65(3),
7083.
Yeganeh, H., & Su, Z. (2008). An examination of human resource management
practices in Iranian public sector. Personnel Review, 37(2), 203221.
Zellars, K. L., Perrew, P. L., Hochwarter, W. A., & Anderson, K. S. (2006). The
interactive effects of positive affect and conscientiousness on strain. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 11(3), 281289.
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.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(1), 4654.
View publication stats

Karatepe and Azar (2013)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Karatepe and Azar (2013)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

The Effects of WorkFamily Conflict

Article in International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration July 2013

International Journal of Hospitality &

The Effects of WorkFamily Conflict and

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2013.809987

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

The Effects of WorkFamily Conflict and

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Turkey

AREZOU KHABBAZ AZAR

The purpose of this study is to examine core self-evaluations as

KEYWORDS core self-evaluations, Iran, turnover intentions,

Received December 6, 2010; accepted April 15, 2011.

familywork conflict. Conflicts in the workfamily interface will cause strain.

CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY

2009). Though the percentage of employed men is greater than that of

to the management of workfamily balance and turnover in frontline service

THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS AND HYPOTHESES

the hospitality management literature is also sparse (e.g., Karatepe, 2008;

the expansion-enhancement theory in the extant literature to develop rela-

comes (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). As indicated before, workfamily

H1a: Workfamily conflict is positively related to frontline employees

The ability to establish a balance between work and family responsibil-

of the aforementioned information, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H2a: Workfamily facilitation is negatively related to frontline employ-

There are empirical studies showing that conscientiousness moderates

H3a: CSE moderates the effect of workfamily conflict on turnover

H4a: CSE moderates the effect of workfamily facilitation on turnover

allow the researcher to directly contact their frontline employees. Therefore,

familywork conflict were measured using four items each. Workfamily

the interaction is significant.

TABLE 1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results (n = 141)

I am capable of coping with most of my problems .37 3.87

of approximation [RMSEA] = .075; Standardized root mean square residual

items representing different constructs demonstrated a significant deteriora-

1. Organizational 2.55 1.09 1.000

nificant negative effect on turnover intentions. Therefore, hypothesis 2a is

TABLE 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results: Direct Effects

Dependent variable and

Independent variables Step 1 Step 2

(I) Control variables

TABLE 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results: Moderating Effects

Dependent variables and standardized regression weights

Turnover intentions Turnover intentions

(I) Control (I) Control variables

TABLE 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results: Moderating Effects

Dependent variables and standardized regression weights

Turnover intentions Turnover intentions

(I) Control (I) Control variables

According to the results in Table 5, the interaction of workfamily facil-

FIGURE 1 CSE as a moderator of workfamily facilitationturnover intentions relationship.

FIGURE 2 CSE as a moderator of familywork facilitationturnover intentions relationship.

The current study makes contributions to the hospitality management litera-

and recent studies conducted with managerial and nonmanagerial employees

lack of sufficient and satisfactory resources or benefits in the workplace,

employees with sufficient resources for mitigating the effect of workfamily

the supervisors need to be trained to encourage frontline employees to take

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Ferrell, 1996; Schwepker & Hartline, 2005). Therefore, in future studies

variables, such as CSE and two types of facilitation.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice:

Bhargava, S., & Baral, R. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of work-family

evaluation have a place among restaurant employees? Journal of Human