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

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhtm

Attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of work-life balance among hotel T

employees: The mediating role of psychological contract breach
Bahar Kayaa, Osman M. Karatepeb,∗
a
Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Business and Economics, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, TRNC, Via Mersin 10, 99628, Turkey
b
Faculty of Tourism, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, TRNC, Via Mersin 10, 99628, Turkey

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

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

1. Introduction exhibit negative attitudinal and behavioral consequences (Shaffer,

Employees suffer from a lack of work-life balance (WLB), which
refers to “…an individual's subjective appraisal of the accord between
his/her work and non-work activities and life more generally” (Brough
et al., 2014, p. 2728). Recent research indicated that most of the
workers reported a lack of WLB (HOSCO, 2019). Therefore, WLB is the
most important problem in the hospitality industry. In addition, a re-
cent report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Devel-
opment (OECD) highlighted that almost 33% of employees in Turkey
suffered from very long working hours (OECD, 2019). This report fur-
ther indicated that Turkey ranked last among 40 countries in terms of
very long working hours (OECD, 2019). This is a significant problem
because the absence of WLB initiatives makes employees perceive that
management breaches its promised obligations (Kraak, Russo, &
Jiménez, 2018).
Theory of role balance proposes that WLB initiatives mitigate em-
ployees' stress and strain (Marks & MacDermid, 1996). As highlighted
by social justice theory (Lewis & Smithson, 2001), WLB is a legitimate
expectation and is different from favors. However, according to con-
servation of resources theory, individuals are likely to lose their valued
resources while trying to manage stress at work (Hobfoll, 2001). In case
employees are devoid of WLB initiatives, they may easily suffer from
heightened stress and/or possess insufficient resources and therefore
Harrison, Gilley, & Luk, 2001). These consequences may be in the form
of propensity to leave work early (PWE), propensity to be late for work
(PLW), poor task performance, and low levels of voice behavior. PLW is
“an individual's specific affective and cognitive responses to being late
for work” (Foust, Elicker, & Levy, 2006, p. 122). Similarly, PWE refers
to employees' specific cognitive and affective responses to leaving work
early (Ozturk & Karatepe, 2019). Voice behavior refers to “…making
innovative suggestions for change and recommending modifications to
standard procedures even when others disagree” (Van Dyne & LePine,
1998, p. 109). Task performance highlights employees' behaviors
needed to be displayed while dealing with customer needs and requests
(Netemeyer & Maxham, 2007). The abovementioned nonattendance
intentions are among the signs of voluntary turnover, which would
result in substantial costs for the company (cf. Ozturk & Karatepe,
2019). High levels of task performance are needed to create a pool of
satisfied customers, while employees' voice behavior significantly
contributes to improvement in service delivery (Netemeyer & Maxham,
2007; Van Dyne & LePline, 1998). In short, they are among the orga-
nizationally relevant and valued outcomes of WLB.
Psychological contract between employees and the company is a
critical constitutive part of the employment relationship (Bal, De Lange,
Jansen, & Van Der Velde, 2008). It has been claimed that WLB is an
important sign of psychological contract between employees and the

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bahar.etehadi@emu.edu.tr (B. Kaya), osman.karatepe@emu.edu.tr (O.M. Karatepe).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.01.003
Received 3 April 2019; Received in revised form 10 January 2020; Accepted 14 January 2020
Available online 25 January 2020
1447-6770/ © 2020 CAUTHE - COUNCIL FOR AUSTRALASIAN TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY EDUCATION. Published by Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe
company (cf. Sturges & Guest, 2004). However, psychological contract
breach, which refers to “…the employee's perception regarding the
extent to which the organization has failed to fulfill its promises or
obligations …” (Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski, & Bravo, 2007, p. 649),
results in negative emotions, attitudes, and behaviors (Bal et al., 2008;
Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Zhao et al., 2007). In light of this, the
effect of WLB on PWE, PLW, task performance, and voice behavior can
be understood through the lens of psychological contract breach.
Taking note of the above information, this study fills in the research
gap by proposing a research model that focuses on psychological con-
tract breach as a mediator of the influence of WLB on employees’ PWE,
PLW, task performance, and voice behavior. That is, this study ex-
amines: (1) the impact of WLB on psychological contract breach and the
aforesaid outcomes; (2) the linkage between psychological contract
breach and these consequences; and (3) psychological contract breach
as a mediator in these relationships. These linkages are assessed via
data collected from hotel employees in Turkey, which is a very popular
destination (Atadil, Sirakaya-Turk, & Altintas, 2015). In light of the
vision of 2023 goals, the number of local and international chain hotels
is increasing and the country targets 75 million tourists and 65 billion
United States dollars in tourism revenues (Daily Sabah Tourism, 2019).
In such a competitive market environment, management of hotels has
to offer a bundle of WLB initiatives to acquire and retain employees for
better service delivery.
This study intends to contribute to the hospitality and tourism
management literature as well as the broader human resource man-
agement literature in various ways. First, empirical investigations ap-
pertaining to WLB in the relevant hospitality and tourism research are
in the developmental stage (Cain, Busser, & Kang, 2018; Deery, Jago,
Harris, & Liburd, 2018). Though there are studies which have tested the
outcomes of WLB (e.g., Sirgy & Lee, 2018), WLB and its consequences
have been rarely examined so far (Chan et al., 2017). This echoes the
works of Haar, Brougham, Roche, and Barney (2017) and Talukder,
Vickers, and Khan (2018), which have emphasized that limited em-
pirical attention has been given to WLB. Second, Casper, Vaziri, Wayne,
DeHauw, and Greenhaus's (2018) meta-analytic study reports that WLB
is strongly associated with job, family, and life satisfaction. Their study
also claims that empirical research is needed whether and how WLB is
linked to work and non-work outcomes. In addition, the mechanism(s)
underlying the association between WLB and outcomes is (are) not clear
(Sirgy & Lee, 2018; Thakur & Bhatnagar, 2017). This study responds to
these calls for research.
2. Literature review and hypotheses
2.1. Work-life balance
During the last two decades, advances in information technology,
massive information load, narrow border between work and life, the
need for fast and constant customer service, intensified workload,
heightened exhaustion, and an increase in the number of weekend and
evening working hours led to erosion in quality of life (cf. Guest, 2002).
This was also true for single parents and working women, who were
faced with an imbalance of work and non-work activities (Fleetwood,
2007; Guest, 2002).
Participation of generation X and Y individuals in the workforce
underscored the need for the establishment of WLB, which would en-
able them to do a good job (e.g., Smola & Sutton, 2002). In addition,
non-work activities encompass a broad range of activities in life beyond
traditional family responsibilities (Hall, Kossek, Briscoe, Pichler, & Lee,
2013). This makes WLB important for individuals who seek free time
for their sports and social activities. Consequently, “…the demands of
work begin to dominate life and a sense of work-life imbalance ensues”
(Guest, 2002, p. 257). This resulted in empirical studies, which focused
on the investigation of WLB and related topics such as ‘work social
support’, ‘work-family balance’, ‘family-supportive environment’, and
200
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209
‘family-friendly policies’ (e.g., Frone, 2003).
In her conceptual study, Deery (2008) stated that a number of fac-
tors such as anti-social and inflexible working hours and excessive
workload created work-life imbalance, which led to many negative
outcomes such as absenteeism, turnover intentions, low organizational
commitment, and poor job satisfaction as well as marital dissatisfaction.
In their past qualitative inquiry, Cullen and McLaughlin (2006) re-
ported that managers in the Irish hotel sector treated WLB as a priority
for their subordinates. O'Neill's (2012) research implicitly revealed that
employees worried about stress and burnout though long working
hours could contribute to their career path in the company. However,
managers' persistence in long working hours engendered contradictory
practices. According to Wong and Ko's (2009) research carried out in
the hotel sector in Hong Kong, enough time off from work, commitment
to work, work social support, and flexible work schedules enhanced
WLB, while life orientation had a negative impact on WLB.
According to Deery and Jago's (2015) past review, the absence of
sufficient WLB initiatives aggravates stress and burnout, which in turn
lead to substance use. In their recent review, Deery et al. (2018)
highlight the critical role of WLB policies in attracting, motivating, and
retaining the talented employees. Clark, Dimanche, Cotter, and Lee-
Rosen (2017) discuss that poor WLB is one of the challenges the in-
dustry professionals are faced with. Baum (2019) notes that various
sustainable high-performance work systems including WLB are not
consistently present in the hotel industry. After reviewing different
studies in the field of WLB, Sirgy and Lee (2018) concluded that having
WLB initiatives in the company results in desirable outcomes (e.g., job
performance).
Based on a careful examination of the hospitality and tourism
writings, WLB-related studies are summarized in Table 1. The above-
mentioned studies as well as the ones in Table 1 implicitly highlight the
absence of evidence appertaining to the influence of WLB on psycho-
logical contract breach, PWE, PLW, task performance, and voice be-
havior among hotel employees. This study set out to fill in these re-
search voids. The following section delineates the development of
research hypotheses based on theory of role balance, social justice and
conservation of resources theories and limited evidence borrowed from
the relevant literature and depicts the research model.
2.2. Psychological contract breach
MacNeil (1985) underscored two views of psychological contract:
transactional and relational. Transactional psychological contract is
centered on economic, tangible, and short-term contract obligations. As
employees rely on a short-term relationship with the organization, they
are unlikely to expect a bundle of family-friendly policies or job se-
curity. However, relational contract focuses on non-economic and long-
term relational exchanges that maintain the relationship between the
employer and employees. WLB is in the center of both transactional and
relational contracts since work means ‘paid employment’ and life means
‘activities outside the workplace’ (cf. Sun, Xu, Koseoglu, & Okumus,
2019).
Psychological contract breach happens when employees perceive
that the company has failed in an attempt to fulfill its promise(s)
(Rousseau, 1989). According to Morrison and Robinson (1997), rene-
ging and incongruence are the conditions that make employees per-
ceive violation in psychological contract. Reneging is when the em-
ployer explicitly makes a promise and fails in its attempt to keep it,
while incongruence is when the employer and employees have different
views about the content of an obligation (Morrison & Robinson, 1997).
Grounded in social justice theory, Lewis and Smithson (2001) in-
dicated that WLB is a non-reciprocal right (legitimate expectation) and
differs from favors. Thus, the absence of WLB can trigger employees'
perceptions of psychological contract breach. Theory of role balance
proposes that an individual's balance between multiple life roles leads
to positive functioning and higher quality performance since balanced
B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209

Table 1
Summary of empirical hospitality and tourism studies of WLB between 2010 and 2019.
Source Country Sample Main results

Andringa, Poulston, and
Pernecky (2016)
Boone et al. (2013)
Bouzari and Karatepe (2019)
Brown et al., (2015)
Cain et al. (2018)
Chan (2019)
Chiang, Birtch, and Kwan
(2010)
Hofmann and Stokburger-Sauer
(2017)
Remington and Kitterlin-Lynch
(2018)
Sonnenschein, Barker, and
Hibbins (2019)
Sun et al. (2019)
New Zealand Hospitality entrepreneurs Lack of WLB emerged as one of the consistent factors in the decision to leave and
sell the business.
Mostly United States Hotel employees WLB emerged as one of the important priorities for both men and women.
Iran Hotel salespeople Optimism acted as a full mediator of the effect of WLB on life satisfaction and
creative performance.
United States Graduates of hospitality program Inadequate WLB initiatives would make hospitality graduates exhibit quitting
intent. However, sufficient WLB practices would encourage some of hospitality
graduates to remain in the industry.
United States Executive chefs WLB was a mediator between calling and life satisfaction as well between work
engagement and life satisfaction.
Hong Kong Managerial and non-managerial Workplace fun was reported to foster WLB.
hotel frontline staff
Hong Kong Food service employees in the When job control and WLB initiatives were low and job demands were high,
hotel and catering industry employees suffered from stress.
Germany, Austria, Hotel employees WLB was found to mediate the effects of emotional dissonance and positive
and/or Italy emotions on organizational commitment and job satisfaction.
United States Female managers in the hospitality Work-life imbalance was reported to be the most important issue impeding
and tourism industry female leaders entering the hospitality industry.
China Chinese graduates with an WLB was the most important issue for one of the graduates working in a state-
Australian degree owned hotel.
China Hospitality and tourism Personal (e.g., time management) and contextual (e.g., family demands) factors
entrepreneurs affected entrepreneurs' WLB related to tourism destinations.

Note: WLB = Work-life balance.

lifestyle contributes to stronger self-experience and results in reduced
life strain (Marks & MacDermid, 1996). In support of this, WLB in-
itiatives which are promoted as ‘win-win’ for the two parties reduce
workers' stress (Deery et al., 2018). WLB initiatives also mitigate em-
ployees' psychological contract breach, which is a work-related stress.
Anchored in theory of role balance, the present study develops the
hypothesis regarding the linkage between WLB and psychological
contract breach.
In empirical terms, Collins, Cartwright, and Hislop (2013) showed
that temporal flexibility for home working was an important sign of
WLB, which was associated with the fulfillment of psychological con-
tract. Vanderpool and Way (2013) reported that WLB weakened health
care and senior services employees' job anxiety. Kraak et al. (2018)
showed that delivered WLB inducements mitigated employees’ feelings
of psychological contract breach.
In short, employees perceive WLB initiatives (e.g., flexible working
hours, training, and workshops) as the signs of the company's care
about employees and the signs of promises kept by the company in the
hospitality industry. Under these circumstances, such initiatives reduce
employees' perceptions of psychological contract breach. Therefore, it is
proposed that:
H1. WLB relates negatively to psychological contract breach.
2.3. Propensity to leave work early and propensity to be late for work
Withdrawal behaviors (e.g., lateness) are when employees vo-
luntarily exhibit physical removal from the organization (Berry,
Lelchook, & Clark, 2012). Non-attendance behavior is a form of with-
drawal behavior in which employees intentionally reduce the amount
of time they devote to work by arriving late at work, leaving work
earlier, not attending work at all, or taking long permissions (e.g.,
Koslowsky, 2000). As discussed by Deery and Jago (2015), withdrawal
behaviors ensue when the amount of time devoted to one role makes it
difficult to devote adequate time to the other role. Koslowsky (2000)
pointed out that employees opt for being late at work or leaving work
early in order to meet their non-work demands and reduce work-family
conflict.
Theory of role balance contends that individuals tend to become
fully engaged in the performance of every role in their total role system
(Marks & MacDermid, 1996). This can be provided by WLB in the
workplace. Specifically, WLB enables employees to possess the balance
between work and non-work roles and such employees do not need to
make sacrifices from one role to obtain possession of balance again
(Vanderpool & Way, 2013). Under these conditions, employees are less
likely to display nonattendance intentions.
The literature presents evidence about the effect of WLB on with-
drawal cognitions. For instance, satisfaction with WLB was negatively
associated with turnover intent (Wayne, Butts, Casper, & Allen, 2017).
Kraak et al.’s (2018) study documented that delivered WLB practices
reduced quitting intentions. Sirgy and Lee's (2018) integrative review
highlighted that as WLB increased, employees' quitting intentions and
absenteeism decreased. However, research regarding the linkage be-
tween WLB and nonattendance intentions is meager. In short, this study
posits that employees with favorable perceptions of WLB initiatives are
unlikely to exhibit PWE and PLW. Therefore, it is postulated that:
H2. WLB relates negatively to (a) PWE and (b) PLW.
According to conservation of resources theory, objects, conditions,
personal characteristics, and energies are the resources employees can
use to achieve or protect valued resources (Hobfoll, 2001). Conserva-
tion of resources theory suggests that employees are likely to lose their
valued resources while trying to cope with stress in the workplace
(Hobfoll, 2001). If they suffer from heightened stress and/or possess
inadequate resources within their work domain, they exhibit negative
job outcomes (Shaffer et al., 2001). Psychological contract breach is a
stressor and an indicator of the organizations’ failure in the provision of
adequate work-related resources. This engenders negative job con-
sequences for employees. As employees perceive that their psycholo-
gical contract is breached, they will report quitting and nonattendance
intentions. That is, they decrease the amount of time to be allocated to
the work and engage in some withdrawal behaviors such as going to
work late without permission, taking a longer break than allowed, and
leaving work early (cf. Spector et al., 2006). However, research con-
cerning the linkage between psychological contract breach and non-
attendance intentions is sparse. Based on conservation of resources
theory and limited evidence, it is proposed that:
H3. Psychological contract breach relates positively to (a) PWE and (b)
PLW.

201
B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe
2.4. Task performance and voice behavior
Customer-contact employees are expected to deal with customer
demands in a friendly manner. Task performance refers to employees'
effectiveness in delivering services and responding to customers' needs
(Netemeyer & Maxham, 2007). Employee's voice behavior is viewed as
one of the citizenship behaviors because employees sympathetically
state their suggestions and ideas with the hope of improvement in the
organization (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). However, employees may not
always be willing to exhibit voice behavior since it can produce both
positive and negative consequences for them (cf. Morrison & Milliken,
2000).
As proposed by theory of role balance (Marks & MacDermid, 1996),
an established balance between multiple life roles gives rise to positive
functioning and employees will be fully engaged in the performance of
their role due to such initiatives. Consequently, this makes employees
center on their work and motivates them to display better task per-
formance. Likewise, a supportive environment which consists of WLB
initiatives can motivate employees to contribute to the organization
through innovative suggestions and new ideas for changes in proce-
dures.
It appears that there is evidence demonstrating the linkage between
WLB and task performance. When there are WLB initiatives, employees
are not supposed to sacrifice their responsibilities in one role domain to
meet the expectations of the other role domain (Vanderpool & Way,
2013). Specifically, Sirgy and Lee's (2018) work demonstrated that WLB
fostered job performance. Research indicated that satisfaction with
WLB activated job performance (Wayne et al., 2017). Haider, Jabeen,
and Ahmad (2018) reported that WLB stimulated job performance
among bank employees in Pakistan. On the other hand, there are some
contradictory findings regarding the linkage between WLB and task
performance across the empirical studies. For instance Brummelhuis
and Van Der Lippe's (2010) study conducted in Dutch organizations
illustrated that family-responsive culture was significantly and posi-
tively linked to task performance, while WLB initiatives such as flexible
work arrangement, telecommuting, flextime, and supervisor support
were not. A study conducted in South Korea revealed that WLB was not
significantly linked to task performance (Kim, 2014). Having an un-
derstanding of the association between WLB and task performance and
testing such relationship is important due to the inconsistent findings.
Regarding the linkage between WLB and voice behavior, it appears
that there is only one study, which has tested the influence of WLB on
hotel employees’ voice behavior (Koyuncu, Burke, Fiksenbaum, &
Tekin, 2013). This void in the current knowledge base warrants further
investigation. In view of theory of role balance and the information
presented above, it is posited that:
H4. WLB relates positively to (a) task performance and (b) voice
behavior.
In agreement with conservation of resource theory (Hobfoll, 2001),
employees who are plagued with insufficient resources at work are
likely to lose their limited resources to handle stress. Consequently,
these employees exhibit undesirable behavioral consequences (Shaffer
et al., 2001). Employees cannot exhibit high levels of task performance
and communicate their opinions about work issues to their colleagues
when they perceive that the organization fails in adhering to its pro-
mised commitments. That is, psychological contract breach lessens
employees’ task performance and voice behavior, which is a form of
extra-role behavior (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Management of com-
panies failing in fulfilling the promised obligations and securing a long-
term employment has a pool of employees who are not motivated to
carry out the responsibilities of the job successfully (i.e., task perfor-
mance) and display organizational citizenship behaviors (Restubog,
Bordia, & Tang, 2007).
Turnley and Feldman (1999) discussed that employees would re-
spond to psychological contract breach by voicing their ideas, feedback,
202
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209
and complaints to correct any injustice. This is especially critical when
these employees had positive working relationships with supervisors.
Lu, Capezio, Restubog, Garca, and Wang (2016) reported that psycho-
logical contract activated hotel employees' service-oriented in-role
performance in Philippines. On the other hand, Kim, Karatepe, and
Lee's (2018) study in South Korea indicated that psychological contract
breach eroded employees' service innovation behaviors. Ng, Feldman,
and Butts (2014) demonstrated a negative association between psy-
chological contract breach and constructive voice behavior. Based on
what has been presented and discussed so far, it is proposed that:
H5. Psychological contract breach relates negatively to (a) task
performance and (b) voice behavior.
2.5. Mediating effects of psychological contract breach
The discussion regarding the influence of WLB on PWE and PLW as
well as the influence of psychological contract breach on these non-
attendance intentions presented before implicitly highlights the med-
iating effects. Specifically, WLB mitigates employees’ feelings of psy-
chological contract breach. Employees with favorable perceptions of
WLB also exhibit positive affective consequences. Management is likely
to observe positive attitudinal outcomes if it keeps its promises by en-
abling employees to avail themselves of family-friendly initiatives (e.g.,
Kraak et al., 2018). However, employees would be unlikely to con-
tribute to the organization by displaying higher PWE and PLW if the
company failed to deliver on its promises. Hence, it is posited that:
H6. Psychological contract breach partly mediates the influence of WLB
on (a) PWE and (b) PLW.
As mentioned earlier, employees' favorable perceptions of WLB in-
itiatives reduce psychological contract breach. Such perceptions also
give rise to positive behavioral consequences such as task performance
and voice behavior. Employees engage in the accomplishment of their
daily tasks as a result of WLB initiatives (Haider et al., 2018; Marks &
MacDermid, 1996). They provide management with specific sugges-
tions and novel ideas to contribute to service delivery. In short, em-
ployees would perform their roles effectively in return for the compa-
ny's fulfillment of promises given to employees. On the other hand,
employees would be unlikely to exhibit good task performance and
offer potential/alternative solutions to operational problems at work if
management failed to deliver on its promises. This leads to the fol-
lowing hypotheses:
H7. Psychological contract breach partly mediates the influence of WLB
on (a) task performance and (b) voice behavior.
2.6. Research model
The study model in Fig. 1 presents the relationships among the
study constructs. The presence of WLB initiatives mitigates psycholo-
gical contract breach, reduces nonattendance intentions such as PWE
and PLW, and enhances task performance and voice behavior. How-
ever, breach of perceived promises gives rise to undesirable responses
such as higher nonattendance intentions and lower task performance
and reduced voice behavior. The model further proposes that psycho-
logical contract breach partly mediates the aforesaid linkages.
3. Method
3.1. Respondents and data collection
The sample comprised full-time hotel customer-contact employees
in Antalya in Turkey. This study considered selecting these employees
because they have daily frequent interactions with customers, have a
significant role in the provision of quality services to customers and
B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe
Fig. 1. Research model on the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of work-life balance mediated by psychological contract breach.
service recovery, and give information to management about customer
needs (e.g., Ghosh & Khatri, 2018; Ozturk & Karatepe, 2019). In addi-
tion, in a recent review, Deery et al. (2018) discuss that the findings
emerging from the majority of the WLB research are based on the
samples derived from the over-representation of professional em-
ployees. This restricts the ability to make generalizations to other in-
dustries such as the hospitality industry (Deery et al., 2018). In short,
since these employees play a critical role in customer service experience
(Chen, Hu, & King, 2018; Milliman, Gatling, & Kim, 2018), a sample of
hotel customer-contact employees serves as the study setting.
According to the information received from Antalya City of Culture
and Tourism Directorate, the majority of the international and national
five-star hotels were situated in the Manavgat area. Only 14 hotels
could be contacted. However, one international five-star hotel as well as
three national five-star hotels accepted the invitation to take part in this
study. Data were gathered through the human resource managers of the
abovementioned hotels. Data were collected between June–September
2017. The time lag used between each wave was one month.
The current study utilized procedural remedies to reduce common
method variance (e.g., Ozturk & Karatepe, 2019; Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
& Podsakoff, 2012). First, there were three waves of data. As mentioned
above, the time lag was one month. Moreover, employees' task per-
formance and voice behavior were rated by their direct supervisors.
Second, each survey's cover page comprised detailed information. It
was as follows: “There are no right or wrong answers in this ques-
tionnaire”, “Any sort of information collected during our research will
be kept confidential”, “Participation is voluntary but encouraged”, and
“Management of your hotel fully endorses participation.” Third, anon-
ymity was guaranteed as each employee or supervisor was asked to seal
the survey in an envelope given to him or her and place the sealed
envelope in the designated box. Lastly, identification codes were used
to match the questionnaires.
Three hundred and fifty customer-contact employees were re-
quested to complete the Time 1 surveys. Three hundred and twenty-five
surveys were obtained at Time 1. The Time 2 surveys were distributed
203
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209
to 325 customer-contact employees. Two hundred and ninety-six sur-
veys were received at Time 2. However, 15 surveys were eliminated
because of missing information. Consequently, 281 customer-contact
employees completed the Time 2 surveys. Two hundred and eight-one
Time 3 surveys were distributed to the same employees. In the third
wave, 242 Time 3 surveys were returned. Sixteen surveys were dis-
carded because they were incomplete. Two hundred and twenty-six
customer-contact employees filled out the Time 3 surveys. This led to a
response rate of 64.6%. Twenty-nine supervisors assessed customer-
contact employees’ task performance and voice behavior. Demographic
breakdown of the sample is presented in Table 2.
3.2. Instrumentation
The back-translation technique was utilized to prepare all of the
surveys. That is, the English language surveys were translated into
Turkish via the back-translation technique. These surveys were piloted
with five employees who commented on readability and ease of un-
derstanding. Likewise, the supervisor survey was piloted with five su-
pervisors regarding readability and ease of understanding. The findings
illustrated that there were no compelling reasons to make amendments
in the aforementioned instruments.
Participants completed the WLB scale (Time 1 survey) devised and
validated by Brough et al. (2014). This scale consisted of four items. In
this scale, one item was negatively worded. The items to operationalize
psychological contract breach (Time 2 survey) were borrowed from the
work of Robinson and Morrison (2000). This scale included five items.
Three of the items were positively worded. Three items from Foust et al.
(2006) were tapped to gauge PLW (Time 3 survey). Congruent with
Ozturk and Karatepe's (2019) work, the items used to assess lateness
attitude were adapted from Foust et al. (2006) for the assessment of
PWE (Time 3 survey). For example, the item “Tardiness to work should
be acceptable as long as the work gets finished” was adapted to
“Leaving work early should be acceptable as long as the work gets
finished”. In short, PWE was assessed using three items. Customer-
B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209

Table 2 models (Nunkoo, Ramkissoon, & Gursoy, 2013; Ozturk & Karatepe,
Respondents’ profile (n = 226). 2019): “χ2/df, comparative fit index (CFI), parsimony normed fit index
Number of respondents % (PNFI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA)”.
Age
18-27 66 29.2
4. Results
28–37 78 34.5
38–47 60 26.5
48–57 19 8.4 4.1. The measurement model
58 and above 3 1.3
Gender Before proceeding with the assessment of hypotheses, the fit of the
Male 124 54.9
six-factor measurement model was tested. Table 3 presents fit indices of
Female 102 45.1
Education the model, standardized loadings, t-values, composite reliabilities, and
Primary school 23 10.2 coefficient alphas. Two items from the psychological contract breach
Secondary and high school 89 39.4 measure were dropped because of the fact that their standardized
Two-year college degree 84 37.2
loadings were below 0.50. The findings associated with fit statistics
Four-year college degree 26 11.5
Graduate degree 4 1.8
showed that the six-factor measurement model fit the data well
Organizational tenure (χ2 = 324.62, df = 174; χ2/df = 1.866; CFI = 0.96; PNFI = 0.76;
Less than 1 year 52 23.0 RMSEA = 0.062; SRMR = 0.044). All items loaded significantly on
1–5 90 39.8 latent factors (t-values > 2.58, p < 0.01). One of the loadings that
6–10 54 23.9
belonged to the WLB measure was 0.52. The rest of the loadings
11–15 23 10.2
16 years and longer 7 3.1 were > 0.70.
Marital status The average variance extracted by WLB, psychological contract
Single or divorced 89 39.4 breach, PWE, PLW, task performance, and voice behavior was 0.48,
Married 137 60.6 0.78, 0.78, 0.87, 074, and 0.71, respectively. The average variance
The number of children
None 93 41.2
extracted by each latent construct (excluding WLB) was > 0.50.
1–2 78 34.5 Though the average variance extracted by WLB (0.48) was slightly
3–4 52 23.0 smaller than 0.50, the standardized loadings of the WLB items were
5–6 3 1.3 above 0.50. In addition, the average variance extracted is a con-
servative test and can be less than 0.50, even though composite relia-
bility of that measure is above 0.70 (Jiang, Klein, & Carr, 2002). This
contact employees' task performance (the supervisor survey) was
has also been reported/observed in other studies (e.g., Huang & Van der
measured utilizing three items from Netemeyer and Maxham (2007).
Veen, 2018; Karatepe & Vatankhah, 2014). To sum up, the findings
Five items came from Van Dyne and LePine (1998) to assess employee
given above effectively supported convergent validity (Anderson &
voice behavior (the supervisor survey). Employees used a seven-re-
Gerbing, 1988; Jiang et al., 2002).
sponse format for the items in psychological contract breach, PWE,
The average variance extracted by each latent variable exceeded the
PLW, and voice behavior, which was anchored by “7 (strongly agree)” to
shared variances between each variable pairing, revealing that dis-
“1 (strongly disagree)”. Participants used a five-response format
criminant validity was corroborated (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As for
(”5 = strongly agree” to “1 = strongly disagree”) for the WLB items.
the internal reliability estimates, composite reliabilities and coefficient
Respondents utilized a seven-response format for the items in task
alphas were computed. As demonstrated in Table 3, composite relia-
performance (”7 = always” to “1 = never”). Higher scores consistently
bility scores and coefficient alphas were deemed acceptable. That is, all
showed higher WLB, psychological contract breach, PWE, PLW, task
the measures were reliable since they exceeded the recommended
performance, and voice behavior.
cutoff level (> 0.70) (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). The
Gender, marital status, and the number of children were used as the
skewness (kurtosis) value for the scale items were given in Table 3.
control variables since they may be significantly linked to the study
These values were lower than the 3.00 threshold for skewness and the
variables and lead to statistical confounds (e.g., Chan et al., 2017;
8.00 cutoff level for kurtosis, demonstrating that the data seemed to be
Ozturk & Karatepe, 2019). Higher scores demonstrated more children.
normally distributed (Kline, 2011). Descriptive statistics and correla-
tions were reported in Table 4.
3.3. Data analyses
4.2. Common method variance check
The measurement and structural models were assessed in two steps
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). First, the psychometric properties of the Though a time-lagged survey design was employed in this study,
measures were tested (i.e., validity and reliability). Second, the linkages participants rated their perceptions of WLB, psychological contract
among the study variables were gauged via structural equation mod- breach, PWE, and PLW. To check the risk common method variance,
eling. Before assessing the hypothesized relationships, it is a common exploratory factor analysis was employed. Task performance and voice
practice to gauge the alternative models to ascertain which model best behavior were excluded from this analysis because the supervisors rated
fits the data better. Therefore, these models were compared via the chi- employees’ behavioral outcomes. The findings associated with un-
square difference test and other relevant fit statistics. The Sobel test was rotated exploratory factor analysis revealed the first factor, which ac-
used for the assessment of the mediating effects (e.g., Ozturk & counted for 50.7% of the total variance.
Karatepe, 2019). A four-factor measurement model that included WLB, psychological
Data were analyzed using Linear Structural Relationships (LISREL) contract breach, PWE, and PLW was also compared with a single-factor
8.30 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996). LISREL which has been preferred in a model using confirmatory factor analysis. The findings for a single-
plenty of empirical studies enables the researcher to assess the mea- factor model (χ2 = 1125.67, df = 65; χ2/df = 17.32; CFI = 0.61;
surement model through confirmatory factor analysis and the structural PNFI = 0.49; RMSEA = 0.269; SRMR = 0.11) were worse than the
model via structural equation modeling (e.g., Chen & Kao, 2012; Kara, ones with a four-factor measurement model (χ2 = 92.89, df = 59; χ2/
Uysal, Sirgy, & Lee, 2013; Reisinger & Turner, 1999). The present study df = 1.574; CFI = 0.98; PNFI = 0.73; RMSEA = 0.051;
utilized several fit statistics for the measurement and hypothesized SRMR = 0.047). The χ2 test also showed that the single-factor model

204
B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209

Table 3
Scale items, sources, and confirmatory factor analysis results.
Scale items M (SD) S (K) Standardized loading t-value

Work-life balance (Brough et al., 2014) (AVE = 0.48, CR = 0.78, α = 0.77)

I currently have a good balance between the time I spend at work and the time I have available for non-work 3.67 (0.88) −0.20 (−0.65) 0.52 7.70
activities
I have difficulty balancing my work and non-work activities (−) 3.92 (0.85) −0.68 (0.07) 0.71 11.41
I feel that the balance between my work demands and non-work activities is currently about right 3.92 (0.88) −0.89 (0.91) 0.80 13.37
Overall, I believe that my work and non-work life are balanced 3.96 (0.95) −0.91 (0.57) 0.71 11.37

Psychological contract breach (Robinson & Morrison, 2000) (AVE = 0.78, CR = 0.91, α = 0.91)
Almost all the promises made by my employer during recruitment have been kept so far (−) 2.56 (1.23) 1.13 (1.34) 0.92 17.60
I feel that my employer has come through in fulfilling the promises made to me when I was hired (−) 2.68 (1.21) 0.74 (0.51) 0.94 18.28
So far my employer has done an excellent job of fulfilling its promises to me (−) 2.64 (1.27) 1.08 (1.78) 0.78 13.76
I have not received everything promised to me in exchange for my contributions – – -* –
My employer has broken many of its promises to me even though I've upheld my side of the deal – – -* –

Propensity to leave work early (Adapted from Foust et al., 2006) (AVE = 0.78, CR = 0.91, α = 0.91)
Leaving work early should be acceptable as long as the work gets finished 2.54 (1.26) 1.00 (0.64) 0.89 16.56
Leaving work early occasionally should be acceptable 2.51 (1.30) 0.94 (0.45) 0.92 17.54
I find it acceptable to leave work 10 min early 2.58 (1.28) 1.27 (1.45) 0.83 15.09

Propensity to be late for work (Foust et al., 2006) (AVE = 0.87, CR = 0.95, α = 0.95)
Tardiness to work should be acceptable as long as the work gets finished 2.70 (1.56) 1.00 (0.12) 0.92 17.95
Occasional tardiness for work should be acceptable 2.59 (1.46) 1.10 (0.52) 0.94 18.63
I find it acceptable to be 10 min late to work 2.58 (1.48) 1.06 (0.27) 0.94 18.61

Task performance (Netemeyer & Maxham, 2007) (AVE = 0.74, CR = 0.89, α = 0.89)
How often did this employee meet formal performance requirements when serving customers 5.41 (1.11) −1.51 (2.40) 0.90 16.92
How often did this employee perform all those tasks for customers that were required of him/her 5.31 (1.17) −1.00 (1.30) 0.87 16.01
How often did this employee adequately complete all expected customer service behaviors 5.38 (1.14) −1.28 (2.12) 0.80 14.18
Voice behavior (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) (AVE = 0.71, CR = 0.93, α = 0.91)
This employee develops and makes recommendations concerning issues that affect this company 5.41 (1.21) −1.08 (0.96) 0.73 12.49
This employee speaks up and encourages others in this company to get involved in issues that affect the company 5.39 (1.23) −1.28 (1.76) 0.78 13.70
This employee communicates his or her opinions about work issues to others in this company even if others in the 5.38 (1.18) −1.11 (1.44) 0.84 15.49
company disagree with him or her
This employee gets involved in issues that affect the quality of work life here in this company 5.29 (1.16) −1.12 (1.40) 0.90 17.25
This employee speaks up in this company with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures 5.25 (1.20) −1.09 (1.46) 0.95 19.05

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

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

was worse than the four-factor measurement model (Δχ2 = 1032.78,
Δdf = 6, p < 0.05). One-dimensional model explained only 46.7% of
the total variance. Since the variance explained by the first factor or
one-dimensional model is less than 50–60% of the variance among the
constructs, common method variance does not appear to be a threat
(e.g., Fuller, Simmering, Atinc, Atinc, & Babin, 2016).
4.3. Test of the research model
Soper's (2017) a-priori sample size calculator was utilized to de-
termine the sample size of the study. The results based on this
calculation revealed that the recommended sample size was 161 [an-
ticipated effect size = 0.3 medium effect size; desired statistical power
level = 0.8; number of latent constructs = 6 (WLB, psychological
contract breach, PWE, PLW, task performance, and voice behavior);
number of observed variables = 24 (WLB 4 items; psychological con-
tract 3 items, PWE 3 items; PLW 3 items; task performance 3 items;
voice behavior 5 items, and 3 control variables); and probability
level = 0.05]. The study's sample size was 226 and was greater than the
recommended sample size for structural equation modeling. The extant
literature also delineates studies with sample sizes lower than 226 but
uses more than 21 items to test the associations via SEM (e.g., Ozturk &

Table 4
Descriptive statistics and correlations of observed variables.
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Gender 0.45 0.50 –

2. Marital status 0.61 0.49 0.058 –
3. The number of children 0.85 0.82 −0.002 0.588* –
4. Work-life balance 3.87 0.69 −0.001 −0.118 0.001 –
5. Psychological contract breach 2.63 1.13 0.024 0.044 −0.021 −0.503* –
6. Propensity to leave early 2.54 1.18 −0.055 0.102 −0.031 −0.492* 0.595* –
7. Propensity to be late for work 2.63 1.43 −0.015 0.046 −0.034 −0.510* 0.464* 0.574* –
8. Task performance 5.36 1.03 −0.013 −0.008 0.032 0.598* −0.623* −0.614* −0.409* –
9. Voice behavior 5.35 1.02 −0.049 −0.083 −0.035 0.552* −0.582* −0.548* −0.367* 0.758* –

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

205
B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209

Table 5
Results of model comparisons.
Models χ2 df Δχ2 Δdf MC CFI PNFI RMSEA SRMR

I. Hypothesized model (partially 449.46 225 – – – 0.93 0.72 0.067 0.059

mediated model)
WLB → PCB, PWE, PLW, TP, VB
PCB → PWE, PLW, TP, VB

II. Fully mediated model 602.53 229 153.07 4 I and II 0.91 0.71 0.085 0.082
WLB → PCB
PCB → PWE, PLW, TP, VB

III. Non-mediated model

WLB → PWE, PLW, TP, VB 503.08 226 53.62 1 I and III 0.92 0.71 0.074 0.16
PCB → PWE, PLW, TP, VB

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

Karatepe, 2019; Yang, Zhang, Kwan, & Chen, 2018).
The comparison of the measurement model (χ2 = 324.62,
df = 174) with the structural model without the control variables
(χ2 = 404.29, df = 180) produced a significant result (Δχ2 = 79.67,
Δdf = 6, p < 0.05). The partially mediated model was compared with
the fully mediated model and non-mediated model through chi-square
difference test and other relevant fit statistics. As given in Table 5, the
partially mediated model was the best-fitting model. Model fit statistics
for the partially mediated model was presented in Fig. 2.
The findings demonstrated that WLB had a negative association
with psychological contract breach (β21 = −0.61, t = −5.83). This
provided support for hypothesis 1. In support of hypotheses 2a and 2b,
the findings highlighted that WLB depicted a negative association with
PWE (hypothesis 2a, β31 = −0.47, t = −4.86) and PLW (hypothesis
2b, β41 = −0.49, t = −4.66). In support of hypotheses 3a and 3b, the
findings revealed that psychological contract breach was positively
associated with PWE (hypothesis 3a, β32 = 0.35, t = 4.76) and PLW
(hypothesis 3b, β42 = 0.18, t = 2.22).
Consistent with the study predictions, WLB portrayed a positive
linkage with task performance (hypothesis 4a, β51 = 0.67, t = 5.99)
and voice behavior (hypothesis 4b, β61 = 0.60, t = 5.38). Hence, these
findings supported hypotheses 4a and 4b. In addition, psychological
contract breach related negatively to task performance (hypothesis 5a,
β52 = −0.28, t = −4.00) and voice behavior (hypothesis 5b,

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

206
B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe
β62 = −0.25, t = −3.51). Hence, hypotheses 5a and 5b were sup-
ported.
The model highlights the mediated impacts exhibited by psycholo-
gical contract breach in the association between WLB and outcomes
based on the results of the Sobel test. In support of hypothesis 6a,
psychological contract breach displayed a partial mediating role in the
linkage between WLB and PWE (z = −3.97, p < 0.01). Likewise,
hypothesis 6b was confirmed because psychological contract breach
had a partial mediating role in the relationship between WLB and PLW
(z = −2.17, p < 0.05). In line with the study expectations, psycho-
logical contract breach partially mediated the influence of WLB on task
performance (hypothesis 7a, z = 3.65, p < 0.01) and voice behavior
(hypothesis 7b, z = 3.26, p < 0.01). Therefore, hypotheses 7a and 7b
were confirmed. When the control variables were not included, the
significance of the effects did not change.
5. Discussion
5.1. Conclusions
A research model examining psychological contract breach as a
mediator of the impact of WLB on PWE, PLW, task performance, and
voice behavior was proposed and tested with data gathered from hotel
employees and their direct supervisors in Turkey. All hypotheses re-
ceived support from the data. Specifically, WLB lessens employees'
perceptions of psychological contract breach. This is significant since
WLB is one of the signs of promises kept by the company (Kraak et al.,
2018) and is an opportunity-enhancing human resource practice alle-
viating employees’ feelings of psychological contract breach.
The findings suggest that WLB is an antidote to employees’ PWE and
PLW, while psychological contract breach is a work-related stressor
aggravating their PWE and PLW. The presence of WLB initiatives en-
ables employees to establish the balance between their work and non-
work roles. These employees do not need to spend much time at work at
the expense of family time due to WLB initiatives (cf. Vanderpool &
Way, 2013). Under these circumstances, they exhibit lower PWE and
PLW. However, employees who perceive that management breaches its
promises or have feelings of betrayal display heightened PWE and PLW.
This makes employees lose their motivation to have attendance inten-
tions. PWE and PLW are the reflection of breaches of psychological
contract.
In agreement with Sirgy and Lee's (2018) integrative review and the
work of Koyuncu et al. (2013), the presence of WLB initiatives fosters
employees' behavioral outcomes in the form of task performance and
voice behavior. However, psychological contract breach has a detri-
mental impact on employees' task performance and voice behavior.
Such employees fail in meeting basic in-role responsibilities and are
unwilling to contribute to the company via innovative suggestions and
novel ideas for better service delivery due to feelings of betrayal.
The findings further suggest that psychological contract partly
mediates the influence of WLB on PWE, PLW, task performance, and
voice behavior. That is, employees who are able to establish the balance
between their multiple life roles and have positive functioning due to
management's WLB initiatives are unlikely to observe violations in
psychological contract. These employees in turn display positive out-
comes such as task performance and voice behaviors as well as reduced
PWE and PLW.
5.2. Theoretical implications
This study enhances current knowledge in the extant hospitality and
tourism research and the broader human resource management litera-
ture. First, in today's competitive environment, employees need to es-
tablish the balance between their work and life domains. However,
evidence about WLB and its consequences is scarce (e.g., Deery et al.,
2018; Sirgy & Lee, 2018; Talukder et al., 2018). Using theory of role
207
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209
balance (Marks & MacDermid, 1996), this study has linked WLB to
psychological contract breach, PWE, PLW, task performance, and voice
behavior. Investigating the abovementioned linkages is significant and
relevant because most of the WLB-related studies have utilized tradi-
tional variables such as job satisfaction and turnover intentions (cf.
Deery & Jago, 2015). To contribute to the existing knowledge base, this
study used two important nonattendance intentions variables, which
are PWE and PLW (Ozturk & Karatepe, 2019). This study also utilized
voice behavior as one of the behavioral outcomes of WLB (Koyuncu
et al., 2013).
Second, the current study has taken into consideration Casper
et al.’s (2018) meta-analytic investigation and other relevant studies
(Sirgy & Lee, 2018; Thakur & Bhatnagar, 2017) and responded to the
question of how WLB is related to work-related outcomes. In this re-
gard, using theory of role balance (Marks & MacDermid, 1996), social
justice (Lewis & Smithson, 2001) and conservation of resources theories
(Hobfoll, 2001), psychological contract breach has been treated as a
mediator linking WLB to PWE, PLW, task performance, and voice be-
havior. The results shown earlier are important additions to the re-
levant literature since no empirical research has linked WLB to the
aforesaid outcomes via the mediating role of psychological contract
breach so far.
Third, evidence about WLB in emerging economies/developing
countries is scarce (e.g., Mushfiqur et al., 2018; Wang, Kwan, & Zhou,
2017). Obtaining data in an emerging economy is likely to enhance the
understanding about the consequences of WLB. Accordingly, this study
has utilized data received from hotel employees in Turkey. The findings
have enhanced the understanding that psychological contract breach
partly mediates the influence of WLB on PWE, PLW, task performance,
and voice behavior.
5.3. Management implications
WLB is a critical human resource practice reducing psychological
contract breach, PWE, and PLW. It also activates task performance and
voice behavior. With this realization, management should offer a
bundle of WLB initiatives (e.g., flexible work hours, paid-time off-fa-
mily sick days) to fulfill psychological contract, reduce employees' PWE
and PLW, and boost their task performance and voice behavior. This
would strengthen employees’ competency in coping with multiple roles
and enable them to fulfill their work-related responsibilities success-
fully. As a matter of fact, the initiatives mentioned above refer to the
existence of a healthy family-friendly environment. However, such an
environment could be maintained in the companies, which have been
able to “…institutionalize a new way of working and managing the
workforce …” (Talukder et al., 2018, p. 738). In this environment,
employees should know that they do not endanger their career when
they avail themselves of WLB initiatives in the company.
Employees may not be able to allocate sufficient time to their social
activities. Therefore, management can collaborate with educational
institutions and sports and recreational clubs to enable employees to
attend various workshops for the achievement of a better WLB and
participate in sports and recreational activities. These activities would
make employees become one of the participants of different social ac-
tivities. Employees’ participation in these activities should also be
supported by supervisors.
The findings suggest that psychological contract breach aggravates
employees' PWE and PLW, while it mitigates their task performance and
voice behavior. These findings implicitly indicate that management
should reconsider the promises given to employees. Therefore, man-
agement needs to arrange workshops to show that employees’ PWE and
PLW impede their productivity and amplify their turnover. In these
workshops, management can obtain feedback from employees re-
garding the factors influencing their PWE and PLW, which are costly for
the company. If there are any problems emanating from breaches in
psychological contract, management should take immediate actions to
B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe
find remedies to such problems (e.g., insufficient career opportunities,
limited information-sharing, and/or inadequate rewards). If manage-
ment finds that insufficient WLB initiatives are responsible for non-
attendance intentions, it should put more effort into curtailing non-
attendance intentions of employees through flextime scheduling and
compressed workweeks.
In addition, due to their boundary-spanning roles, such employees
provide detailed information about customers' requests, problems, and
expectations. With this recognition, management should encourage and
motivate employees to provide new ideas and feedback about how to
make improvements in service delivery. This can be done through
training programs or workshops where employees can freely share
ideas and give suggestions for improvements in the organization.
Encouraging employees to display voice behavior is important because
such employees’ novel suggestions and ideas about the potential im-
provements in a number of service encounters would enable the com-
pany to gain a competitive advantage.
5.4. Limitations and avenues for future research
In considering the results of this study, several limitations should be
kept in mind. First, this empirical investigation was confined to cus-
tomer-contact employees in a single industry. However, using data in a
single industry eliminates problems that may arise from the industry
differences. Nevertheless, future research may collect data from such
employees in different contexts and use the service setting as a mod-
erator. For example, future research may test the following hypothesis:
the indirect effect of WLB on PWE through psychological contract
breach is stronger among employees in the quick-service industry than
among employees in the hotel industry. This would shed light on the
WLB-related investigations in the hospitality and tourism research.
Second, there is limited evidence about employees’ nonattendance
intentions/behaviors in the extant hospitality and tourism research
(Ozturk & Karatepe, 2019). Using absenteeism/absence intentions,
taking longer breaks than allowed, PWE, and PLW simultaneously in
future studies would enhance the understanding about the factors mi-
tigating or heightening nonattendance intentions/behaviors.
Third, to expand the database in the literature, future research may
focus on cross-national data. Specifically, data from employees in hotels
in the United States, restaurants in Turkey, and casinos in Macau may
be gathered and the hypotheses proposed in the present study may be
assessed based on this cross-national data. Such an investigation would
enable scholars to make further generalizations about the mediating
role of psychological contract breach in the linkage between WLB and
the nonattendance intentions/behaviors.
Fourth, this study measured WLB via data gathered from customer-
contact employees. Future research may assess managers’ perceptions
of WLB strategies implemented by the organization. By doing so, it
would be possible to determine whether WLB as rated by managers is
linked to job outcomes via psychological contract breach. In closing, the
present study invites scholars to gauge the linkages in the research
model using data from emerging economies such as Brazil, India, and
South Africa.
Acknowledgment
Data used in our study came from part of a larger project.
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Andringa, S., Poulston, J., & Pernecky, T. (2016). Hospitality entrepreneurship: A link in
the career chain. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(4),
717–736.
Atadil, H. A., Sirakaya-Turk, E., & Altintas, V. (2015). An analysis of destination image for
emerging markets of Turkey. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 23(1), 37–54.
208
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209
Bal, P. M., De Lange, A. H., Jansen, P. G., & Van Der Velde, M. E. (2008). Psychological
contract breach and job attitudes: A meta-analysis of age as a moderator. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 72(1), 143–158.
Baum, T. (2019). Does the hospitality industry need or deserve talent? International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.
Berry, C. M., Lelchook, A. M., & Clark, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the inter-
relationships between employee lateness, absenteeism, and turnover: Implications for
models of withdrawal behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(5), 678–699.
Boone, J., Veller, T., Nikolaeva, K., Keith, M., Kefgen, K., & Houran, J. (2013). Rethinking
a glass ceiling in the hospitality industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(3),
230–239.
Bouzari, M., & Karatepe, O. M. (2019). Does optimism mediate the influence of work-life
balance on hotel salespeople's life satisfaction and creative performance? Journal of
Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 19(1), 82–101.
Brough, P., Timms, C., O'Driscoll, M. P., Kalliath, T., Siu, O.-L., Sit, C., et al. (2014). Work-
life balance: A longitudinal evaluation of a new measure across Australia and New
Zealand workers. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(19),
2724–2744.
Brown, E. A., Thomas, N. J., & Bosselman, R. H. (2015). Are they leaving or staying? A
qualitative analysis of turnover issues for generation Y hospitality employees with a
hospitality education. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 46(April),
130–137.
Brummelhuis, L. L. T., & Van Der Lippe, T. (2010). Effective work-life balance support for
various household structures. Human Resource Management, 49(2), 173–193.
Cain, L., Busser, J., & Kang, H. J. (2018). Executive chefs' calling: Effect on engagement,
work-life balance and life satisfaction. A. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 30(5), 2287–2307.
Casper, W. J., Vaziri, H., Wayne, J. H., DeHauw, S., & Greenhaus, J. (2018). The jingle-
jangle of work and nonwork balance: A comprehensive and meta-analytic review of
its meaning and measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(2), 182–214.
Chan, S. C. H. (2019). The antecedents of workplace fun in the hospitality industry: A
qualitative study. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 18(4),
425–440.
Chan, X. W., Kalliath, T., Brough, P., O'Driscoll, M. P., Siu, O.-L., & Timms, C. (2017). Self-
efficacy and work engagement: Test of a chain model. International Journal of
Manpower, 38(6), 819–834.
Chen, T.-H., Hu, H.-H. S., & King, B. (2018). Shaping the organizational citizenship be-
havior or workplace deviance: Key determining factors in the hospitality workforce.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 35(June), 1–8.
Chen, C.-F., & Kao, Y.-L. (2012). Investigating the antecedents and consequences of
burnout and isolation among flight attendants. Tourism Management, 33(4), 868–874.
Chiang, F. F. T., Birtch, T. A., & Kwan, H. K. (2010). The moderating role of job control
and work-life balance practices on employee stress in the hotel and catering industry.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1), 25–32.
Clark, H., Dimanche, F., Cotter, R., & Lee-Rosen, D. (2017). Human capital challenges in
the events industry of Canada: Finding innovative solutions. Worldwide Hospitality
and Tourism Themes, 9(4), 424–432.
Collins, A., Cartwright, S., & Hislop, D. (2013). Homeworking: Negotiating the psycho-
logical contract. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(2), 211–225.
Cullen, C., & McLaughlin, A. (2006). What drives the persistence of presenteeism as a
managerial value in hotels? Observations noted during an Irish work-life balance
research project. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(3), 510–516.
Daily Sabah Tourism (2019). Turkey revises 2023 tourism targets, says will make up for
Thomas Cook losses. https://www.dailysabah.com/tourism/2019/09/28/turkey-
revises-2023-tourism-targets-says-will-make-up-for-thomas-cook-losses, Accessed
date: 8 January 2020.
Deery (2008). Talent management, work-life balance and retention strategies.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(7), 792–806.
Deery, M., & Jago, L. (2015). Revisiting talent management, work-life balance and re-
tention strategies. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
27(3), 453–472.
Deery, M., Jago, L., Harris, C., & Liburd, J. (2018). Work-life balance for sustainable
tourism development. In J. Liburd, & D. Edwards (Eds.). Collaboration for sustainable
tourism development (pp. 151–166). Goodfellow Publishers Limited.
Fleetwood, S. (2007). Why work–life balance now? International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 18(3), 387–400.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50.
Foust, M. S., Elicker, J. D., & Levy, P. E. (2006). Development and validation of a measure
of an individual's lateness attitude. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 119–133.
Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.). Handbook
of occupational health psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common
method variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8),
3192–3198.
Ghosh, K., & Khatri, N. (2018). Does servant leadership work in hospitality sector? A
representative study in the hotel organizations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 37(December), 117–127.
Guest, D. E. (2002). Perspectives on the study of work-life balance. Social Science
Information, 41(2), 255–279.
Haar, J., Brougham, D., Roche, M., & Barney, A. (2017). Servant leadership and work
engagement: The mediating role of work-life balance. New Zealand Journal of Human
Resources Management, 17(2), 56–72.
Haider, S., Jabeen, S., & Ahmad, J. (2018). Moderated mediation between work-life
B. Kaya and O.M. Karatepe
balance and employee job performance: The role of psychological wellbeing and
satisfaction with coworkers. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 34(1),
29–37.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data
analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson
Education.
Hall, D. T., Kossek, E. E., Briscoe, J. P., Pichler, S., & Lee, M. D. (2013). Nonwork or-
ientations relative to career: A multidimensional measure. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 83(3), 539–550.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the
stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology:
International Review, 50(3), 337–421.
Hofmann, V., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2017). The impact of emotional labor on em-
ployees' work-life balance perception and commitment: A study in the hospitality
industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 65(August), 47–58.
HOSCO (2019). Summit 19 friday conference 13-14 June, Barcelona, Spain.
Huang, S.(S.)., & Van der Veen, R. (2018). The moderation of gender and generation in
the effects of perceived destination image on tourist attitude and visit intention: A
study of potential Chinese visitors to Australia. Journal of Vacation Marketing.
Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., & Carr, C. L. (2002). Measuring information system service quality:
SERVQUAL from the other side. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 145–166.
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: user's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific
Software International, Inc.
Karatepe, O. M., & Vatankhah, S. (2014). The effects of high-performance work practices
and job embeddedness on flight attendants' performance outcomes. Journal of Air
Transport Management, 37(May), 27–35.
Kara, D., Uysal, M., Sirgy, M. J., & Lee, G. (2013). The effects of leadership style on
employee well being in hospitality. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
34(September), 9–18.
Kim, H. K. (2014). Work-life balance and employees' performance: The mediating role of
affective commitment. Global Business and Management Research: International
Journal, 6(1), 37–51.
Kim, T. T., Karatepe, O. M., & Lee, G. (2018). Psychological contract breach and service
innovation behavior: Psychological capital as a mediator. Service Business, 12(2),
305–329.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Koslowsky, M. (2000). A new perspective on employee lateness. Applied Psychology:
International Review, 49(3), 390–407.
Koyuncu, M., Burke, R. J., Fiksenbaum, L., & Tekin, Y. (2013). Antecedents and con-
sequences of employee voice behavior among frontline employees in Turkish hotels.
Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 24(3), 427–437.
Kraak, J. M., Russo, M., & Jiménez, A. (2018). Work-life balance psychological contract
perceptions for older workers. Personnel Review, 47(6), 1194–1210.
Lewis, S., & Smithson, J. (2001). Sense of entitlement to support for the reconciliation of
employment and family life. Human Relations, 54(11), 1455–1481.
Lu, V. N., Capezio, A., Restubog, S. L. D., Garcia, P. R. J. M., & Wang, L. (2016). In pursuit
of service excellence: Investigating the role of psychological contracts and organi-
zational identification of frontline hotel employees. Tourism Management,
56(October), 8–19.
MacNeil, I. R. (1985). Relational contract: What we do and do not know. Wisconsin Law
Review, 483–525.
Marks, S. R., & MacDermid, S. M. (1996). Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role
balance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(2), 417–432.
Milliman, J., Gatling, A., & Kim, J.(S.) (2018). The effect of workplace spirituality on
hospitality employee engagement, intention to stay, and service delivery. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Management, 35(June), 56–65.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725.
Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how
psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22(1),
226–256.
Mushfiqur, R., Mordi, C., Oruh, E. S., Nwagbara, U., Mordi, T., & Turner, I. M. (2018). The
impacts of work-life balance (WLB) challenges on social sustainability: The experi-
ence of Nigerian female medical doctors. Employee Relations, 40(5), 868–888.
Netemeyer, R. G., & Maxham, J. G. (2007). Employee versus supervisor ratings of per-
formance in the retail customer service sector: Differences in predictive validity for
customer outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 83(1), 131–145.
Ng, T. W. H., Feldman, D. C., & Butts, M. M. (2014). Psychological contract breaches and
employee voice behavior: The moderating effects of changes in social relationships.
European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 23(4), 537–553.
Nunkoo, R., Ramkissoon, H., & Gursoy, D. (2013). Use of structural equation modeling in
tourism research: Past, present, and future. Journal of Travel Research, 52(6),
209
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 199–209
759–771.
OECD (2019). OECD better life index. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/work-
life-balance/, Accessed date: 15 June 2019.
Ozturk, A., & Karatepe, O. M. (2019). Frontline hotel employees' psychological capital,
trust in organization, and their effects on nonattendance intentions, absenteeism, and
creative performance. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 28(2), 217–239.
O'Neill, J. W. (2012). Using focus groups as a tool to develop a hospitality work-life
research study. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(6),
873–885.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in
social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of
Psychology, 63, 539–569.
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (1999). Structural equation modeling with Lisrel: An appli-
cation in tourism. Tourism Management, 20(1), 71–88.
Remington, J., & Kitterlin-Lynch, M. (2018). Still pounding on the glass ceiling: A study of
female leaders in hospitality, travel, and tourism management. Journal of Human
Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 17(1), 22–37.
Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2007). Behavioral outcomes of psychological
contract breach in a non-Western culture: The moderating role of equity sensitivity.
British Journal of Management, 18(4), 376–386.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. M. (2000). The development of psychological contract
breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5),
525–546.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 121–139.
Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., Gilley, K. M., & Luk, D. M. (2001). Struggling for balance
amid turbulence on international assignments: Work-family conflict, support and
commitment. Journal of Management, 27(1), 99–121.
Sirgy, M. J., & Lee, D. J. (2018). Work-life balance: An integrative review. Applied
Research in Quality of Life, 13(1), 229–254.
Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational
work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4),
363–382.
Sonnenschein, K., Baker, M., & Hibbins, R. (2019). Expectations of returned Chinese
graduates and hotel managers regarding entry-level work in the hotel industry.
Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 18(1), 1–25.
Soper, D. S. (2017). A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models.
[software]. Available from http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The
dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created
equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446–460.
Sturges, J., & Guest, D. (2004). Working to live or living to work? Work/life balance early
in the career. Human Resource Management Journal, 14(4), 5–20.
Sun, X., Xu, H., Koseoglu, M. A., & Okumus, F. (2019). How do lifestyle hospitality and
tourism entrepreneurs manageme their work-life balance? International Journal of
Hospitality Management.
Talukder, A. K. M., Vickers, M., & Khan, A. (2018). Supervisor support and work-life
balance: Impacts on job performance in the Australian financial sector. Personnel
Review, 47(3), 727–744.
Thakur, S. J., & Bhatnagar, J. (2017). Mediator analysis of job embeddedness:
Relationship between work-life balance practices and turnover intentions. Employee
Relations, 39(5), 718–731.
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract violations
on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human Relations, 52(7), 895–922.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of
construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119.
Vanderpool, C., & Way, S. A. (2013). Investigating work-family balance, job anxiety, and
turnover intentions as predictors of health care and senior services customer-contact
employee voluntary turnover. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(2), 149–160.
Wang, M., Kwan, H. K., & Zhou, A. (2017). Effects of servant leadership on work-family
balance in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 55(4), 387–407.
Wayne, J. H., Butts, M. M., Casper, W. J., & Allen, T. D. (2017). In search of balance: A
conceptual model and empirical investigation of multiple meanings of work-family
balance. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 167–210.
Wong, S. C.-k., & Ko, A. (2009). Exploratory study of understanding hotel employees'
perception on work-life balance issues. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 28(2), 195–203.
Yang, Z., Zhang, H., Kwan, H. K., & Chen, S. (2018). Crossover effects of servant lea-
dership and job social support on employee spouses: The mediating role of employee
organization-based self esteem. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(3), 595–604.
Zhao, H. A., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psycho-
logical contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 60(3), 647–680.