Tourism Management 36 (2013) 178e187

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Promoting frontline employees’ quality of life: Leisure benefit systems

and work-to-leisure conflicts
Jo-Hui Lin a,1, Jehn-Yih Wong b, 2, Ching-hua Ho c, *
a
Graduate Institute of Recreation, Tourism, and Hospitality Management, National Chiayi University, No. 580 Sinmin Rd., Chiayi City 600, Taiwan, ROC
b
Department of Business Administration, Ming Chuan University, No. 250 Chung Shan N. Rd., Sec. 5, Taipei City 111, Taiwan, ROC
c
Graduate Institute of Travel and Tourism Management, National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism, No.1 Songhe Rd., Xiaogang Dist., Kaohsiung City 812, Taiwan, ROC

h i g h l i g h t s

< We explore how leisure benefit systems affect employees’ quality of life while they encounter work-to-leisure conflicts.
< The direct effect of leisure benefit system satisfaction on leisure satisfaction is greater than it is on job satisfaction.
< Leisure benefit system satisfaction exerts a moderating effect between work-to-leisure conflict and quality of life.
< A leisure benefit system is a coping resource for frontline employees’ work-to-leisure conflict.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study explores how leisure benefit systems affect frontline employees’ quality of life while they
Received 9 February 2012 encounter work-to-leisure conflicts. This study uses leisure benefit system satisfaction as a moderator
Accepted 12 December 2012 between work-to-leisure conflict and quality of life, based on a conceptual framework and a cross-
industry survey of 587 frontline hospitality employees in hotel/resort, tourist attraction, and airline
Keywords: industries. Results show that work-to-leisure conflict is negatively related to quality of life, leisure benefit
Job satisfaction
system satisfaction is positively related to quality of life, and the direct effect of leisure benefit system
Leisure benefit system
satisfaction on leisure satisfaction is greater than it is on job satisfaction. When a frontline employee is
Leisure satisfaction
Quality of life
highly satisfied with a leisure benefit system, leisure benefit system satisfaction is observed to exert
Work-to-leisure conflict a moderating effect between work-to-leisure conflict and quality of life. Results also show that a leisure
benefit system is a coping resource for frontline employees’ work-to-leisure conflict. This study discusses
the implications of leisure benefit systems and work-leisure balancing strategies.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction worker complaints about how rotating shifts or other irregular

Frontline employees frequently interact face-to-face with
customers, and therefore must deal with various work-related
stressors in addition to work-family conflict. Their work sched-
ules may differ from a typical Monday-to-Friday schedule. For
example, restaurant service providers (Boles & Babin, 1996) and
hospitality employees (Karatepe & Kilic, 2007; Karatepe & Sokmen,
2006; Karatepe & Uludag, 2008; Qu & Zhao, 2012) usually face these
types of non-standard work schedules. Previous studies discussed
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ886 7 8060505x5395; fax: þ886 7 8061041.
E-mail addresses: linjohui@mail.ncyu.edu.tw (J.-H. Lin), jywong@mcu.edu.tw
(J.-Y. Wong), chh436@mail.nkuht.edu.tw (C.-h. Ho).
1
Tel.: þ886 5 2732927.
2
Tel.: þ886 2 28809743.
patterns result in excessive amounts of work that prevents workers
from spending enough time in other activities, and how work
schedules interfere with their leisure time (Staines & O’Connor,
1980). Due to the nature of their work, service employees experi-
ence higher job interference with leisure time than employees in
other industries (Wong & Lin, 2007). Customer satisfaction has
been found to be associated with employee satisfaction (Spinelli &
Canavos, 2000). Thus, employee attitudes may influence hotel
guest attitudes. Managers, however, tend to neglect considering
frontline employees’ quality of life, even though it is a factor in
customer loyalty.
Organizational behavior research indicates that work-family
conflict or work-leisure conflict causes a cross-domain spillover
effect, which may have an impact on global life satisfaction (Rice,
Frone, & McFarlin, 1992). Previous research suggests that work-
family conflict may decrease service performance, and may

0261-5177/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.12.009
 J.-H. Lin et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 178e187
reduce employees’ job satisfaction or motivate their intention to
leave jobs (Karatepe & Baddar, 2006; Karatepe & Sokmen, 2006;
Zhao, Qu, & Ghiselli, 2011). Work-leisure conflict occurs when
a person faces demands from their roles in either work or leisure
life that impedes their ability to meet the demands they face from
their roles in the other area (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Managers
must take the initiative in helping their employees balance work
and leisure life.
Previous studies have demonstrated that job design and social
support are two factors that can be useful in mitigating work and
non-work conflict. Wong and Lin (2007) demonstrated that job
control and support alleviate work-to-leisure conflict and the
loading of long hours at work for service employees. Schedule
flexibility and manager support help decrease the work-family
conflict and influence job-related outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction,
turnover intentions, stress, and absenteeism) (Anderson, Coffey, &
Byerly, 2002). Supervisor support exerts a significantly positive
effect on hospitality employees’ job satisfaction and alleviates their
work-family conflict (Karatepe & Kilic, 2007).
Research has shown that benefit packages and preferred
incentive package elements can serve as motivating factors,
enabling hospitality employees to perform at expected service
levels, and enabling hospitality businesses to effectively compete in
a challenging marketplace (Upchurch, Davies, & Sverdlin, 2000).
Zhao et al. (2011) also justified the strategic management of family
friendly human resource polices in hotels. In Taiwan, the “leisure
benefit program” is a unique item among the general benefits
programs offered by organizations, including paid annual leave,
staff travel, and subsidized recreation. The term “leisure benefit
system” used in the study reflects an idiomatic usage in Taiwan’s
industry, and refers to holiday or annual leave and its associated
travel allowance provided by employers that aims to promote
employees’ well-being.
Limited research, however, has been identified that examined
the influence of leisure benefit systems on frontline employee
behaviors. The purpose of this study is to examine how leisure
benefit systems can help employees cope with role conflicts in
work and non-work life. Findings provide suggestions for human
resource (HR) managers for implementing employee-friendly
employment policies to achieve an effective work-leisure balance.
Such policies should support frontline employees with the
resources needed to reduce stress related to inter-role conflicts.
2. Literature review and hypothesis
2.1. Work-to-leisure conflict (WLC)
Workers who are part of Generation X prefer a better balance
between their work and family life, which demonstrates the value
of “work-life balance” in today’s society (Guest, 2002). Work-life
balance describes the extent to which people experience a satis-
factory balance between their performance at work and at home
while experiencing minimal conflict between these two domains
(Clark, 2000). Snir and Harpaz (2002) noted that leisure-oriented
individuals show lower levels of absolute work centrality and
intrinsic work orientation than do work-oriented individuals. The
life role value for contemporary people is leisure-oriented. From
the industry perspective, Deery and Jago (2009) proposed strate-
gies for work-life balance practices in the tourism industry, such as
flexible scheduling and both paid and unpaid leaves.
Contrary to the concept of work-life balance, Zedeck and Mosier
(1990) argued that the conflict model could properly explain the
relationship between work and life outside work. Thompson and
Bunderson (2001) indicated that work and non-work conflict
increases when individuals fail to allocate the appropriate time to
179
work, family, community, religion, and recreation activities. Staines
and O’Connor (1980) reported that service workers experienced
more scheduling conflicts than did managers or administrators due
to experiencing more work-leisure conflict. The work-leisure rela-
tionship influences their leisure time.
Work-to-leisure conflict was defined as a form of role conflict in
which the work role dominates other roles in life because of work
demands, with a consequent decrease in time, energy, and oppor-
tunity for leisure (Wong & Lin, 2007). Boles and Babin (1996) sug-
gested that increased restaurants service providers’ role stress (i.e.,
role conflict and role ambiguity) diminish job satisfaction both
directly and indirectly, while work-family conflict acts as a partial
mediator of the role stress-job satisfaction relationship. Frontline
employees have limited free time with which to engage in personal
activities and family responsibilities due to non-standard work
schedules. Wong and Lin (2007) found that work-to-leisure conflict
for service workers is related to high time demands at work, low
scheduling control, and low work-related support. They indicated
that job control (e.g., scheduling control and time-off control) and
supervisor support reduce work-to-leisure conflict for frontline
employees, and moderates job demands (e.g., heavy workloads and
long work hours). They also found that coworker support reduces
work-to-leisure conflict. Job characteristics are important factors
that can create imbalances in frontline employees’ work lives and
leisure time.
Work and non-work roles often impose mutually exclusive
demands on people’s limited resources of time, talent, and energy.
Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) indicated that individuals experience
behavior-based conflict when pressures in one role are incompat-
ible with pressures in another role. They asserted that time-based
conflict occurs when time pressures associated with one role
make it difficult to fulfill expectations in another role. The more
time people expend in responding to their roles in one area, the less
time they have for fulfilling their roles in other areas of life (Staines,
1980). Staines and O’Connor (1980) also showed that work-related
items that create work-leisure conflict include: (1) job time, (2)
shift assignment, and (3) work role and role preservation. Addi-
tionally, they demonstrated that work-leisure conflict is affected by
employees’ major roles in life and their behavioral and attitudinal
involvements at work.
2.2. Quality of life
Life satisfaction, or quality of life, includes cognitive and affec-
tive aspects; and encompasses all areas of life, including family
satisfaction, job satisfaction, and leisure satisfaction (Near, Smith,
Rice, & Hunt, 1984; Rice et al., 1992). Affective aspect is the
degree to which individuals feel pleasant experiences, and cogni-
tive aspect is the degree to which individuals perceive if aspirations
are achieved (Diener, 1994). Well-being is subjective, referring to
happiness, quality of life, and life satisfaction (Gilbert & Abdullah,
2004); and is a global, positive reflection of one’s life (Diener,
1994). Psychological and physical healths are major factors
contributing to personal satisfaction, and help define a person’s
quality of life (Iso-Ahola & Wessinger, 1984).
Job satisfaction is one of the most widely studied outcomes of
conflict (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). A number of hospitality studies
have examined the relationship between work-family conflict and
job satisfaction in the industry. Namasivayam and Mount (2004)
investigated the direct effects of work-to-family conflict on
employees’ job satisfaction, and found that work-to-family conflict
issues are related to lower job satisfaction. Family related roles
interfering with work were also found to be negatively associated
with employees’ job satisfaction (Karatepe & Sokmen, 2006;
Namasivayam & Zhao, 2007). A supportive work-family culture in
180 J.-H. Lin et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 178e187
organizations may help relieve work-family conflict. Evidence
suggests that the provision of family-friendly benefits will yield
promising results, such as increased organizational commitment,
reduced turnover intentions, and increased productivity and
performance, which in turn yields high job satisfaction (Enz &
Siguaw, 2000; Mulvaney, O’Neill, Cleveland, & Crouter, 2007;
Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999; Zhao et al., 2011). The nego-
tiation between work-family conflict and job satisfaction has
become one major issue for human resources management in the
hospitality industry (Karatepe & Baddar, 2006; Karatepe & Sokmen,
2006; Mulvaney et al., 2007; Namasivayam & Mount, 2004;
Namasivayam & Zhao, 2007; Qu & Zhao, 2012; Zhao et al., 2011).
Like job satisfaction, satisfaction with free time activities is
viewed conceptually as one component of life satisfaction (Near
et al., 1984). Recreational activities and holidays can create enjoy-
ment and a good quality of life. Gilbert and Abdullah (2004) illus-
trated that a group holiday creates a higher sense of well-being for
employees, both before and after a trip, than for workers who don’t
take group holidays. Free time creates satisfaction, similar to work
and family satisfaction, and affects overall satisfaction (Allen &
Beattie, 1984; Near et al., 1984). The importance of holidays/
leisure/tourism to quality of life has been repeatedly verified
(Gilbert & Abdullah, 2004; Iso-Ahola & Wessinger, 1984; Karnitis,
2006; Neal, Uysal, & Sirgy, 2007; Sirgy, Kruger, Lee, & Yu, 2011).
Limited research, however, has paid attention to the relationship
between work/non-work conflict and leisure satisfaction, a major
component of global life satisfaction (Near et al., 1984; Rice et al.,
1992), which may affect people’s quality of life (Neulinger, 1982).
To complete the consideration by previous research of work/non-
work conflict, work and leisure satisfaction are regarded as spill-
over outcomes of role conflict. This study examines the relationship
between work-leisure conflict and leisure satisfaction.
2.3. Leisure benefit systems
A work benefit is a basic form of compensation (also known as
indirect compensation) for employees that aims to improve their
quality of life (Strutton & Knouse, 1997). In recent years, family-
friendly workplaces have gradually created flexible workplace
policies as a part of their business due to concerns like recruitment
and retention of workers, a proper balance between work and
leisure, and enhancement of employee well-being (Heshizer, 1994;
Lewis, 1997, 2003). Limited research, however, exists regarding the
non-work (e.g., leisure-related) benefit system in organizations;
and in previous research, it was not being identified and discussed
specifically and separately.
Based on observation of human resource management strategy
from growing trends in Taiwan’s industry, a variety of non-work
benefit programs have been implemented in organizations. The
aim of these programs is to provide resources associated with
holiday or annual leave and to improve employees’ morale. Some
examples of flexible workplace policies include: flexible or reduced
work hours, periods of leave, and time off for holidays and vacation
(Deery & Jago, 2009; Guest, 2002; Lewis, 1997, 2003). Implement-
ing flexible benefit plans can significantly increase employees’
satisfaction with their benefits, and can also contribute somewhat
to increasing their overall satisfaction (Barber, Dunhan, &
Formisano, 1992). These benefit programs tend to meet diverse
workforce needs (Snir & Harpaz, 2002).
Managers should pay careful attention to benefit management
and human resource polices in organizations (Tremblay, Sire, &
Pelchat, 1998). Companies in the hospitality industry that facili-
tate work-family interaction with family-friendly practices and
corporate culture can increase their strategic advantages, such as
increased organizational commitment, reduced turnover, and
superior performance, compared to their competitors (Mulvaney
et al., 2007; Zhao et al., 2011). Near et al. (1984) studied the rela-
tionships between work-related variables and work satisfaction,
and found that a significant positive correlation (r ¼ 0.35) exists
between work benefits and work satisfaction. Tremblay, Sire, and
Balkin (2000) surveyed Canadian employees, and found that
benefit satisfaction influences employee work attitudes.
Attractive and organized benefit systems are predictor variables
for employee satisfaction in the hospitality industry (Spinelli &
Canavos, 2000). Benefits related to leisure might also affect
employees’ work attitudes (Boon, 2006). Extended vacation time is
a favorite job design for leisure-oriented employees (Snir & Harpaz,
2002). Thomas and Ganster (1995) suggested that employee
perceptions of non-work support reflect benefit programs available
to them, such as flexibility in work scheduling and the possibility of
arranging or accommodating requests for time off.
2.4. Conceptual framework and hypotheses development
This study describes the relationships between work-leisure
conflict and job or leisure satisfaction based on the spillover
theory (Wilensky, 1960) and in keeping with the work-life balance
viewpoint (Guest, 2002). The spillover theory states that work
experience extends to many areas of life outside of the workplace,
and therefore affects individuals’ attitudes and behaviors
(Wilensky, 1960). Satisfaction with work and leisure can be seen as
an outcome variable of work and non-work conflict (Rice et al.,
1992).
This study defines work-to-leisure conflict as a frontline
employee’s sense of pressure from work interfering with leisure
time due to having to work different shifts. Quality of life is the level
of satisfaction that a frontline worker has toward work and leisure.
Leisure benefit system satisfaction includes contentment with
leisure benefits, including paid annual leave, staff travel, and
subsidized recreation. Fig. 1 is a conceptual framework which
illustrates that work-to-leisure conflict is an independent variable
that is negatively related to an employee’s quality of life. This study
examines whether or not leisure benefits play a meaningful role in
the relationship between work-to-leisure conflict and life quality of
employees in the hospitality and tourism industry.
2.4.1. Work-to-leisure conflict and quality of life
Conflicting demands of work and leisure roles often cause
employees to face mutually exclusive dilemmas. Near et al. (1984)
indicated that there is a spillover effect between work and life
environments, for example, working conditions influence nonwork
satisfaction significantly, and living conditions are significantly
related to job satisfaction. In other words, working/living
Control variables
- Demographics
- Industrial type
Work-to-leisure Quality of life
conflict (WLC) - Job satisfaction
- Leisure satisfaction
Leisure benefit
satisfaction
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework.
 J.-H. Lin et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 178e187
conditions have a cross-domain spillover effect. Specifically, work-
family conflict has a negative effect on employee satisfaction with
job, family, and leisure; and work-leisure conflict influences job and
leisure satisfaction (Rice et al., 1992). It creates a spillover effect on
work in addition to lower leisure satisfaction (Staines & O’Connor,
1980).
Individual perception of freedom is a fundamental human need,
and is essential to a sense of well-being. Individuals who perceive
that they enjoy little or no freedom may experience a lack of
satisfaction in leisure activities (Ellis & Witt, 1986). Frontline jobs
often involve long hours and irregular scheduling. Employees thus
experience difficulty in arranging time off from work, reducing
their ability to enjoy leisure. Mulvaney et al. (2007) proposed
a model of work-family dynamics for hotel managers; and exam-
ined the relationship between conflict and quality of life at the
individual, family, and organization levels. A lack of satisfaction
with leisure may lead to a negative perception of the quality of
leisure life.
A person’s time and energy are scarce resources. Higher work
involvement often results in higher dissatisfaction with off-the-job
activities (Staines, 1980). Both work satisfaction and leisure satis-
faction are negatively affected by work-leisure conflict (Staines &
O’Connor, 1980). On the other hand, Guest (2002) suggested
a model of work-life balance where work and life satisfaction are
the consequences of balanced work-life domains. Specifically, work
interference with leisure impacts employees’ leisure life and
creates a spillover effect at work. Based on this logic, the study
assumes a significant relationship between work-to-leisure conflict
and quality of life for frontline employees in the industry.
H1a. Frontline employees’ work-to-leisure conflict is significantly
and negatively related to job satisfaction.
H1b. Frontline employees’ work-to-leisure conflict is significantly
and negatively related to leisure satisfaction.
2.4.2. Leisure benefit systems and quality of life
Limited research exists regarding leisure benefit systems in
organizations, so studies on similar topics will be reviewed to
justify the arguments in this study. Employee satisfaction with
work benefits is positively associated with job satisfaction, and is
a more suitable predictor of job satisfaction than pay satisfaction
(Tremblay et al., 2000). Near et al. (1984) indicated that job benefits
have a positive effect on work satisfaction. Williams, Malos, and
Palmer (2002) investigated employees from manufacturing
companies, and concluded that benefit system and benefit level
satisfaction are positively related to global job satisfaction.
However, Heshizer (1994) investigated employees of financial
institutions and hospitals, and found that satisfaction with benefits
is not obviously related to job satisfaction among those employees.
Despite different conclusions, research shows that benefit packages
are important factors in promoting employee satisfaction (Barber
et al., 1992). The influence of leisure benefit system on
employees’ quality of life is worthy of further investigation.
Holidays are regarded as predictors of benefits, and should be
offered by employers and taken by employees (Williams, 1995).
Taking some women employed in a Canadian school district as an
example, Kirchmeyer and Cohen (1999) determined that time-off
and flexible working arrangements can lower interference from
work. Lewis, Cooper, Smithson, and Dyer (2001) also pointed out
that some male workers make use of flexible working arrange-
ments for leisure activities. Findings of these studies imply that
leisure-related benefit policies are a way to satisfy the leisure
demands of frontline employees, and probably function as
resources that moderate work pressures.
181
Leisure participation also has a positive effect on individual
satisfaction, psychological well-being, and health; and helps indi-
viduals cope with their stress (Coleman, 1993; Coleman & Iso-
Ahola, 1993). Gilbert and Abdullah (2004) concluded that taking
a vacation creates a sense of satisfaction, generating positive moods
that enhance one’s sense of well-being. Leisure benefits provided
by employers are mainly designed to satisfy employees’ expecta-
tions of leisure life. Consequently, the provision of leisure benefit
system may help reduce role conflict for frontline employees and
promote their life satisfaction. Similarly, Upchurch et al. (2000)
indicated that benefit packages such as vacations, flexible hours,
annual staff parties, and free hotel stays are important to Russian
hotel workers. Benefits packages help induce hospitality employees
to perform consistently at expected service levels. Following the
line of the previous research, this study aims to examine whether or
not the relationship between leisure benefit system satisfaction
and job/leisure satisfaction is similar to the previously proposed
relationship between benefit system satisfaction and global job
satisfaction (Near et al., 1984; Williams et al., 2002).
H2a. Frontline employee’s satisfaction with leisure benefit system
is significantly and positively related to job satisfaction.
H2b. Frontline employee’s satisfaction with leisure benefit system
is significantly and positively related to leisure satisfaction.
2.4.3. Moderating effect of leisure benefit systems
Previous research has indicated that vacations act as stress
buffers, reducing the adverse impact of stress on mental health
(Strauss-Blasche, Ekmekcioglu, & Marktl, 2002). Lounsbury and
Hoopes (1986) surveyed a variety of workers in technical, admin-
istrative, clerical, and service positions; and described the effect of
vacation on life satisfaction. They argued that satisfaction is
generally higher after a vacation, and that satisfaction with vaca-
tions moderates the relationship between vacation and life satis-
faction. Trenberth, Dewe, and Walkey (1999) explored leisure and
its coping role in work-related stress, and showed that leisure could
be useful in coping with work-related stress because of its active-
challenge and passive-recuperative natures. A survey of 53
employees from an Austrian company demonstrated that a restful
and recuperative vacation may buffer post-vacation occupational
stress with respect to physical complaints and life satisfaction
(Strauss-Blasche et al., 2002). The survey results also suggested that
leisure moderates stress primarily when stress levels are relatively
high.
Recent studies pay significant attention to the role of leisure as
a coping resource or strategy for dealing with stress (Heintzman &
Mannell, 2003; Iwasaki & Mannell, 2000). In a model of leisure style
and spiritual well-being relationships, Heintzman and Mannell
(2003) illustrated that the spiritual functions of leisure may also
serve as a coping strategy to ameliorate the negative influence of
time constraints on spiritual well-being. Iwasaki and Mannell
(2000) classified the various ways that leisure might help people
cope with stress as follows: fostering a self-determination dispo-
sition, enhancing social supports, empowering leisure, enabling
palliative coping, and enhancing moods. Leisure, acting as a coping
strategy, provides individuals with an opportunity to gain renewed
energy and a better attitude that enables them to more effectively
deal with stress.
Benefit plans, provided by employers, are resources for assisting
employees in coordinating leisure time and holidays, thereby
helping employees to more effectively manage work stress. Based
on this notion, this study asserts that, when frontline employees
experience work-to-leisure conflict (e.g., when they fail to balance
work and leisure time, and thereby experience higher work-leisure
182 J.-H. Lin et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 178e187

conflict and lower life quality), the relationships between work-to- Items are scored on a 5-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (never) to
leisure conflict and life satisfaction could be moderated by leisure 5 (very often). The higher the score, the more frequently frontline
benefit systems, which plays an important role as a buffer against employees perceive conflict between work and leisure.
inter-role conflict.
3.2.2. Dependent variables
H3a. Leisure benefit system satisfaction significantly moderates
This study incorporates job satisfaction (JSAT) and leisure
the negative effect of work-to-leisure conflict on frontline
satisfaction (LSAT) into quality of life. A job satisfaction scale (4
employees’ job satisfaction.
items) was adapted from Anderson et al.’s (2002) study. A single
H3b. Leisure benefit system satisfaction significantly moderates item was added to assess perceived global job satisfaction. Exam-
the negative effect of work-to-leisure conflict on frontline ples of items include: “The work I do on my job is meaningful to
employees’ leisure satisfaction. me,” and “All in all, I am satisfied with my job.” A leisure satisfaction
scale (4 items) was partly derived from a scale of satisfaction with
leisure experiences on overall and leisure life satisfaction devel-
3. Methodology oped by Neal, Sirgy, and Uysal (1999). Examples of items include:
“Leisure time after work is very important to me,” and “I have been
3.1. Sampling and data collection feeling very good about the way I spend my leisure time after
work.” Respondents were asked to measure the degree of satis-
This study conducts quota sampling using frontline employees faction with work and leisure using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging
from various industries, including hotels/resorts, tourist attractions, from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.
and airlines. A total of 900 questionnaires were distributed to
employees who had served in their positions for more than one 3.2.3. Moderator
year. 672 questionnaires were returned, of which 587 were valid, A scale of leisure benefit system satisfaction (4 items) was
indicating a 74.7% response rate and a 65.2% effective response rate. adapted from a study conducted by Williams et al. (2002). Their
Table 1 shows the proportion of workers from each industry: 42.8% benefit system satisfaction items (e.g., how the benefits program is
for airlines, 34.7% for hotels/resorts, and 22.5% for tourist attrac- administered, the effectiveness of the system that provides my
tions. Approximately three-fourths (76.1%) of the respondents were benefits, and the efficiency with which benefits are provided) were
females. Nearly half (48.9%) the respondents were under the age of modified to measure leisure benefit system satisfaction in this
30, and more than two-thirds (68.5%) had professional or college study. Respondents reported their answers using a 5-point Likert
degrees. More than half of the respondents were single (53.5%), and scale ranging from (1) very dissatisfied to (5) very satisfied.
two-thirds (66.9%) had no children. Service employees represented
83% of the total, and about one-fourth (26.9%) had worked in their 3.2.4. Control variables
current positions under 2 years, and 21.5% had worked for 2e5 Demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, education, marital
years. status, and position) were treated as control variables in this study.
Staines and O’Connor (1980) indicated that work-leisure conflict is
3.2. Measurement clearly related to the demographic characteristics of the employees.
Baum, Lam, and Zhang (2001) examined the relationship between
3.2.1. Independent variable hotel employee demographics and job satisfaction, and found
This study uses a work-to-leisure conflict (5 items) scale adapted significant differences between demographics and employee job
from the work-family conflict research conducted by Anderson satisfaction. Correlations were also found between demographics,
et al. (2002). Examples of items include: “I do not have enough work-family conflict, and satisfaction in Karatepe and Baddar
time for leisure because of my job,” and “I have never been in as (2006) and Karatepe and Kilic (2007). Age and organizational
good of a mood as I might prefer for leisure because of my job.” tenure exhibit a positive relationship (r ¼ 0.46), as do number of
children and marital status (r ¼ 0.35); so “age” and “marital status”
were chosen as the control variables in this study. Different types of
Table 1 industries also reveal significant differences in work and leisure
Profiles of the respondents (n ¼ 587).
satisfaction, so the industrial type was also chosen as a control
Demographics n % Characteristic n % variable.
Gender Marital status
Male 140 23.9 Married 273 46.5 3.3. Descriptive statistics, correlation, reliability, and validity
Female 447 76.1 Single 314 53.5
Age Position
Under 30 years 287 48.9 Manager 100 17.0 The means of the four primary variables in this study (i.e., work-
31e40 years 232 39.5 Service 487 83.0 to-leisure conflict, leisure benefit system satisfaction, job satisfac-
employees tion, and leisure satisfaction) are between 3.01 and 3.68, and the
Above 41 years 68 11.6 Organizational standard deviations are 0.58e0.86. The relationships between all
tenure
Education Under 2 years 158 26.9
variables are 0.29e0.26. A significant negative relationship was
High school 185 31.5 2e under 5 years 126 21.5 found among work-to-leisure conflict, JSAT, and LSAT
College or 386 65.8 5e under 7 years 108 18.4 (r ¼ 0.42, 0.28), while a positive relationship was identified
university among leisure benefit system satisfaction, JSAT, and LSAT (r ¼ 0.48,
graduate 7e under 10 years 92 15.7
0.24), and between JSAT and LSAT (r ¼ 0.31). Table 2 displays the
Post graduate 16 2.7 Above10 years 103 17.5
education descriptive statistics and correlations for these variables. The
Number of children Industrial type square root of each construct’s average variances extracted (0.75e
0 393 66.9 Airlines 251 42.8 0.79) is larger than the pair-wise correlations of the constructs, so
1 84 14.3 Hotels/resorts 204 34.7 each construct exhibits discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker,
2 73 12.4 Tourist attractions 132 22.5
3 and above 37 6.3
1981). The average variances extracted (AVE, 0.57e0.63) for
constructs in Table 3 are used to calculate the average explained
 J.-H. Lin et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 178e187 183

Table 2
Means, standard deviations, and correlations.a

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Genderd e
2. Aged 0.21**
3. Educationd 0.12** 0.16**
4. Marital statusd 0.05 0.50** 0.14**
5. Positiond 0.21** 0.33** 0.06 0.17**
6. Industrial typedeairlines 0.34** 0.08* 0.51** 0.09* 0.18**
7. Industrial typed-Hotels/resorts 0.20** 0.06 0.09* 0.27** 0.17** 0.63**
8. Work-to-leisure conflict (WLC) 0.13** 0.21** 0.22** 0.22** 0.10* 0.26** 0.03 (0.79)b
9. Leisure benefit system satisfaction 0.23** 0.18** 0.11** 0.10* 0.13** 0.22** 0.17** 0.46** (0.77)
10. Job satisfaction (JSAT) 0.18** 0.19** 0.20** 0.11** 0.19** 0.29** 0.16** 0.42** 0.48** (0.75)
11. Leisure satisfaction (LSAT) 0.17** 0.10* 0.07* 0.11** 0.10* 0.13** 0.01 0.28** 0.24** 0.31** (0.77)
Meansc e 1.65 1.71 e e e e 3.20 3.01 3.51 3.68
Standard deviations e 0.75 0.51 e e e e 0.86 0.75 0.65 0.58
VIF 1.22 1.52 1.66 1.50 1.24 2.95 2.07 1.41 1.35 e e

**p < 0.05; *p < 0.1.

a
Construct correlations are estimates from a confirmatory factor analysis of measurement model.
b
Bold numbers on the diagonal parentheses are square root of each construct’s AVE.
c
Composite scores for each latent variable were obtained by averaging scores across items representing that measure.
d
Gender, marital status, position and industrial types was measured as a dichotomous variable. Age was measured as a continuous variable (1 ¼ under 30 years, 2 ¼ 31e40
years, 3 ¼ above 41 years); education was measured as three categories (1 ¼ high school, 2 ¼ college or university graduate, 3 ¼ post graduate education).

variance of measurements to constructs; values above 0.5 indicate
a convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Confirmatory factor analysis is used to examine the measure-
ment model. Completely standardized estimates (l) of the eighteen
measurements are within 0.59e0.89, indicating that the
significance level (t > 1.96) and individual item reliability are
achieved. In Table 3, the composite reliability is between 0.85 and
0.89 (greater than 0.60). The research model thus is internally valid,
and the measurements demonstrate construct reliability (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). Results demonstrated that GFI and AGFI both exceed

Table 3
Results of the confirmatory factor analysis.

Measurement itema Means/standard deviations lb(t-value) R2(error variance) Composite AVEd

reliabilityc
Work-to-leisure conflict (WLC) 0.89 0.63
I do not have enough time for leisure 3.22/1.02 0.83 (23.6) 0.69 (0.33)
because of my job.
I do not have enough time for participating 3.58/1.02 0.75 (20.7) 0.57 (0.45)
in leisure with my family or friends because
of my job.
I do not have sufficient energy for participating 3.17/1.01 0.83 (23.4) 0.69 (0.32)
in leisure activities because of my job.
I am not able to participate in leisure activities 3.21/1.04 0.89 (26.1) 0.78 (0.23)
because of my job.
I have never been in as good of a mood as I might 2.84/1.00 0.70 (18.5) 0.50 (0.49)
prefer for leisure because of my job.
Leisure benefit system satisfaction 0.85 0.59
How the leisure benefit system is administered. 2.93/0.92 0.67 (16.6) 0.45 (0.47)
The effectiveness of the system that provides my 3.07/0.89 0.73 (18.7) 0.53 (0.37)
leisure benefits.
The arrangements my organization has made for 2.99/0.91 0.73 (19.0) 0.54 (0.38)
the delivery of my leisure benefits.
The efficiency with which leisure benefits are 3.04/0.92 0.81 (21.5) 0.65 (0.29)
provided.
Job satisfaction (JSAT) 0.87 0.57
The work I do on my job is meaningful to me. 3.70/0.84 0.64 (15.9) 0.41 (0.41)
At the organization where I work, I am treated 3.27/0.92 0.76 (19.7) 0.57 (0.36)
with respect.
I feel I am really a part of the group of people I 3.77/0.73 0.67 (16.8) 0.45 (0.29)
work with.
I look forward to being with the people I work 3.47/0.83 0.66 (16.3) 0.43 (0.39)
with each day.
All in all, I am satisfied with my job. 3.35/0.88 0.72 (18.6) 0.52 (0.37)
Leisure satisfaction (LSAT) 0.85 0.59
I do things that are fulfilling when I am off work. 3.24/0.87 0.59 (13.8) 0.40 (0.49)
I have been feeling very good about the way I spend 3.86/0.73 0.64 (14.7) 0.41 (0.31)
my leisure time after work.
I am the kind of person who knows how to enjoy 3.68/0.71 0.83 (19.3) 0.68 (0.16)
leisure time anytime and anywhere.
My life becomes very stressful without leisure. 3.94/0.71 0.61 (13.9) 0.40 (0.32)

c2 ¼ 348.44 (p < 0.05), df ¼ 125, NCI ¼ 2.79, GFI ¼ 0.94, AGFI ¼ 0.91, RMR ¼ 0.050, RMSEA ¼ 0.057.
a
Each item is measured on five-point scales.
b
All completely standardized estimates (l) are statistically significant, p < 0.05.
P P P
c
CR ¼ ( l)2(var)/(( l)2(var) þ errors) (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1992).
P P P
d
AVE (rvc) ¼ ( l2)(var)/(( l2)(var) þ errors) (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1992).
184 J.-H. Lin et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 178e187

the threshold 0.90, and SRMR and RMSEA are less than 0.08 (Bollen, Table 5
1990). The c2 statistic, however, achieves a significant level, so the Result of hierarchical and moderated regression analysis for the leisure satisfaction
(LSAT).
NCI (normed Chi-square index) is used as a substitute index for the
c2 test. Based on the suggested NCI value between 2 and 5 (Bagozzi Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
& Yi, 1988), the NCI for the model in this study is 2.79, indicating its Gender e femalea 0.12** 0.12** 0.10** 0.10**
model fit is acceptable. The variance inflation factor (VIF) was Ageb 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03
Educationb 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05
tested to insure that there are no potential problems of multi-
Marital statusaesingle 0.09* 0.05 0.05 0.06
collinearity for variables (Neter, Wasserman, & Kutner, 1989). The Positionaeservice 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
VIF is the inverse of tolerance; the smaller the value, the less employees
collinearity between variables. In Table 2, the VIF of the predictors Industrial typeaeairlines 0.17** 0.09 0.10 0.11*
for the regression model is between 1.22 and 2.95 (less than 10). Industrial typeaehotels 0.10* 0.07 0.09 0.09*
Work-to-leisure conflict 0.24** 0.18** 0.27*
(WLC)
4. Results Leisure benefit system 0.13** 0.56**
satisfaction
WLC  Leisure benefit 0.48**
This study conducts a hierarchical moderated multiple regres- system satisfaction
sion analysis to test the research hypotheses. The analysis was F statistic 4.70** 8.17** 8.18** 8.45**
carried out for the dependent variables (i.e., job satisfaction and Adjusted R2 0.04 0.09 0.12 0.14
leisure satisfaction), and moderating variable blocks were added in D R2 e 0.05** 0.03** 0.02**
the following order. Step 1 includes the demographic variables and D-Wc 1.94 1.94 1.96 1.93

industrial type, and Step 2 adds work-to-leisure conflict. Leisure All coefficients reported are standardized betas; *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05.
a
benefit system satisfaction was added in Step 3, followed by the Gender, marital status, position and industrial types was measured as
a dichotomous variable.
addition of interaction terms between work-to-leisure conflict and b
Age was measured as a continuous variable (1 ¼ under 30 years, 2 ¼ 31e40
leisure benefit system satisfaction in Step 4. The DurbineWatson years, 3 ¼ above 41 years); education was measured as three categories (1 ¼ high
statistic is used to determine if an autocorrelation is present in school, 2 ¼ college or university graduate, 3 ¼ post graduate education).
c
the residuals from a regression analysis. In Table 4 and Table 5, the The DurbineWatson statistic is between 1.93 and 1.96.
DurbineWatson statistic in this study is between 1.86 and 1.96,
indicating that it matches the demand of regression analyses.
adds the twoeway interaction term of work-to-leisure conflict and
leisure benefit system satisfaction. The negative relationship of
4.1. Direct effect work-to-leisure conflict and JSAT decreases from 0.33 to 0.21 in
this model, and the moderating effect does not achieve significance.
The demographic and industrial type variables in Model 1 are all The lower the work-to-leisure conflict employees’ experienced, the
controlled for JSAT and LSAT. As Table 4 shows, work-to-leisure higher their job satisfaction. The higher the employees’ satisfaction
conflict accounts for 22% of the variance in JSAT in Model 2 and is with their leisure benefit system, the higher their job satisfaction.
negatively correlated (b ¼ 0.35, p < 0.01) with JSAT. In Model 3, The result supports the hypotheses, H1a and H2a, that leisure benefit
leisure benefit system satisfaction represents 31% of the JSAT system satisfaction only has a direct effect on job satisfaction.
variance, and a significant relationship exists between leisure In Table 5, work-to-leisure conflict in Model 2 accounts for 9% of
benefit system satisfaction and JSAT (b ¼ 0.33, p < 0.01). Model 4 the LSAT variance, and these two terms exhibit a negative rela-
tionship (b ¼ 0.24, p < 0.01). In Model 3, leisure benefit system
satisfaction and LSAT have a significant positive relationship
Table 4
Result of hierarchical and moderated regression analysis for the job satisfaction (b ¼ 0.13, p < 0.01), where leisure benefit system satisfaction
(JSAT). represents 12% of the LSAT variance and the negative relationship
of work-to-leisure conflict and LSAT decreases from 0.24 to 0.18.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Model 4 adds the twoeway interaction term for work-to-leisure
Gender e femalea 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01
Ageb 0.10** 0.07 0.04 0.05
conflict and leisure benefit system satisfaction; and the explained
Educationb 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 variance increases to 14%, revealing a strong moderating effect. The
Marital statusaesingle 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 relationships among LSAT, work-to-leisure conflict, and leisure
Positionaeservice 0.11** 0.11** 0.10** 0.10** benefit system satisfaction also change significantly. The relation-
employees
ship of work-to-leisure conflict with LSAT changes from 0.18 to
Industrial typeaeairlines 0.20** 0.08 0.09 0.09
Industrial typeaehotels 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.27, and that of leisure benefit system satisfaction with LSAT rises
Work-to-leisure conflict 0.35** 0.33** 0.21** from 0.13 to 0.56. Leisure benefit system satisfaction has a direct
(WLC) effect on leisure satisfaction and a moderating effect on work-to-
Leisure benefit system 0.33** 0.22* leisure conflict. These results support H1b, H2b, and H3b.
satisfaction
WLC  leisure benefit 0.13
system satisfaction
F statistic 12.3** 22.2** 29.8** 26.9**
4.2. Moderating effect
Adjusted R2 0.12 0.22 0.31 0.32
DR2 e 0.10** 0.09** 0.01 Respondents were then divided into two groups, high-level
D-Wc 1.87 1.86 1.92 1.92 leisure benefit system satisfaction (mean ¼ 3.35; n ¼ 330) and
All coefficients reported are standardized betas; *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05. low-level leisure benefit system satisfaction (mean ¼ 2.74;
a
Gender, marital status, position and industrial types was measured as n ¼ 257), based on whether their leisure benefit system satisfaction
a dichotomous variable. scores were above or below 3, the middle value of the scale, to
b
Age was measured as a continuous variable (1 ¼ under 30 years, 2 ¼ 31e40
years, 3 ¼ above 41 years); education was measured as three categories (1 ¼ high
examine how satisfaction with leisure benefit system allows
school, 2 ¼ college or university graduate, 3 ¼ post graduate education). employees to cope with the stress of work-to-leisure conflict.
c
The DurbineWatson statistic is between 1.86 and 1.92. Additionally, this study used a simple regression analysis to
 J.-H. Lin et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 178e187
investigate the negative relationship between work-to-leisure
conflict and leisure satisfaction.
Fig. 2 shows that when frontline employees have a low satis-
faction with a leisure benefit system, their leisure satisfaction is also
relatively low. Based on the low-level leisure benefit system satis-
faction value shown in Fig. 2, the correlation between work-to-
leisure conflict and LSAT is 0.32. On the other hand, as leisure
benefit system satisfaction increases, the relationship between
work-to-leisure conflict and LSAT becomes only 0.13 according to
the high-level leisure benefit system satisfaction value in Fig. 2.
Both the high-level and low-level slopes between work-to-leisure
conflict and LSAT indicate that the higher the leisure benefit
system satisfaction, the lower the negative relationship between
work-to-leisure conflict and LSAT. In other words, even confronted
with work-to-leisure conflict, the leisure satisfaction for employees
with high-level leisure benefit system satisfaction would not be
lowered significantly. The results imply that leisure benefit system
satisfaction could moderate the deleterious effect of work-to-
leisure conflict on leisure satisfaction.
5. Discussion
The results of this study show that work-to-leisure conflicts
could influence frontline workers’ job satisfaction and leisure
satisfaction, which supports the notion of the spillover theory that
employees’ emotions and behaviors in one domain would carry
over into other domains (Staines, 1980). Additionally, the rela-
tionship between inter-role conflict and perceived quality of life
also corresponds to Rice et al.’s (1992) findings. The differences
between role conflict and life satisfaction might be caused by non-
standard work schedules of frontline employees in the hospitality
and tourism industry. Their work patterns contribute to work-to-
leisure conflicts, and that spills over into employees’ job domains
and leisure life.
One major finding of this study is that the relationship between
leisure benefit system satisfaction and JSAT is higher than that
between leisure benefit system satisfaction and LSAT (þ0.33
vs. þ0.13). It justifies that organizational benefits are still work-
related characteristics, and their direct effect on work conditions
is always higher than satisfaction with free time activities (Near
et al., 1984). Moreover, the attributes of frontline employees’
working environments reduce time spent on leisure activities and
holiday-taking. The provision of leisure benefit systems thus could
enhance employees’ quality of life both at work and away from
work.
This study illustrates the moderating effect of leisure benefit
system on role conflict in frontline employees. The leisure benefit
LSAT (Leisure satisfaction)
5 of adequate leisure benefits, which leads to a better work and
Leisure benefit system
4
satisfaction-High level
3 the more satisfied employees are” may hold for hospitality and
Leisure benefit system
satisfaction-Low level
2
1 moderating effect of leisure benefit systems can be applied to
0
2 4 6 8 10
WLC (Work-to-leisure conflict)
Fig. 2. Moderating effect of leisure benefit system satisfaction. Note: Leisure benefit
system satisfaction-high level: LSAT ¼ 4.43e0.13*WLC. Leisure benefit system
satisfaction-low level: LSAT ¼ 4.45e0.32*WLC.
185
system should be developed to respond to employees’ need for
leisure. Work-to-leisure conflict ceases to function as a negative
factor when the negative relationship between work-to-leisure
conflict and LSAT disappears. Instead, the moderation of leisure
benefit system satisfaction leads to a slightly positive relationship
between work-to-leisure conflict and LSAT, changing from 0.18 to
0.27. This finding confirms that satisfaction with a leisure benefit
system offers a coping mechanism for work-to-leisure conflict,
which in turn may lead to better job and leisure satisfaction, and
meanwhile adds to the literature by documenting some issues not
yet raised. While previous studies only discuss the relationship
between leisure benefit policies and employees’ behaviors (Barber
et al., 1992; Heshizer, 1994; Lewis, 1997, 2003; Snir & Harpaz, 2002;
Strauss-Blasche et al., 2002) but fail to explore the correlation
between benefit system satisfaction and work-to-leisure conflicts,
this study focuses on the relationship between leisure-oriented
benefit system and quality of life to justify the positive effects of
leisure benefit system for frontline employees to help achieve
a balanced life of work and leisure.
6. Implications and further research
This study examines inter-role conflict to address the manage-
rial implications of innovative work-leisure facilitation practices.
Supervisors could value and adopt a leisure-related benefit system
as a tool to minimize conflict. By allowing employees to choose
organizational rewards that match their needs, such as extended
vacation time, compensatory time-off, and subsidized recreation,
managers may be able to increase employees’ work motivation, job
satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Snir & Harpaz, 2002).
These management practices may help provide the benefits
necessary to diminish the perceived work-to-leisure conflict
experienced by frontline employees.
Leisure-related benefits can be seen as a form of compensative
corporate benefit, and can play an important role as a stress coping
resource for frontline employees facing role conflict. Specifically,
leisure benefit systems are a motivational factor that may act as
a buffer against the negative effects of work-leisure conflict.
Frontline employees not only work long shifts, but also face irreg-
ular schedules, which may lead to work-to-leisure conflict. Under
such circumstances, employees usually experience role conflict
between work and leisure life. Thus, a work-leisure balance practice
could be launched to negotiate conflict.
Leisure benefit practices appear to help employees deal with
their work-leisure needs while enhancing employee life satisfac-
tion. Managers, for example, may release control of the conditions
governing paid annual leaves and allow employees to determine
their own traveling methods and destinations. Such empowerment
allows employees to arrange their own leisure life with greater
flexibility. Frontline employees’ satisfaction improves upon receipt
leisure life.
Although the principle of “the more leisure benefits provided,
tourism employees, there are still some issues worthy of further
investigation. First, future studies could examine whether the
employees in other industries. Second, further research is sug-
gested to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of leisure
benefit systems in human resource management to justify the
importance of provision of leisure benefit policies in organizations.
Finally, this study does not discuss the influences of external
environments on individuals, including business cycles and price
variance, which may be examined in the future research.
186 J.-H. Lin et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 178e187
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the editor and reviewers for
their helpful comments and suggestions. Besides, this paper is
based upon the results of research sponsored by the National
Science Council of the Republic of China, under project number
NSC-95-2416-H-328-004.
References
Allen, L., & Beattie, R. (1984). The role of leisure as an indicator of overall satisfaction
with community life. Journal of Leisure Research, 16, 99e109.
Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives
and informal workplace practices: links to work-family conflict and job-related
outcomes. Journal of Management, 28, 787e810.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structure equations models.
Journal of the Academic of Marketing Science, 16, 76e94.
Barber, A. E., Dunham, R. B., & Formisano, R. A. (1992). The impact of flexible
benefits on employee satisfaction: a field study. Personnel Psychology, 12, 55e74.
Baum, T., Lam, T., & Zhang, H. (2001). An investigation of employees’ job satisfac-
tion: the case of hotels in Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 22, 157e165.
Boles, J. S., & Babin, B. J. (1996). On the frontlines: stress, conflict, and the customer
service provider. Journal of Business Research, 37, 41e50.
Bollen, K. A. (1990). A comment on model evaluation and modification. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 25, 181e185.
Boon, B. (2006). When leisure and work are allies: the case of skiers and tourist
resort hotels. Career Development International, 11, 594e608.
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work-family border theory: a new theory of work-life balance.
Human Relations, 53, 747e770.
Coleman, D. (1993). Leisure based social support, leisure dispositions and health.
Journal of Leisure Research, 25, 350e361.
Coleman, D., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1993). Leisure and health: the role of social support
and self-determination. Journal of Leisure Research, 25, 111e128.
Deery, M., & Jago, L. (2009). A framework for work-life balance practices: addressing
the needs of the tourism industry. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9, 97e108.
Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being progress and opportunities. Social
Indicators Research, 31, 103e157.
Ellis, G. A., & Witt, P. A. (1986). The leisure diagnostic battery: past, present, and
future. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 20, 31e47.
Enz, C., & Siguaw, J. (2000). Best practices in human resources. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Quarterly, 41, 48e61.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unob-
servable variables and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18,
39e50.
Gilbert, D., & Abdullah, J. (2004). Holidaytaking and the sense of well-being. Annals
of Tourism Research, 31, 103e121.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family
roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76e88.
Guest, D. E. (2002). Perspectives on the study of work-life balance. Social Science
Information, 41, 255e279.
Heintzman, P., & Mannell, R. C. (2003). Spiritual functions of leisure and spiritual
well-being: coping with time pressure. Leisure Sciences, 25, 207e230.
Heshizer, B. (1994). The impact of flexible benefits plans on job satisfaction, orga-
nizational commitment and turnover intentions. Benefits Quarterly, 10, 84e90.
Iso-Ahola, S. E., & Wessinger, E. (1984). Leisure and well-being: is there a connec-
tion? Parks and Recreation, 19, 40e44.
Iwasaki, Y., & Mannell, R. (2000). Hierarchical dimensions of leisure stress coping.
Leisure Sciences, 22, 163e181.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1992). LISREL: A guide to the program and applications
(3rd ed).. Chicago: Scientific Software International Inc.
Karatepe, O. M., & Baddar, L. (2006). An empirical study of the selected conse-
quences of frontline employees’ work-family conflict and family-work conflict.
Tourism Management, 27, 1017e1028.
Karatepe, O. M., & Kilic, H. (2007). Relationships of supervisor support and conflicts
in the work-family interface with the selected job outcomes of frontline
employees. Tourism Management, 28, 238e252.
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, 255e268.
Karatepe, O. M., & Uludag, O. (2008). Role stress, burnout and their effects on
frontline hotel employees’ job performance: evidence from Northern Cyprus.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 10, 111e126.
Karnitis, E. (2006). Increasing quality of life as the goal for development of Latvia.
Applied Research in Quality of Life, 1, 125e138.
Kirchmeyer, C., & Cohen, A. (1999). Different strategies for managing the work-
nonwork interface: a test for unique pathways to work outcomes. Work &
Stress, 13, 59e73.
Kossek, E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satis-
faction relationship: a review and directions for organizational behavior-human
resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139e149.
Lewis, S. (1997). Family friendly employment policies: a route to organizational
change or playing about at the margins. Gender, Work and Organization, 4, 13e
23.
Lewis, S. (2003). The Integration of paid work and the rest of life: Is post-industrial
work the new leisure? Leisure Studies, 22, 343e355.
Lewis, S., Cooper, C., Smithson, J., & Dyer, J. (2001). Flexible futures: Flexible working
and work-life integration. Report on phase two. London: Institute of Chartered
Accountants in England and Wales.
Lounsbury, J. W., & Hoopes, L. L. (1986). A vacation from work: changes in work and
nonwork outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 392e401.
Mulvaney, R. H., O’Neill, J. W., Cleveland, J. N., & Crouter, A. C. (2007). A model of
work-family dynamics of hotel managers. Annals of Tourism Research, 34, 66e87.
Namasivayam, K., & Mount, D. J. (2004). The relationship of work-family conflicts
and family-work conflict to job satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 28, 242e250.
Namasivayam, K., & Zhao, X. (2007). An investigation of the moderating effects of
organizational commitment on the relationships between work-family conflict
and job satisfaction among hospitality employees in India. Tourism Manage-
ment, 28, 1212e1223.
Neal, J. D., Sirgy, M. J., & Uysal, M. (1999). The role of satisfaction with leisure travel/
tourism services and experience in satisfaction with leisure life and overall life.
Journal of Business Research, 44, 153e163.
Neal, J. D., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2007). The effect of tourism services on travelers’
quality of life. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 154e163.
Near, J. P., Smith, C. A., Rice, R. W., & Hunt, R. G. (1984). A comparison of work and
nonwork predictors of life satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 27,
184e190.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1989). Applied linear regression models.
Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Neulinger, J. (1982). Leisure lack and the quality of life: the broadening scope of the
leisure professional. Leisure Studies, 1, 53e64.
Qu, H., & Zhao, X. (2012). Employees’ work-family conflict moderating life and job
satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 65, 22e28.
Rice, R. W., Frone, M. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1992). Work-nonwork conflict and the
perceived quality of life. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 155e168.
Sirgy, M. J., Kruger, P. S., Lee, D. J., & Yu, G. B. (2011). How does a travel trip affect
tourists’ life satisfaction? Journal of Travel Research, 50, 261e275.
Snir, R., & Harpaz, I. (2002). Work-leisure relations: leisure orientation and the
meaning of work. Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 178e203.
Spinelli, M., & Canavos, G. (2000). Investigating the relationship between employee
satisfaction and guest satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 41, 29e33.
Staines, G. L. (1980). Spillover versus compensation: a review of the literature on
the relationship between work and nonwork. Human Relations, 33, 111e129.
Staines, G. L., & O’Connor, P. (1980). Conflicts among work, leisure, and family role.
Monthly Labor Review, 103, 35e39.
Strauss-Blasche, G., Ekmekcioglu, C., & Marktl, W. (2002). Moderating effects of
vacation on reactions to work and domestic stress. Leisure Sciences, 24, 237e
249.
Strutton, D., & Knouse, S. B. (1997). Resolving conflict through managing relation-
ships in health care institutions. The Health Care Manager, 16, 15e29.
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, C. D. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on
work-family conflict and strain: a control perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80, 6e15.
Thompson, C., Beauvais, L., & Lyness, K. (1999). When work-family benefits are not
enough: the influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organiza-
tional attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54,
392e415.
Thompson, J. A., & Bunderson, J. S. (2001). Work-nonwork conflict and the
phenomenology of time: beyond the balance metaphor. Work and Occupations,
28, 17e39.
Tremblay, M., Sire, B., & Balkin, D. B. (2000). The role of organizational justice in pay
and employee benefit satisfaction, and its effects on work attitudes. Group and
Organization Management, 25, 269e290.
Tremblay, M., Sire, B., & Pelchat, A. (1998). A study of the determinants and of the
impact of flexibility on employee benefit satisfaction. Human Relation, 51, 66e
73.
Trenberth, L., Dewe, P., & Walkey, F. (1999). Leisure and its role as a strategy for
coping with work stress. International Journal of Stress Management, 6, 89e103.
Upchurch, R. S., Davies, R., & Sverdlin, O. (2000). Motivation of the Russian worker:
an evolutionary process. Tourism Management, 21, 509e514.
Wilensky, H. L. (1960). Work, careers and social integration. International Social
Science Journal, 12, 543e560.
Williams, M. L. (1995). Antecedents of employee benefit level satisfaction: a test of
a model. Journal of Management, 21, 1097e1128.
Williams, M. L., Malos, S. B., & Palmer, D. K. (2002). Benefit system and benefit level
satisfaction: an expanded model of antecedents and consequences. Journal of
Management, 28, 195e215.
Wong, J. Y., & Lin, J. H. (2007). The role of job control and job support in adjusting
service employee’s work-to-leisure conflict. Tourism Management, 28, 726e735.
Zedeck, S., & Mosier, K. (1990). Work in the family and employing organization.
American Psychologist, 45, 240e251.
Zhao, X., Qu, H., & Ghiselli, R. (2011). Examining the relationship of work-family
conflict to job and life satisfaction: a case of hotel sales managers. Interna-
tional Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 46e54.
 J.-H. Lin et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 178e187 187

Jo-Hui Lin received her Ph.D. from the Graduate Institute
of Management at the University of Ming Chuan in Taipei,
Taiwan, ROC. She is currently an Assistant Professor in the
Graduate Institute of Recreation, Tourism, and Hospitality
Management at National Chiayi University. Her research
interests are in human resource management, consumer
behavior and tourism marketing.
Ching-hua Ho received her Ph.D. in leisure studies from
Pennsylvania State University, U.S.A. She is currently an
Assistant Professor in the Graduate Institute of Travel and
Tourism Management at National Kaohsiung University of
Hospitality and Tourism. Her research interests lie in the
areas of leisure and health across the lifespan, with
emphasis on youth and older adults.

Jehn-Yih Wong received his Ph.D. from the University of

Tsing Hua at Hsinchu, Taiwan, ROC. He is currently a
Professor in the Department of Business Administration
at Ming Chuan University. His research interests are in
human resource management, consumer behavior, and
decision-making analysis.