ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tourism Management 28 (2007) 238–252

www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Relationships of supervisor support and conflicts in the work–family

interface with the selected job outcomes of frontline employees
Osman M. Karatepe, Hasan Kilic
School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa,
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, via Mersin 10, Turkey
Received 7 July 2005; accepted 11 December 2005

Abstract

A research model investigating the relationship of supervisor support and work–family conflict with the selected job outcomes was
developed and tested using a sample of frontline employees in Northern Cyprus hotels. The results of the path analysis suggest that
supervisor support alleviates frontline employees’ conflicts in the work–family interface and increases their job satisfaction. Results
demonstrate that family–work conflict influences job performance deleteriously. In contrast, the hypothesis that work–family conflict has
a significant negative influence on job performance is not supported by the empirical data. The results of this study indicate that
work–family conflict is a significant predictor of job satisfaction, while family–work conflict is not. In addition, the hypotheses that job
performance exerts a significant positive effect on job satisfaction and job performance and job satisfaction depict significant positive
associations with affective organizational commitment are supported by the empirical data. Although not hypothesized, results reveal
that family–work conflict has a negative impact on job satisfaction indirectly by way of job performance, while family–work conflict has
a detrimental effect on affective organizational commitment indirectly via job performance and job satisfaction. The results of the path
analysis indicate that work–family conflict and job satisfaction are significant determinants of turnover intentions. This study, however,
found no evidence of significant relationships of family–work conflict and affective organizational commitment with turnover intentions.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Supervisor support; Work–family conflict; Family–work conflict; Job outcomes; Frontline employees; Northern Cyprus

1. Introduction family conflict refers to ‘‘a form of interrole conflict in which

The management of work and family responsibilities is
an increasing problem in today’s society due to dramatic
changes in the nature of families and the workforce such as
increases in the participation of women in the workforce
and the number of dual-earner families (Mcelwain,
Korabik, & Rosin, 2005). Although employees are
expected to balance the demands of their work (nonwork)
and nonwork (work) lives, their participation in both work
(nonwork) and nonwork (work) domains results in conflict.
Specifically, employees experience work–family conflict and
family–work conflict. Based on the definitions given by
Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian (1996, p. 410), work–
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 392 630 1116; fax: +90 392 365 1584.
E-mail addresses: osman.karatepe@emu.edu.tr (O.M. Karatepe),
hasan.kilic@emu.edu.tr (H. Kilic).
the general demands of, time devoted to, and strain created
by the job interfere with performing family-related respon-
sibilities’’, while family–work conflict refers to ‘‘a form of
interrole conflict in which the general demands of, time
devoted to, and strain created by the family interfere with
performing work-related responsibilities’’.
Having supervisor support in the workplace alleviates
employees’ work–family conflict and family–work conflict
(O’Driscoll et al., 2003) and increases their job satisfaction
(Sergeant & Frenkel, 2000). However, work–family conflict
or family–work conflict has a detrimental effect on job
outcomes of employees such as job performance, job
satisfaction, and turnover intentions (Eby, Casper, Lock-
wood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005; Netemeyer, Brashear-
Alejandro, & Boles, 2004; O’Driscoll, Brough, & Kalliath,
2004). Industrial evidence shows that 70% of 1626
respondents in the US reported that they did not have a

0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2005.12.019
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
O.M. Karatepe, H. Kilic / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 238–252
healthy balance between work and family domains, and
more than half of the respondents thought about leaving
the organization due to problems associated with conflicts
in the work–family interface (Armour, 2002).
The hotel industry involves a high degree of face-to-face
or voice-to-voice interaction between frontline employees
and customers. Thus, frontline employees have a significant
role in the delivery of service quality (Karatepe & Sokmen,
2006). However, frontline employees in the hotel industry
have a number of problems associated with long work
hours, irregular and inflexible work schedules, limited
weekend time off, excessive job demands, lack of training,
inadequate pay, and dysfunctional customer behaviors
(Babin & Boles, 1998; Harris & Reynolds, 2003; Hsieh &
Yen, 2005; Karatepe & Sokmen, 2006; Karatepe, Avci,
Karatepe, & Canozer, 2003; Kilic & Okumus, 2005). These
problems point to a lack of contemporary human resource
management techniques in the hotel industry. Despite this
recognition, the issues of supervisor support, work–family
conflict, and family–work conflict and their effects on
frontline employee outcomes have been largely neglected in
the tourism and hospitality literature (Karatepe & Sokmen,
2006).
Drawing from recent published work in the marketing,
organizational behavior, and psychology literatures and
recognizing a number of significant voids in the tourism
and hospitality literature, the current study aims to
investigate: (1) the effect of supervisor support on work–
family conflict, family–work conflict, and job satisfaction;
(2) the effects of work–family conflict and family–work
conflict on job performance, job satisfaction, and turnover
intentions; (3) the impact of job performance on job
satisfaction and the effects of job performance and job
satisfaction on affective organizational commitment; and
(4) the effects of job satisfaction and affective organiza-
tional commitment on turnover intentions. This study uses
a sample of frontline hotel employees in Northern Cyprus
as its setting to test the abovementioned relationships.
Following the theoretical background and research
model, the hypothesized relationships are presented. Then,
the methodology and the results of empirical study are
discussed. The study concludes with implications of the
results and directions for future research.
2. Research model and hypotheses
2.1. Research model
A synthesis of the services management and marketing
literature points to three key features of frontline employ-
ees. First, frontline employees represent their organization
(hotel) to customers, enhance the image of the organization
(hotel), and improve the organization’s (hotel’s) legitimacy
through advocacy (Bettencourt & Brown, 2003; Bowen &
Schneider, 1988). Second, as mentioned before, frontline
employees have a high degree of face-to-face or voice-to-
voice interaction with customers in the hotel industry.
239
Therefore, they are important sources of information
about customers’ requests and expectations (Bitner,
Booms, & Mohr, 1994). Third, frontline hotel employees
are the most critical link in the delivery of service
quality, and are expected to cope with a wide variety of
customers’ complaints in the service encounter and resolve
them to the satisfaction of the customer (Karatepe &
Sokmen, 2006).
Although frontline employees play a crucial role in many
aspects of the hotel business, they are often confronted
with a number of problems. For example, recent research
indicates that frontline employees have been subjected to
violent and aggressive behaviors in the service encounter
(Harris & Reynolds, 2003). As stated earlier, frontline hotel
employees often have long work hours, limited weekend
time off, heavy workloads, and irregular and inflexible
work schedules. Frontline hotel employees receive inade-
quate pay and participate in ineffective training programs.
More importantly, they try to perform job-related tasks in
a work environment where family friendly policies are
sparse and, consequently, experience elevated levels of
work–family conflict and family–work conflict.
The purpose of the present study is to investigate the
relationships of supervisor support, work–family conflict,
and family–work conflict with the selected job outcomes of
frontline employees. Specifically, this study examines: (1)
the impact of supervisor support on work–family conflict,
family–work conflict, and job satisfaction; (2) the effects of
conflicts in the work–family interface on job performance,
job satisfaction, and turnover intentions; (3) the impact of
job performance on job satisfaction and the effects of job
performance and job satisfaction on affective organiza-
tional commitment; and (4) the relationships of job
satisfaction and affective organizational commitment with
turnover intentions. The relationships depicted in Fig. 1 are
tested using data from frontline employees in Northern
Cyprus hotels as its setting.
The present study is relevant and significant for at least
three reasons. First, work–family conflict is a job-related
stressor (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992), and frontline
employees often are expected to deal with a number of
customers’ requests and complaints in a hotel organization.
It has been shown that hotels and food service outlets are
among the most stressful work environments for both
managers and employees (Law, Pearce, & Woods, 1995).
To date, a very limited number of empirical studies in the
tourism and hospitality literature have investigated the
effects of work–family conflict and family–work conflict on
employee outcomes. These individual empirical studies,
however, have produced inconsistent results pertaining to
the effects of work–family conflict and family–work
conflict on job satisfaction and turnover intentions
(Karatepe & Sokmen, 2006; Namasivayam & Mount,
2004). With this in mind, the current study tests the
relationships of work–family conflict and family–work
conflict with a number of job outcomes such as job
performance, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
240 O.M. Karatepe, H. Kilic / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 238–252

Work-family
conflict H11 (+)
(W-FCON) H6 (-)
H3 (-)
H13 (-)
Job satisfaction Turnover
H5 (+) (JSAT)
H1 (-) intentions
(TINT)

H10 (+)
Supervisor
H7 (-) H8 (+) H12 (+) H14 (-)
support
(SUPPORT)

Affective
H9 (+) organizational
H2 (-)
Job performance commitment
(JPERF) (AOC)

Family-work
conflict H4 (-)
(F-WCON)

Control variables
Age
Gender
Education
Organizational tenure
Marital status
Number of children

Fig. 1. Research model.

Second, various empirical studies have generally tested
the impact of supervisor support on work–family conflict
and demonstrated that employees receiving adequate
support from their supervisors experience less work–family
conflict (Anderson, Coffey, & Byerly, 2002; Thomas &
Ganster, 1995). Recent research, however, indicates that
very little is known about the impact of supervisor support
on family–work conflict (Frye & Breaugh, 2004). In
addition, as discussed earlier, many hotel organizations
are devoid of family friendly policies. Therefore, it is
important to investigate the effect of supervisor support on
work–family conflict and family–work conflict in the hotel
industry.
Third, the overwhelming majority of the empirical
studies regarding the issues of work–family conflict and
family–work conflict have been made in industrialized
Western and/or affluent countries (Aryee, Luk, Leung, &
Lo, 1999; Hill, Yang, Hawkins, & Ferris, 2004). More
empirical research is needed regarding the potential
antecedents and consequences of work–family conflict and
family–work conflict in developing countries.
2.2. Hypotheses
The conservation of resources (COR) theory provides a
theoretical foundation for the impact of supervisor support
on conflicts in the work–family interface and the relation-
ships of conflicts in the work–family interface with job
performance, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions. A
careful analysis of the extant literature shows that there are
several empirical studies, which have used the COR theory
in work–family conflict studies (Grandey & Cropanzano,
1999; Netemeyer, Maxham, & Pullig, 2005). The basic
ingredient of the COR theory is that individuals seek to
obtain, retain, protect, and foster resources (Hobfoll, 1989,
2002). Stress is a reaction to the environment where there is
the threat of loss of resources, an actual loss of resources,
or a lack of resource gain following the investment of
resources (Hobfoll, 1989, p. 516). Resources consist of
objects, personal characteristics, conditions, and energies
(Hobfoll, 1989, 2002). The COR theory suggests that
employees lose certain resources while juggling both work
(family) and family (work) roles. The potential or actual
loss of these resources results in ineffective job perfor-
mance, job dissatisfaction, and increased turnover inten-
tions.
Supervisor support is one of the resources that employ-
ees may need to cope with difficulties that stem from
work–family conflict and family–work conflict. Frontline
hotel employees receiving supervisor support in the work-
place are likely to experience low levels of work–family
conflict and family–work conflict. Empirical studies in the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
O.M. Karatepe, H. Kilic / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 238–252
extant literature indicate that supervisor support reduces
employees’ work–family conflict (Anderson et al., 2002;
Goff, Mount, & Jamison, 1990; Thomas & Ganster, 1995).
Recent empirical research demonstrates that employees
receiving supervisor support had low levels of work–family
conflict and family–work conflict (O’Driscoll et al., 2003).
A more recent research also shows that supervisor support
is negatively related to both work–family conflict and
family–work conflict (Frye & Breaugh, 2004).
Consistent with the COR theory and the above findings,
the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1. Supervisor support is negatively related to frontline
employees’ work–family conflict.
H2. Supervisor support is negatively related to frontline
employees’ family–work conflict.
Job performance is defined as ‘‘the level of productivity
of an individual employee, relative to his or her peers, on
several job-related behaviors and outcomes’’ (Babin &
Boles, 1998, p. 82). As is the case with many service settings
(Bettencourt & Brown, 2003), the delivery of service quality
is also highly dependent on the performance of frontline
employees in the hotel industry. As discussed before,
frontline hotel employees are susceptible to long work
hours, heavy workloads, and irregular and inflexible work
schedules. Both work–family conflict and family–work
conflict prevent frontline hotel employees from performing
prescribed job-related responsibilities due to lack of the
energy resources lost in the process of juggling both work
(family) and family (work) roles. This notion is consistent
with the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002).
In their meta-analytic inquiry, Allen, Herst, Bruck, and
Sutton (2000) reported that only a handful of studies
examined the relationship between work–family conflict
and job performance. They further reported that the
individual empirical studies produced mixed results per-
taining to the impact of work–family conflict on job
performance. Although limited in number, the individual
studies provided empirical support for the significant
negative relationship of family–work conflict with job
performance (Netemeyer et al., 1996, 2004). A recent
empirical study in the tourism and hospitality literature
reveals that Turkish frontline hotel employees experiencing
elevated levels of work–family conflict and family–work
conflict have lower levels of service recovery performance
(Karatepe & Sokmen, 2006).
Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H3. Work–family conflict is negatively related to frontline
employees’ job performance.
H4. Family–work conflict is negatively related to frontline
employees’ job performance.
Job satisfaction can be defined as an affective state
resulting from one’s evaluation of his or her job (Hartline
& Ferrell, 1996). When frontline hotel employees find that
their supervisors pay individualized attention to their
241
problems and provide adequate support for the resolution
of these problems, they may become more satisfied with
their jobs. There is empirical evidence for a positive link
between supervisor support and frontline employees’ job
satisfaction. For instance, Ross and Boles (1994) found
that supervisor support had a significant positive impact on
food servers’ job satisfaction. Sergeant and Frenkel (2000)
found evidence in call centers that supervisor support was
positively associated with frontline employees’ job satisfac-
tion. Recently, Yoon, Seo, and Yoon (2004) reported that
supervisory support had a direct positive effect on frontline
bank employees’ job satisfaction.
Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H5. Supervisor support is positively related to frontline
employees’ job satisfaction.
Work and family are the two critical domains of adult
life. Once frontline employees are confronted with high
levels of conflicts in the work–family interface, they are
likely to be dissatisfied with their jobs. The COR theory
also provides a theoretical basis for these associations.
According to the COR theory, experiencing high levels of
conflicts in the work–family interface may result in loss of
resources. If employees lose resources from the experience
of conflicts in the work–family interface, then distress
should occur in both the work and family domains
(Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999).
A very limited number of individual studies in the
tourism and hospitality literature have tested the effects of
work–family conflict and family–work conflict on job
satisfaction. These individual empirical studies, however,
have produced mixed results regarding the relationships of
conflicts in the work–family interface with job satisfaction.
For example, Namasivayam and Mount (2004) reported
that work–family conflict decreased employees’ job satis-
faction in the US hotel industry, while family–work conflict
increased their satisfaction with the job. Karatepe and
Sokmen (2006) demonstrated that family–work conflict
had a significant negative impact on frontline hotel
employees’ job satisfaction, while work–family conflict
did not. These anomalous findings underscore the need for
more empirical research regarding the effects of work–
family conflict and family–work conflict on job satisfaction
in the tourism and hospitality literature.
In light of the COR theory and the aforementioned
findings, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H6. Work–family conflict is negatively related to frontline
employees’ job satisfaction.
H7. Family–work conflict is negatively related to frontline
employees’ job satisfaction.
The research model shows that job performance is
positively associated with job satisfaction. There is mount-
ing evidence that provides support for this linkage.
Specifically, Ross and Boles (1994) showed that job
performance increased food servers’ job satisfaction. Babin
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
242 O.M. Karatepe, H. Kilic / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 238–252

and Boles (1998) found that job performance was
positively associated with food servers’ job satisfaction.
Recently, Netemeyer et al. (2004) found evidence in the
US, Puerto Rico, and Romanian samples that job
performance had a significant positive influence on sales-
people’s job satisfaction.
Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H8. Job performance is positively related to frontline
employees’ job satisfaction.
Affective organizational commitment refers to the
strength of an employee’s emotional attachment to,
identification with, and involvement in an organization
(Allen & Meyer, 1990). Prior research demonstrates that
job performance and job satisfaction are significant
predictors of salespople’s (affective) organizational com-
mitment (Low, Cravens, Grant, & Moncrief, 2001). Recent
research also indicates that job satisfaction is positively
associated with frontline employees’ affective commitment
to the organization (Bettencourt & Brown, 2003).
Hence, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H9. Job performance is positively related to frontline
employees’ affective organizational commitment.
H10. Job satisfaction is positively related to frontline
employees’ affective organizational commitment.
Individuals may think of leaving their current organiza-
tion to preserve their limited resources, if they believe that
they may not be capable of coping with difficulties
associated with work–family conflict and family–work
conflict. This notion is consistent with the COR theory.
With this realization, work–family conflict and family–
work conflict are among the critical variables that may
increase frontline hotel employees’ turnover intentions.
There is also empirical support for these linkages in the
extant literature. For instance, Boyar, Maertz, Pearson,
and Keough (2003) called for more empirical research
concerning the effects of work–family conflict and family–
work conflict on employees’ turnover intentions, and
reported that conflicts in the work–family interface had
significant positive effects on turnover intentions. Recently,
Netemeyer et al. (2004) found evidence in three different
samples that higher work–family conflict led to higher
salespeople’s turnover intentions. More recently, Karatepe
and Sokmen (2006) demonstrated that both work–family
conflict and family–work conflict triggered frontline hotel
employees’ intentions to leave the organization.
On the basis of the above information, the following
hypotheses are proposed:
H11. Work–family conflict is positively related to frontline
employees’ turnover intentions.
H12. Family–work conflict is positively related to frontline
employees’ turnover intentions.
As shown in Fig. 1, job satisfaction and affective
organizational commitment are negatively associated with
turnover intentions. Prior empirical research indicates that
job satisfaction depicts a significant negative relationship
with frontline employees’ intentions to quit (Susskind,
Borchgrevink, Kacmar, & Brymer, 2000). Recent empirical
evidence also reveals that job satisfaction and (affective)
organizational commitment are negatively related to sales-
people’s intentions to leave the organization (Low et al.,
2001).
In view of the above findings, the following hypotheses
are proposed:
H13. Job satisfaction is negatively related to frontline
employees’ turnover intentions.
H14. Affective organizational commitment is negatively
related to frontline employees’ turnover intentions.
3. Methodology
3.1. Setting and sample
The research hypotheses depicted in Fig. 1 were tested
using a sample of frontline employees in Northern Cyprus
hotels. In this study, judgmental sampling procedure was
applied. Specifically, the sample of this study consisted of
frontline employees in three-, four-, and five-star hotels in
Northern Cyprus. In order to test the relationships of
conflicts in the work–family interface with the selected job
outcomes, this study does not limit its sample to married
individuals with or without children or those having
children under the age of 18 (cf. Boyar et al., 2003). Since
single parents and other individuals may also experience
work–family conflict and family–work conflict, the current
study tests the hypothesized relationships without limiting
its sample to any sub-groupings.
Northern Cyprus is a small island destination with a
population of 211,000 (Kilic & Okumus, 2005). There are
twenty-eight 3-star hotels, eight 4-star hotels, and six 5-star
hotels in Northern Cyprus (Statistical Yearbook of
Tourism, 2003). However, one 4-star hotel and four 3-star
hotels were closed due to low season period (winter) in the
region. The research team personally received permission
from the managements of the remaining hotels for data
collection. According to the information received from the
managements of these hotels, the total number of frontline
employees was 886. Therefore, a total number of 886
questionnaires were distributed to frontline employees. All
frontline employees (e.g., front desk agents, food servers,
door attendants, beverage servers, and bell attendants) had
a high degree of face-to-face or voice-to-voice interaction
with customers and dealt with a number of customers’
inquiries and problems. The respondents were requested to
fill out the questionnaires in a self-administered manner.
The respondents also were given an assurance of con-
fidentiality. By the cut-off date for data collection, a total
number of 312 questionnaires were retrieved from frontline
employees. Of the 312 questionnaires, 16 were not usable
due to missing information. Finally, a total number of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
O.M. Karatepe, H. Kilic / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 238–252
usable 296 questionnaires were retrieved, yielding a
response rate of 33.4%.
3.2. Measurement
The items from prior studies in the marketing, organiza-
tional behavior, and psychology literatures were used or
adapted to measure supervisor support, work–family
conflict, family–work conflict, job performance, job satis-
faction, affective organizational commitment, and turnover
intentions.
Supervisor support. Supervisor support was measured
using six (6) items from Anderson et al. (2002). Responses
to the supervisor support items were elicited on a five-point
scale ranging from ‘‘5 ¼ strongly agree’’ to ‘‘1 ¼ strongly
disagree’’. Higher scores indicated higher supervisor
support.
Work–family conflict. Five (5) items from Netemeyer
et al. (1996) and Boles, Howard, and Donofrio (2001) were
used to measure work–family conflict. Each of the work–
family conflict items used a five-point scale ranging from
‘‘5 ¼ strongly agree’’ to ‘‘1 ¼ strongly disagree’’. Higher
scores indicated higher work–family conflict.
Family–work conflict. As was the case with the work–
family conflict construct, family–work conflict also was
operationalized using five (5) items from Netemeyer et al.
(1996) and Boles et al. (2001). Responses to the family–
work conflict items were elicited on a five-point scale
ranging from ‘‘5 ¼ strongly agree’’ to ‘‘1 ¼ strongly
disagree’’. Higher scores indicated higher family–work
conflict.
Job performance. Five (5) items were adapted from
Babin and Boles (1998) to measure frontline employees’ job
performance. In this study, job performance was assessed
through the use of self-report measure. Although the use of
self-report measure may lead to inflated results, there are a
number of empirical studies, which have used self-report
measures for assessing employees’ job performance (e.g.,
Low et al., 2001; Netemeyer et al., 2004). In addition, the
use of self-report measure for job performance has been
shown to be consonant with managerial assessments of
employees’ job performance (Churchill, Ford, Hartley, &
Walker, 1985). Responses to the job performance items
were elicited on a five-point scale ranging from
‘‘5 ¼ strongly agree’’ to ‘‘1 ¼ strongly disagree’’. Higher
scores indicated higher job performance.
Job satisfaction. An eight-item scale from Hartline and
Ferrell (1996) was used to operationalize job satisfaction.
The job satisfaction construct evaluated eight facets of job
satisfaction such as overall job, co-workers, supervisor(s),
hotel’s policies, support given to frontline employees, pay,
opportunities for advancement with the hotel, and hotel’s
customers. Each of the job satisfaction items used a five-
point scale ranging from ‘‘5 ¼ extremely satisfied’’ to
‘‘1 ¼ extremely dissatisfied’’. Higher scores indicated high-
er job satisfaction.
243
Affective organizational commitment. Affective organiza-
tional commitment was assessed using eight (8) items
from Allen and Meyer (1990). Respondents reported on a
five-point scale, ranging from ‘‘5 ¼ strongly agree’’ to
‘‘1 ¼ strongly disagree’’. The related items were reverse-
coded so that higher scores indicated higher affective
commitment to the organization.
Turnover intentions. Three (3) items were used from
Singh, Verbeke, and Rhoads (1996) to measure frontline
employees’ turnover intentions. Respondents used a five-
point scale, ranging from ‘‘5 ¼ strongly agree’’ to
‘‘1 ¼ strongly disagree’’. Higher scores indicated higher
turnover intentions.
In the current study, age, gender, education, organiza-
tional tenure, marital status, and the number of children
were treated as control variables. Age and education were
measured using five-point scales. The number of children
was measured using a four-point scale. Organizational
tenure was measured using a six-point scale. Higher scores
indicated older age, more educated, more children, and
longer tenure. Gender was coded as a binary variable
(0 ¼ male and 1 ¼ female). Marital status also was
coded as a binary variable (0 ¼ single or divorced and
1 ¼ married).
The questionnaire was originally prepared in English
and then translated into Turkish by using back-translation
method (McGorry, 2000). The instrument was pretested
using feedback from a pilot sample of 60 frontline
employees working in 3-, 4-, and 5-star hotels in Northern
Cyprus. The results of the pilot study indicated that
frontline employees had no difficulty in understanding the
items in the survey instrument. Therefore, no changes were
made in the survey instrument.
The measures were subjected to confirmatory factor
analysis using LISREL 8.30 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996) to
provide support for the issues of dimensionality, conver-
gent and discriminant validity (Anderson & Gerbing,
1988). The measures also were subjected to Cronbach
alpha analysis through SPSS 8.0 to provide support for the
issue of internal consistency. The research hypotheses were
measured using LISREL 8.30 through path analysis.
4. Results
4.1. Characteristics of the sample
The majority of the respondents (57.8%) were male.
Forty-six (46.3%) percent of the respondents were between
the ages of 18–27 and fifty-percent (49.7%) of the
respondents between the ages of 28–47. Little over one-
third (34.1%) of the respondents had secondary and high
school diploma and almost one-third (31.8%) 4-year
college degree. Twenty-three (22.6%) percent of the
respondents had tenures less than 1 year and 50% of
the respondents had tenures between 1 and 5 years. The
majority (55.1%) of the respondents were married. Fifty-
eight (58.4%) percent of the respondents had no children,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
244 O.M. Karatepe, H. Kilic / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 238–252
while little over one-third (33.8%) of the respondents had
children between 1 and 2, and seven (7.1%) percent had
between 3 and 4.
In addition, one-way analysis of variance and Scheffe
tests were employed to examine significant differences
between respondents having no children and those having
children regarding work–family conflict and family–work
conflict. The results indicated that the mean difference
between frontline employees having no children
(M ¼ 2:97) and those having children between 1 and 2
(M ¼ 3:36) regarding family–work conflict was significant
at the 0.05 level. This result showed that frontline
employees having children between 1 and 2 experienced
more family–work conflict than those having no children.
4.2. Psychometric properties of the measures
The measures were subjected to a series of confirmatory
factor analyses to address the issues of dimensionality,
convergent and discriminant validity (Anderson & Gerb-
ing, 1988). Four (4) items from the affective organizational
commitment scale and one (1) item from the job satisfac-
tion scale were deleted based on the recommended
psychometric criteria for item retention (cf. Netemeyer
et al., 2004). After scale purification process, the results of
the confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated a relatively
reasonable fit of the seven-factor model to the data
on the basis of a number of fit statistics (w2 ¼ 1195:39,
df ¼ 539; GFI ¼ 0.81; AGFI ¼ 0.78; NFI ¼ 0.82; NNFI
¼ 0.88; CFI ¼ 0.89; RMSEA ¼ 0.06; RMR ¼ 0.06).
Table 1 showed that the overwhelming majority of the
standardized loadings were above 0.70, and all t-values
ranging from 10.58 to 17.81 were significant. Model fit
statistics as well as the magnitudes of the loadings provided
support for convergent validity (Anderson & Gerbing,
1988).
In addition, a series of pairwise confirmatory factor
analyses were employed to assess the issue of discriminant
validity. In particular, a two-dimensional model for each
pair of study constructs was first fit, and then items
representing each factor were forced into a single factor
solution. Various fit statistics produced better results for a
two-factor model. The results strongly suggest that each set
of items represents a single underlying construct and
provides evidence for discriminant validity (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988). As demonstrated in Table 1, all reliability
coefficients have been found to be above the cut-off value
of 0.70 as recommended by Nunnally (1978).
Composite scores for each measure were calculated by
averaging scores across items representing that measure.
Table 2 indicates that the correlations among study
variables ranged from
0.15 (work–family conflict and
job performance and job performance and turnover
intentions) to 0.66 (supervisor support and job satisfaction
and job satisfaction and affective organizational commit-
ment). Means and standard deviations of the composite
scores are shown in Table 2.
4.3. Correlation analysis results
Table 2 indicates that some of the control variables have
significant correlations with the study variables. Specifi-
cally, gender has a negative correlation with job perfor-
mance (r ¼
0:15, po0:01). Education has negative
correlations with work–family conflict (r ¼
0:12,
po0:05) and family–work conflict (r ¼
0:13, po0:05).
Marital status also has a negative correlation with job
performance (r ¼
0:16, po0:01). These negative correla-
tions demonstrate that more educated employees experi-
ence less work–family conflict and family–work conflict.
The negative correlations also show that female and
married employees report lower levels of job performance.
As depicted in Table 2, education has positive correla-
tions with supervisor support (r ¼ 0:18, po0:01), job
performance (r ¼ 0:25, po0:01), job satisfaction
(r ¼ 0:17, po0:01), and affective organizational commit-
ment (r ¼ 0:17, po0:01). Marital status has positive
correlations with work–family conflict (r ¼ 0:13, po0:05)
and family–work conflict (r ¼ 0:20, po0:01). Organiza-
tional tenure also has a positive correlation with work–
family conflict (r ¼ 0:14, po0:05). These positive correla-
tions reveal that more educated employees have higher
levels of supervisor support, job performance, job satisfac-
tion and affective commitment to the organization.
Married employees report more work–family conflict and
family–work conflict. Finally, employees with longer
tenure have higher levels of work–family conflict.
4.4. Model test results
As mentioned before, the research hypotheses were
tested using LISREL 8.30 through path analysis (Joreskog
& Sorbom, 1996). According to the results of the path
analysis, the research model fits the data well (w2 ¼ 16:38,
df ¼ 6; p ¼ 0:01; GFI ¼ 0.99; AGFI ¼ 0.87; NFI ¼ 0.99;
NNFI ¼ 0.87; CFI ¼ 0.99; RMSEA ¼ 0.08; RMR ¼
0.03). Of the 14 hypotheses, 10 were supported. The main
results remain intact with or without the control variables
in the model.
Table 3 demonstrates that with the exception of
education, none of the control variables has a significant
impact on supervisor support (SUPPORT). The control
variables jointly explain 4% of the variance in super-
visor support. As depicted in Table 3, more educated
employees report higher levels of support received from
their supervisors.
Hypothesis 1 predicts that supervisor support (SUP-
PORT) is negatively related to work–family conflict
(W-FCON). The path estimate shown in Table 3 is
consistent with this prediction. Hypothesis 1 is thus
supported. Without control variables, supervisor support
explains 8% of the variance in work–family conflict. With
the addition of control variables, the proportion of
explained variance increases to 12%. Table 3 demonstrates
that age, organizational tenure, and marital status have
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
O.M. Karatepe, H. Kilic / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 238–252 245

Table 1
Scale items, reliabilities, and confirmatory factor analysis results (n ¼ 296)

Scale items Standardized t-Values Alpha

loadings

SUPPORT 0.89
My supervisor is supportive when I have a work problem. 0.72 13.84
My supervisor is fair and does not show favoritism in responding to employees’ personal or family needs. 0.74 14.31
My supervisor accommodates me when I have family or personal business to take care of, for example, 0.79 15.69
medical appointments, meeting with child’s teacher, etc.
My supervisor is understanding when I talk about personal or family issues that affect my work. 0.77 15.19
I feel comfortable bringing up personal or family issues with my supervisor. 0.75 14.68
My supervisor really cares about the effects that work demands have on my personal and family life. 0.76 14.90
W-FCON 0.86
The demands of my work interfere with home, family, and social life. 0.66 12.19
Because of my job, I cannot involve myself as much as I would like in maintaining close relations with my 0.75 14.43
family, spouse, or friends.
Things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands my job puts on me. 0.83 16.88
I often have to miss important family and social activities because of my job. 0.73 13.90
There is a conflict between my job and the commitments and responsibilities I have to my family, spouse, 0.77 15.01
or friends.
F-WCON 0.82
The demands of my family, spouse, or friends interfere with work-related activities. 0.61 10.74
I sometimes have to miss work so that family and social responsibilities are met. 0.77 14.74
Things I want to do at work do not get done because of the demands of my family, spouse, or friends. 0.81 15.86
My home and social life interfere with my responsibilities at work such as getting to work on time, 0.65 11.73
accomplishing daily tasks, and working overtime.
My co-workers and peers at work dislike how often I am preoccupied with my family and social life. 0.64 11.48

JPERF 0.87
I am a top performer. 0.72 13.68
I am in the top 10 percent of frontline employees here. 0.68 12.57
I get along better with customers than do others. 0.80 15.91
I know more about services delivered to customers. 0.82 16.32
I know what my customers expect. 0.78 15.16
JSAT 0.90
My overall job. 0.78 15.71
My fellow workers. 0.70 13.39
My supervisor(s). 0.80 16.26
This hotel’s policies. 0.83 17.27
The support provided by this hotel. 0.81 16.54
My salary. 0.66 12.41
The opportunities for advancement with this hotel. 0.71 13.66
AOC 0.76
I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this hotel. 0.69 12.63
I enjoy discussing my hotel with people outside it. 0.60 10.58
I really feel as if this hotel’s problems are my own. 0.75 14.13
This hotel has a great deal of personal meaning for me. 0.63 11.11
TINT 0.85
It is likely that I will actively look for a new job next year. 0.71 13.38
I often think about quitting. 0.87 17.81
I will probably look for a new job next year. 0.86 17.37
Model fit statistics
w2 ¼ 1195:39, df ¼ 539
GFI ¼ 0.81; AGFI ¼ 0.78
NFI ¼ 0.82; NNFI ¼ 0.88
CFI ¼ 0.89; RMSEA ¼ 0.06
RMR ¼ 0.06

Note: Each item is measured on five-point scales. SUPPORT ¼ Supervisor support; W-FCON ¼ Work–family conflict; F-WCON ¼ Family–work
conflict; JPERF ¼ Job performance; JSAT ¼ Job satisfaction; AOC ¼ Affective organizational commitment; TINT ¼ Turnover intentions. All loadings
are significant at the 0.01 level or better. All coefficient alphas are deemed acceptable, since they have exceeded the cut-off value of 0.70 as recommended
by Nunnally (1978). GFI ¼ Goodness-of-fit index; AGFI ¼ Adjusted goodness-of-fit index; NFI ¼ Normed fit index; NNFI ¼ Non-normed fit index;
CFI ¼ Comparative fit index; RMSEA ¼ Root mean square error of approximation; RMR ¼ Root mean square residual.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
246 O.M. Karatepe, H. Kilic / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 238–252

Table 2
Correlations, means, and standard deviations of composite measures of model constructs and control variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Age 1.00
0.22 0.00 0.57 0.45 0.57
0.08 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.01
0.03
2. Gender 1.00 0.11
0.07 0.02
0.12
0.02 0.00 0.00
0.15
0.07
0.07 0.05
3. Education 1.00 0.04
0.09
0.13 0.18
0.12
0.13 0.25 0.17 0.17
0.10
4. Organizational tenure 1.00 0.36 0.42
0.05 0.14 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.11
5. Marital status 1.00 0.47
0.05 0.13 0.20
0.16
0.05
0.02 0.10
6. Number of children 1.00
0.07 0.05 0.11
0.06
0.01
0.02 0.07
7. SUPPORT 1.00
0.28
0.21 0.28 0.66 0.44
0.29
8. W-FCON 1.00 0.58
0.15
0.38
0.22 0.57
9. F-WCON 1.00
0.30
0.32
0.24 0.41
10. JPERF 1.00 0.42 0.54
0.15
11. JSAT 1.00 0.66
0.41
12. AOC 1.00
0.29
13. TINT 1.00
Mean 1.77 0.42 2.95 2.19 0.55 1.50 3.39 3.29 3.11 3.49 3.09 3.21 2.98
Standard deviation 0.86 0.50 0.98 1.01 0.50 0.66 0.95 1.01 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.90 1.16

Note: Composite scores for each measure were obtained by averaging scores across items representing that measure. The scores range from 1 to 5. Age and
education were measured using five-point scales. The number of children was measured using a four-point scale. Organizational tenure was measured
using a six-point scale. Higher scores indicated older age, more educated, more children, and longer tenure. Gender was coded as a binary variable
(0 ¼ male and 1 ¼ female). Marital status also was coded as a binary variable (0 ¼ single or divorced and 1 ¼ married). SUPPORT ¼ Supervisor support;
W-FCON ¼ Work–family conflict; F-WCON ¼ Family–work conflict; JPERF ¼ Job performance; JSAT ¼ Job satisfaction; AOC ¼ Affective
organizational commitment; TINT ¼ Turnover intentions.
 po0:05.
 po0:01. Correlations without any asterisks are insignificant.

significant effects on work–family conflict. The rest of the
control variables are not significantly associated with
work–family conflict. According to the results of the path
analysis, older employees have lower levels of work–family
conflict, while married employees and employees with
longer tenure report higher work–family conflict.
Hypothesis 2 suggests that supervisor support (SUP-
PORT) has a significant negative effect on family–work
conflict (F-WCON). The result involving path from
supervisor support to family–work conflict is significant
and negative. Hypothesis 2 is therefore supported. Without
control variables, supervisor support explains 4% of the
variance in family–work conflict. As demonstrated in Table
3, the control variables improve the explained variance by
5%. With the exception of marital status, none of the
control variables exerts a significant influence on family–
work conflict. This finding indicates that married employ-
ees have more family-related responsibilities and report
higher family–work conflict.
Hypothesis 3 contends that work–family conflict
(W-FCON) is negatively associated with job performance
(JPERF). An examination of the model test results in
Table 3 shows that this relationship is insignificant.
Hypothesis 3 is therefore not supported. Hypothesis 4
predicts that family–work conflict (F-WCON) depicts a
significant negative relationship with job performance
(JPERF). Consonant with this hypothesis, Table 3
indicates that the relationship between family–work con-
flict and job performance is significant and negative.
Hypothesis 4 is therefore supported. Work–family conflict
and family–work conflict jointly explain 9% of the variance
in job performance. With the addition of control variables,
the proportion of explained variance increases to 18%.
Gender and education have significant effects on job
performance, while the other control variables do not. As
can be seen in Table 3, female employees report lower
levels of job performance, while more educated employees
have higher levels of job performance.
Hypothesis 5 suggests that supervisor support (SUP-
PORT) is positively related to job satisfaction (JSAT).
This hypothesis is consistent with the results of the path
analysis reported in Table 3. Hypothesis 5 is there-
fore supported. Hypothesis 6 predicts that work–family
conflict (W-FCON) portrays a significant negative associa-
tion with job satisfaction (JSAT). As demonstrated in
Table 3, there is empirical support for this hypothesized
relationship. Hypothesis 6 is therefore supported. Hypoth-
esis 7 suggests that family–work conflict (F-WCON) is
negatively related to job satisfaction (JSAT). The path
estimate displayed in Table 3 is inconsistent with this
hypothesis. Hypothesis 7 is therefore not supported.
Hypothesis 8 states that job performance (JPERF) is
positively associated with job satisfaction (JSAT). The
result involving path from job performance to job
satisfaction is consistent with this hypothesis as evidenced
in Table 3. Hypothesis 8 is therefore supported. Supervisor
support, work–family conflict, family–work conflict,
and job performance jointly explain 49% of the variance
in job satisfaction. As indicated in Table 3, the control
variables improve the explained variance by 1%. However,
none of the control variables is significantly related to job
satisfaction.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
O.M. Karatepe, H. Kilic / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 238–252 247

Table 3 Table 3 (continued )

Model test results
Control variables and Standardized t-Values Supported/
Control variables and Standardized t-Values Supported/ hypotheses parameter not
hypotheses parameter not estimates supported
estimates supported
F-WCON-JSAT
0.05
0.91 Not
(I) Impact on supported
SUPPORT JPERF-JSAT 0.23 5.22 Supported
Control variables R2 ¼ 0:50
Age
0.09
1.11 —
Gender
0.06
1.04 — (VI) Impact on AOC
Education 0.19 3.20 — Control variables
Organizational tenure
0.01
0.20 — Age
0.02
0.26 —
Marital status 0.02 0.23 — Gender 0.01 0.19 —
Number of children 0.00
0.03 — Education 0.00 0.07 —
Organizational tenure
0.02
0.41 —
R2 ¼ 0:04
Marital status 0.08 1.65 —
(II) Impact on W- Number of children
0.01
0.26 —
FCON Hypotheses
Control variables JPERF-AOC 0.33 7.39 Supported
Age
0.17
2.16 — JSAT-AOC 0.52 11.84 Supported
Gender
0.03
0.48 — R2 ¼ 0:50
Education
0.07
1.18 — (VII) Impact on TINT
Organizational tenure 0.19 2.73 — Control variables
Marital status 0.13 2.00 — Age
0.13
1.92 —
Number of children
0.02
0.35 — Gender 0.02 0.40 —
Hypotheses Education 0.01 0.14 —
SUPPORT-W-FCON
0.27
4.76 Supported Organizational tenure 0.08 1.45 —
R2 ¼ 0:12 Marital status 0.01 0.19 —
Number of children 0.07 1.19 —
(III) Impact on F- Hypotheses
WCON W-FCON-TINT 0.42 7.08 Supported
Control variables F-WCON-TINT 0.09 1.52 Not
Age
0.03
0.42 — supported
Gender 0.00
0.07 — JSAT-TINT
0.18
2.82 Supported
Education
0.08
1.32 — AOC-TINT
0.05
0.87 Not
Organizational tenure 0.01 0.13 — supported
Marital status 0.19 2.83 —
R2 ¼ 0:39
Number of children 0.01 0.17 —
Hypotheses Model fit statistics
SUPPORT-F-WCON
0.19
3.27 Supported w2 ¼ 16:38, df ¼ 6, p ¼ 0:01
R2 ¼ 0:09 GFI ¼ 0.99; AGFI ¼ 0.87; NFI ¼ 0.99; NNFI ¼ 0.87; CFI ¼ 0.99;
RMSEA ¼ 0.08; RMR ¼ 0.03
(IV) Impact on JPERF
Control variables Note: Age and education were measured using five-point scales. The
Age
0.02
0.26 — number of children was measured using a four-point scale. Organizational
Gender
0.17
3.06 — tenure was measured using a six-point scale. Higher scores indicated older
Education 0.22 4.07 — age, more educated, more children, and longer tenure. Gender was coded
Organizational tenure 0.09 1.40 — as a binary variable (0 ¼ male and 1 ¼ female). Marital status also was
Marital status
0.11
1.74 — coded as a binary variable (0 ¼ single or divorced and 1 ¼ married).
Number of children 0.00 0.02 SUPPORT ¼ Supervisor support; W-FCON ¼ Work–family conflict;
Hypotheses F-WCON ¼ Family–work conflict; JPERF ¼ Job performance;
W-FCON-JPERF 0.04 0.58 Not JSAT ¼ Job satisfaction; AOC ¼ Affective organizational commitment;
supported TINT ¼ Turnover intentions. GFI ¼ Goodness-of-fit index; AG-
F-WCON-JPERF
0.28
4.14 Supported FI ¼ Adjusted goodness-of-fit index; NFI ¼ Normed fit index;
R2 ¼ 0:18 NNFI ¼ Non-normed fit index; CFI ¼ Comparative fit index;
RMSEA ¼ Root mean square error of approximation; RMR ¼ Root
(V) Impact on JSAT
mean square residual.
Control variables  The t-values demonstrate a statistically significant relationship at the
Age 0.05 0.82 —
0.05 level. The other t-values without any asterisks are insignificant.
Gender
0.01
0.26 —
Education
0.01
0.15 —
Organizational tenure 0.00 0.03 —
Marital status 0.02 0.31 —
Hypothesis 9 contends that job performance (JPERF)
Number of children 0.02 0.34 —
Hypotheses exerts a significant positive impact on affective organiza-
SUPPORT-JSAT 0.53 12.38 Supported tional commitment (AOC). The results of the path analysis
W-FCON-JSAT
0.17
3.32 Supported demonstrate a significant positive relationship between the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
248 O.M. Karatepe, H. Kilic / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 238–252
two constructs. Hypothesis 9 is therefore supported.
Hypothesis 10 states that job satisfaction (JSAT) is
positively associated with affective organizational commit-
ment (AOC). In light of the results of the path analysis, this
relationship is significant and positive. Hypothesis 10 is
therefore supported. Job performance and job satisfaction
jointly explain 49% of the variance in affective organiza-
tional commitment. Table 3 shows that the control
variables improve the explained variance by 1%. However,
none of the control variables is significantly associated with
affective organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 11 predicts that work–family conflict
(W-FCON) has a significant positive effect on turnover
intentions (TINT). The results in Table 3 provide empirical
support for this prediction. Hypothesis 11 is therefore
supported. In contrast, family–work conflict (F-WCON)
does not have any significant positive relationship with
turnover intentions (TINT) as reported in Table 3.
Hypothesis 12 is therefore not supported. Hypothesis 13
suggests that job satisfaction (JSAT) exerts a significant
negative effect on turnover intentions (TINT). This
hypothesized relationship is consistent with the results of
the path analysis. Hypothesis 13 is thus supported. Finally,
hypothesis 14 predicts that affective organizational com-
mitment (AOC) is negatively related to turnover intentions
(TINT). However, the results of the path analysis indicate
that there is no significant negative relationship between
the two constructs. Hypothesis 14 is therefore not
supported. Work–family conflict, family–work conflict,
job satisfaction, and affective organizational commitment
jointly explain 37% of the variance in turnover intentions.
An examination of the results in Table 3 demonstrates that
none of the control variables has a significant impact on
turnover intentions, although the control variables improve
the explained variance by 2%.
Follow-up analyses. Although not hypothesized, the
study examined the direct effects of work–family conflict
and family–work conflict on affective organizational
commitment. The results, however, were not significant.
Beside the direct effects depicted in Fig. 1, several indirect
relationships were estimated. Several significant findings
regarding the indirect impact of family–work conflict on
job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment
were found. First, family–work conflict influenced job
satisfaction via job performance (
0.06, t ¼
3:25).
Second, family–work conflict had a significant negative
impact on affective organizational commitment indirectly
through job performance and job satisfaction (
0.15,
t ¼
3:58).
5. Discussion
The present study developed and tested a research model
that investigated the effects of supervisor support, work–
family conflict, and family–work conflict on job outcomes
of frontline employees in Northern Cyprus hotels as its
setting in order to fill important research gaps in the
tourism and hospitality literature. The results of the path
analysis were largely supportive of the hypothesized
relationships. Several control variables demonstrated sig-
nificant relationships with study variables.
The results of the path analysis reveal that education has
a significant positive relationship with supervisor support.
This finding shows that more educated frontline hotel
employees have higher supervisor support. This finding
may be attributed to the fact that more educated frontline
employees are assigned more responsibilities in the service
encounter, are expected to respond to varying customers’
requests more effectively, and thus are in need of more
support from their supervisor.
The hypotheses suggesting supervisors support decreases
frontline employees’ work–family conflict and family–work
conflict were confirmed by the empirical data. The result
pertaining to the relationship between supervisor support
and work–family conflict provides empirical support for
that of Thomas and Ganster (1995). A careful examination
of the extant literature indicates that family support
alleviates employees’ family–work conflict (Byron, 2005).
The present finding, however, supports the hypothesis that
supervisor support also has a significant negative impact on
frontline employees’ family–work conflict. In addition, the
results of the path analysis demonstrate that supervisor
support is positively related to frontline employees’ job
satisfaction. This finding is consonant with that of Ross
and Boles (1994).
Many hotel organizations do not provide their front-
line employees with a family supportive work environ-
ment (Karatepe & Sokmen, 2006). The lack of a family
supportive work environment in the hotel industry
also points to the lack of supervisor support. Frontline
hotel employees who are susceptible to pressures of long
work hours, excessive job demands, and irregular
and inflexible shift patterns are in need of support
from their supervisors to mitigate their work–family
conflict and family–work conflict. Frontline hotel employ-
ees receiving supervisor support also become satisfied
with their jobs.
The model test results demonstrate that age, organiza-
tional tenure, and marital status are significantly related to
work–family conflict, while only marital status is signifi-
cantly associated with family–work conflict. The results
indicate that older frontline employees have lower conflicts
between work requirements and family and/or social
commitments. This finding suggests that older frontline
hotel employees do not appear to have heavy workloads
and/or irregular and inflexible work schedules. On the
contrary, frontline hotel employees with longer tenure
report higher work–family conflict. This result suggests
that frontline hotel employees with longer tenure appear to
be overworked and spend long hours in the workplace,
since they are expected to deal with a number of job-related
tasks more effectively. Not surprisingly, the results
demonstrate that married frontline employees report high-
er levels of work–family conflict and family–work conflict.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
O.M. Karatepe, H. Kilic / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 238–252
As discussed earlier, the individual empirical studies
have produced anomalous findings regarding the effect of
work–family conflict on job performance (Allen et al.,
2000). This study did not find any significant negative
relationship between the two constructs. This study,
however, demonstrated that family–work conflict exerted
a significant negative impact on frontline employees’ job
performance. This finding provides empirical support
for the other study findings in the extant literature
(e.g., Netemeyer et al., 2004). It has been shown that
Turkish frontline hotel employees experiencing elevated
levels of work–family conflict and family–work conflict
reported low levels of service recovery performance
(Karatepe & Sokmen, 2006). This study used the job
performance construct to investigate the relationship of
work–family conflict with frontline employees’ in-role
performance. The incompatible finding may be due to the
distinction between service recovery performance and job
performance.
The above finding indicates that frontline hotel employ-
ees who cannot establish a balance between a number of
family and/or social commitments and prescribed job-
related tasks are unable to perform effectively in the
workplace. Due to the nature of boundary-spanning
positions, frontline hotel employees are expected to deal
with a number of customers’ needs and requests. Once they
are more involved in family and/or social commitments,
they cannot meet the expectations of their managers and
exert adequate time and energy into dealing with custo-
mers’ needs and requests. Consequently, they become
ineffective performers. According to the results of the path
analysis, gender and education have significant relation-
ships with job performance. Specifically, more educated
frontline employees have higher levels of job performance,
while frontline female employees report lower performance
in the workplace. More educated employees are expected to
display increased in-role performance in the service
encounter. As convincingly discussed by Babin and Boles
(1998), female employees are not more dominating and
autonomous than their counterparts in the workplace.
Therefore, they may have reported decreased job perfor-
mance. Since women still appear to be responsible for more
of the housework and child care in today’s society
(Halpern, 2005), investigating the moderating role of
gender in the strength of the relationship between family–
work conflict and job performance deserves future research
attention.
In this study, work–family conflict was found to be
significantly and negatively related to frontline employees’
job satisfaction. The current study, however, failed to find
a significant negative association between family–work
conflict and job satisfaction. These findings are not
consistent with that of Karatepe and Sokmen (2006).
Although the findings of the current study may be
attributed to the fact that family–work conflict appears
to be less strongly related to job satisfaction than does
work–family conflict, more empirical research is needed
249
pertaining to the effects of conflicts in the work–family
interface on job satisfaction for the issue of generalizability
in the tourism and hospitality literature. As expected, job
performance is one of the significant predictors of job
satisfaction. Although not hypothesized, this study showed
that family–work conflict had a detrimental impact on job
satisfaction indirectly via job performance. This finding
indicates that frontline hotel employees experiencing
conflicts between nonwork and work domains cannot
carry out their job-related tasks successfully and thus
become dissatisfied with their jobs.
The results of the path analysis reveal that job
performance and job satisfaction are significantly and
positively related to frontline employees’ affective organi-
zational commitment. These findings are consistent
with prior research (e.g., Low et al., 2001). In this
study family–work conflict was found to have a signi-
ficant negative effect on affective organizational commit-
ment indirectly through job performance and job
satisfaction.
Consonant with previous research (e.g., Karatepe &
Sokmen, 2006; Susskind et al., 2000), work–family conflict
and job satisfaction are significantly related to frontline
hotel employees’ turnover intentions. Specifically, greater
work–family conflict results in higher turnover intentions,
while lower job satisfaction leads to increased turnover
intentions. Frontline hotel employees prefer to maintain
their scarce resources by thinking about leaving the current
organization, since they find out that they no longer are
capable of dealing with a number of difficulties that arise
from conflicts between work requirements and family and/
or social commitments.
Unexpectedly, family–work conflict was not found
to be significantly associated with frontline employees’
turnover intentions in this study. This finding is not
concordant with that of Karatepe and Sokmen (2006).
The inconsistent finding may be due to the different
turnover intentions scales used in the former and latter
studies. The insignificant relationship between family–
work conflict and turnover intentions may also be
attributed to the fact that the immediate direct impact of
family–work conflict may be on absenteeism rather
than turnover intentions, when family responsibilities
interfere with job-related responsibilities (Anderson et al.,
2002).
In addition, this study did not demonstrate any
significant negative relationship between affective organi-
zational commitment and turnover intentions. This result is
not consonant with prior writings (e.g., Low et al., 2001).
Job satisfaction was extracted from the equation in order
to investigate the reason for this insignificant relationship
between the two constructs. Consequently, the negative
impact of affective organizational commitment on turnover
intentions became significant. This finding indicated that
the inclusion of job satisfaction in the equation attenuated
the impact of affective organizational commitment on
turnover intentions.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
250 O.M. Karatepe, H. Kilic / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 238–252
5.1. Managerial implications
The results of the current study provide useful implica-
tions for hotel managers. First, as discussed in the
preceding parts, many hotel organizations are devoid of
family friendly programs and benefits to alleviate frontline
employees’ work–family conflict and family–work conflict.
This is also valid for hotels in Northern Cyprus. Most
hotels in Northern Cyprus are family-run businesses and
lack contemporary human resource management techni-
ques (Karatepe et al., 2003; Kilic & Okumus, 2005).
Therefore, top managements of hotels should be com-
mitted to creating a family supportive work environment
which potentially consists of a number of family friendly
benefits such as flexible work schedules, financial support
for life insurance, on-site child care services, and family
leave. Otherwise, efforts of several supervisors to help
frontline employees lessen the intensity of work–family
conflict and family–work conflict are doomed to failure. As
cogently discussed by Halpern (2005), family friendly
programs are likely to decrease work-related strain,
increase employees’ job performance and commitment,
and reduce turnover intentions. Thus, the existence of a
family supportive work environment is critical, since this
study found that work–family conflict or family–work
conflict had a detrimental effect on job performance, job
satisfaction, affective organizational commitment, and
turnover intentions directly or indirectly.
Second, managers and supervisors in different depart-
ments such as front office and food and beverage
departments should be trained how to help frontline
employees organize their job-related responsibilities and
family and/or social commitments and encourage them to
take advantage of family friendly benefits. Otherwise,
managers and supervisors may not care about the problems
of frontline employees associated with work–family conflict
and family–work conflict and may lead the organization to
undesired outcomes such as poor service quality and
customer dissatisfaction.
Third, properly trained hotel managers should organize
specific workshops to teach their frontline employees how
to establish a balance between work and family domains
and cope with difficulties associated with conflicts in the
work–family interface. These workshops are also impor-
tant tools to make frontline employees openly give
suggestions regarding the better handling of work and
family roles (cf. Netemeyer et al., 2005). In this study it was
found that younger employees and employees with longer
tenure are more unlikely to balance the work requirements
with family and/or social commitments. With this realiza-
tion, mentors may also be employed to provide employees
with professional assistance for mitigating the adverse
effects of work–family conflict and family–work conflict on
job outcomes.
Fourth, hotel managers should provide frontline em-
ployees with continuous and specific feedback about their
performance levels (cf. Bettencourt & Brown, 2003), since
the delivery of service quality highly depends on the
performance of frontline employees. This appears to be
more important for frontline female employees, since they
have reported lower job performance than their counter-
parts in this study.
Since actual turnover is a significant problem in the hotel
industry (Deery & Iverson, 1996; Karatepe & Sokmen,
2006; Lam, Pine, & Baum, 2003) and is triggered by
turnover intentions, the abovementioned implications also
appear to be important tools for the acquisition and
retention of qualified frontline employees in the hotel
industry.
5.2. Limitations and avenues for future research
Admittedly, there are several limitations to the present
study. First, this study used cross-sectional data to test the
hypothesized relationships. Employing cross-sectional de-
signs in empirical research constrains the ability to make
definitive statements about the causal relationships
(O’Driscoll et al., 2004). Therefore, using longitudinal data
in future research efforts to investigate the potential
antecedents and consequences of work–family conflict
and family–work conflict would allow making definitive
statements pertaining to the causal relationships.
Second, this study tested frontline employees’ job
performance using a self-report measure. There are a
number of empirical studies that have used self-report
measures to assess employees’ job performance (e.g., Babin
& Boles, 1998; Low et al., 2001; Netemeyer et al., 2004). In
addition, the use of self-report measure for job perfor-
mance has been found to be consistent with managerial
evaluations of employees’ job performance (Churchill et
al., 1985). However, this approach may lead to common
method variance. Therefore, future empirical studies
should use managers’ or customers’ evaluations of front-
line employees’ performance to avoid the potential
problems associated with common method variance.
Third, this study did not find any significant direct
relationships between family–work conflict and job satis-
faction and work–family conflict and job performance.
Therefore, future studies should investigate the aforemen-
tioned relationships using samples of frontline employees
in different tourism and hospitality settings for the issue of
generalizability. Fourth, the current study has not incor-
porated family satisfaction, marital satisfaction, career
satisfaction, and life satisfaction into the research model.
Investigating the relationships of conflicts in the work–
family interface with these satisfaction variables would
make significant contributions to the existing knowledge
base (cf. Allen et al., 2000; Eby et al., 2005).
Finally, the current study did not examine the effects of
various styles of coping on conflicts in the work–family
interface. Future studies may investigate the effects of
these coping styles such as direct action, help-seeking,
positive thinking, and avoidance/resignation on work–
family conflict and family–work conflict (Rotondo,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
O.M. Karatepe, H. Kilic / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 238–252
Carlson, & Kincaid, 2003) to understand what sort of
coping styles are effective in decreasing conflicts in the
work–family interface.
References
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of
affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000).
Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and
agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
5(2), 278–308.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling
in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
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 Manage-
ment, 28(6), 787–810.
Armour, S. (2002). Workers put family first despite jobless fears. USA
Today, June 6.
Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A., & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole
conflict, and well-being: The moderating influence of spousal support
and coping behaviors among parents in Hong Kong. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 54, 259–278.
Babin, B. J., & Boles, J. S. (1998). Employee behavior in a service
environment: A model and test of potential differences between men
and women. Journal of Marketing, 62, 77–91.
Bettencourt, L. A., & Brown, S. W. (2003). Role stressors and customer-
oriented boundary-spanning behaviors in service organizations.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(4), 394–408.
Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Mohr, L. A. (1994). Critical service
encounters: The employee’s viewpoint. Journal of Marketing, 58,
95–106.
Boles, J. S., Howard, W. G., & Donofrio, H. H. (2001). An investigation
into the inter-relationships of work–family conflict, family–work
conflict and work satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(3),
376–390.
Bowen, D. E., & Schneider, B. (1988). Boundary-spanning-role employees
and the service encounter: Some guidelines for management and
research. In J. A. Czepiel, M. R. Solomon, & C. F. Surprenant (Eds.),
The service encounter: Managing employee/customer interaction in
service business (4th ed., pp. 125–147). Lexington: Lexington Books.
Boyar, S. L., Maertz, C. P., Jr., Pearson, A. W., & Keough, S. (2003).
Work–family conflict: A model of linkages between work and family
domain variables and turnover intentions. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 15(2), 175–190.
Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its
antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169–198.
Churchill, G. A., Jr., Ford, N. M., Hartley, S. W., & Walker, O. C., Jr.
(1985). The determinants of salesperson performance: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 103–118.
Deery, M. A., & Iverson, R. D. (1996). Enhancing productivity:
Intervention strategies for employee turnover. In N. Johns (Ed.),
Productivity management in hospitality and tourism (pp. 68–95).
London: Cassell.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A.
(2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and
review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior,
66, 124–197.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and
outcomes of work–family conflict: Testing a model of the work–family
interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 65–78.
Frye, N. K., & Breaugh, J. A. (2004). Family friendly policies, supervisor
support, work–family conflict, family–work conflict, and satisfaction:
251
A test of a conceptual model. Journal of Business and Psychology,
19(2), 197–220.
Goff, S. J., Mount, M. K., & Jamison, R. L. (1990). Employer supported
child care, work/family conflict, and absenteeism: A field study.
Personnel Psychology, 43, 793–809.
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources
model applied to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.
Halpern, D. F. (2005). Psychology at the intersection of work and family:
Recommendations for employers, working families, and policymakers.
American Psychologist, 60, 397–409.
Harris, L. C., & Reynolds, K. L. (2003). The consequences of
dysfunctional customer behavior. Journal of Service Research, 6(2),
144–161.
Hartline, M. D., & Ferrell, O. C. (1996). The management of customer-
contact service employees: An empirical investigation. Journal of
Marketing, 60, 52–70.
Hill, E. J., Yang, C., Hawkins, A. J., & Ferris, M. (2004). A cross-cultural
test of the work–family interface in 48 countries. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 66, 1300–1316.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at
conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation.
Review of General Psychology, 6(4), 307–324.
Hsieh, A.-T., & Yen, C.-H. (2005). The effect of customer participation on
service providers’ job stress. The Service Industries Journal, 25(7),
891–905.
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide.
Chicago: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Karatepe, O. M., Avci, T., Karatepe, T., & Canozer, S. (2003). The
measurement of job satisfaction: an empirical study of frontline
employees in the Northern Cyprus hotel industry. International Journal
of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 4(1), 69–85.
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, 255–268.
Kilic, H., & Okumus, F. (2005). Factors influencing productivity in small
island hotels: Evidence from Northern Cyprus. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(4), 315–331.
Lam, T., Pine, R., & Baum, T. (2003). Subjective norms: Effects on job
satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 160–177.
Law, J., Pearce, P. L., & Woods, B. A. (1995). Stress and coping in tourist
attraction employees. Tourism Management, 16(4), 277–284.
Low, G. S., Cravens, D. W., Grant, K., & Moncrief, W. C. (2001).
Antecedents and consequences of salesperson burnout. European
Journal of Marketing, 35(5/6), 587–611.
Mcelwain, A. K., Korabik, K., & Rosin, H. M. (2005). An examination of
gender differences in work–family conflict. Canadian Journal of
Behavioral Science, 37(4), 283–298.
McGorry, S. Y. (2000). Measurement in a cross-cultural environment:
Survey translation issues. Qualitative Market Research: An Interna-
tional Journal, 3(2), 74–81.
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(2), 242–250.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development
and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400–410.
Netemeyer, R. G., Brashear-Alejandro, T., & Boles, J. S. (2004). A cross-
national model of job-related outcomes of work role and family role
variables: A retail sales context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 32(1), 49–60.
Netemeyer, R. G., Maxham, J. G., & Pullig, C. (2005). Conflicts in the
work–family interface: Links to job stress, customer service employee
performance, and customer purchase intent. Journal of Marketing, 69,
130–143.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
252 O.M. Karatepe, H. Kilic / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 238–252
O’Driscoll, M. P., Brough, P., & Kalliath, T. J. (2004). Work/family
conflict, psychological well-being, satisfaction and social support: A
longitudinal study in New Zealand. Equal Opportunities International,
23(1/2), 36–56.
O’Driscoll, M. P., Poelmans, S., Spector, P. E., Kalliath, T., Allen, T. D.,
Cooper, C. L., et al. (2003). Family responsive interventions, perceived
organizational and supervisor support, work–family conflict, and
psychological strain. International Journal of Stress Management,
10(4), 326–344.
Ross, L. E., & Boles, J. S. (1994). Exploring the influence of workplace
relationships on work-related attitudes and behaviors in the hospitality
work environment. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
13(2), 155–171.
Rotondo, D. M., Carlson, D. S., & Kincaid, J. F. (2003). Coping with
multiple dimensions of work–family conflict. Personnel Review, 32(3),
275–296.
Sergeant, A., & Frenkel, S. (2000). When do customer contact employees
satisfy customers? Journal of Service Research, 3(1), 18–34.
Singh, J., Verbeke, W., & Rhoads, G. K. (1996). Do organizational
practices matter in role stress processes? A study of direct and
moderating effects for marketing-oriented boundary spanners. Journal
of Marketing, 60, 69–86.
Statistical Yearbook of Tourism. (2003). Tourism and planning office.
Lefkosa, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus: State Printing
House.
Susskind, A. M., Borchgrevink, C. P., Kacmar, K. M., & Brymer, R. A.
(2000). Customer service employees’ behavioral intentions and
attitudes: An examination of construct validity and a path model.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 19, 53–77.
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family supportive work
variables on work–family conflict and strain: A control perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 6–15.
Yoon, M. H., Seo, J. H., & Yoon, T. S. (2004). Effects of
contact employee supports on critical employee responses
and customer service evaluation. Journal of Services Marketing,
18(5), 395–412.