Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 23

Tourism Review

Perceived organizational support, work-family/family-work conflict and presenteeism in hotel industry


Ebru Arslaner, Yasin Boylu,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Ebru Arslaner, Yasin Boylu, (2017) "Perceived organizational support, work-family/family-work conflict and presenteeism in
hotel industry", Tourism Review, Vol. 72 Issue: 2, doi: 10.1108/TR-09-2016-0031
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TR-09-2016-0031
Downloaded on: 22 May 2017, At: 22:40 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 16 times since 2017*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:277061 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


Perceived organizational support, work-family/family-work conflict
and presenteeism in hotel Industry

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationships between perceived
organizational support, work-family conflict, family-work conflict and presenteeism in the
context of hotel industry.

Design/methodology/approach - Data were collected via survey administered to 402


Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

employees of five-star hotels in Antalya, Turkey. Data were analyzed using SPSS package
program.

Findings - The results showed that there was a significant and negative relationship
between perceived organizational support and presenteeism and a significant and positive
relationship between work-family/family-work conflict and presenteeism. Moreover, perceived
organizational support had no significant effect on presenteeism while work-family/family-
work conflict had a significant effect on presenteeism.

Practical implications - Hotels need a healthy and productive workforce to ensure customer
satisfaction and increase the quality of service. Reducing work-family/family-work conflict and
increasing organizations’ support to employees is critical for protecting employee health and
eliminating presenteeism behavior.

Originality/value - This study provides organizations with practical and theoretical


implications to improve employee health and productivity.

Keywords - Presenteeism, perceived organizational support, work-family conflict, family-


work conflict, hotel industry

Paper type - Research paper

1. Introduction

Presenteeism is a new concept of health in the workplace (Brown et al., 2011).


Cooper (1998) defined presenteeism as employees working or pretending to work for
long hours and described this as an action taken by employees to show their
commitment to the organization due to job insecurity. Similarly, Simpson (1998)
defined presenteeism as the tendency to stay at work for a longer period than the
time required to be productive. Although previously seen as a sign of organizational
commitment due to job insecurity, presenteeism was later associated with health
status and productivity. In this sense, presenteeism today is generally described as
coming to work while being sick (Johns, 2010) or as an action that results in a
decrease in productivity as a result of continuing to work while being sick (Johns,
2012). Koopman et al. (2002) explain presenteeism as a situation employees’
productivity decreases and employees perform below their normal level although
they are physically present in their jobs.
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

While only illness is highlighted in some definitions related to presenteeism, both


productivity and illness are emphasized in others. In this regard, Johns (2012) drew
attention to the lack of theoretical background. The author expresses the lack of
theories at the point of productivity measurement and the relation between illness
and productivity in studies conducted on presenteeism. In light of this, and since
presenteeism behavior cannot be explained by one particular theory, we can
conclude that the concept is defined in various forms and multiple ways.

In the hotel industry, quality of service depends on employees’ physical and mental
well-being. Physically and mentally healthy employees will be effective and efficient
in service delivery. If this is not the case, customers will be dissatisfied with the
service (Tukelturk et al., 2014). However, at hotels, where interpersonal relationships
matter, employees’ effort to provide a sensitive service and to achieve customer
satisfaction can raise their stress levels and lead to physical and mental fatigue.
There is a positive correlation with stressful working conditions and presenteeism
(Hirsch et al., 2015); moreover, presenteeism increases in high-stress situations
(Elstad and Vabo, 2008). Therefore, presenteeism is a major problem for hotel
industry employees, which is characterized by intense stress.

Employees develop beliefs regarding their organizations’ stance about the


employees’ wellbeing and contribution (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger et al.,
2002; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). These general beliefs point out perception
of organizational support (Wayne et al., 1997). Organizational support represents the
potential reaction expected from the organization when an employee is ill or makes a
mistake or when he/she performs superiorly (Eisenberger et al., 1986). It is important
for the employees not to have a fear of losing their jobs when they cannot show up
because of any illness or to know that there will be no wage cuts. Thus, the
organizations’ support to their employees can help them psychologically, relieve their
stress and prevent presenteeism.

Long working hours leave employees with insufficient rest and personal time.
Because of this, employees get stressed even more, which can bring about
psychological and physical health problems. Böckerman and Laukkanen (2009)
found that continuous full-time work, working in shifts and long working weeks
increase presenteeism. A study on hotels has revealed that although the managers
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

were personally aware of presenteeism as a negative incentive, they maintained


presenteeism as an organizational value by demanding long working hours (Cullen
and McLaughlin, 2006). Hence, long working hours, one of the major problems in the
tourism sector, can lead to presenteeism behavior by affecting employees’ health
directly or indirectly.

Research has identified the work-family conflict to be another reason for employees’
presenteeism behavior (Ciftci, 2010). In fact, work-family conflict is defined as a kind
of inter-role conflict in which role pressures in the work and family areas are mutually
incompatible (Duxbury and Higgins, 1991). Work-family or family-work conflicts can
adversely affect the individual’s health. Research suggests that work-family conflicts
disrupt health and are associated with presenteeism (Cicei, 2012; Johns, 2011).
Employees suffering from work-family conflicts exhibit more presenteeism behavior
than other employees (Lowe, 2002).

Presenteeism can also arise from job insecurity. Employees who are afraid of losing
their jobs may prefer to go to work despite their health problems. According to
McNamara et al. (2011), the seasonal nature of some industries, like hospitality,
cause the employees to have job insecurity more than other sectors. Employees
without work security are at a disadvantage in terms of work-family balance and
health. As a matter of fact, as suggested by evidence, the relationship between job
insecurity and presenteeism (Heponiemi et al., 2010) confirms this. Therefore, due to
the seasonal nature of their jobs, hotel employees are expected to exhibit
presenteeism behavior. It is crucial to provide support to employees and reduce
presenteeism behavior in order to provide them with job security, increase their
motivation and eliminate the working conditions that will adversely affect their
physical and mental health.

There is need for new research to develop policies related to hotel employees’ health
problems, to eliminate working conditions that impair their health and create stress,
to identify the cases of presenteeism caused by work-family/family-work conflicts
and, therefore, to highlight the significance of the hotels’ support to their employees.
Costly consequences of presenteeism make this need more urgent. This study
predicates on the few studies about the factors involved in presenteeism behavior
and the concepts to explain it. In the light of these points, the purpose of this study is
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

to reveal the relationship between presenteeism and the concepts of work-family


conflict and perceived organizational support to investigate the extent to which these
concepts account for presenteeism.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

2.1 Relationship Between Perceived Organizational Support and Presenteeism

Organizational support focuses on an employee’s perceptions. In this sense, it is


defined as the perception or judgment of an employee about how much the
organization provides him or her with support (Yoshimura, 2003).

Employees’ perceived level of organizational support is decreased when companies


persistently do not value their employees’ welfare and contributions (Eisenberger et
al., 1997). In the tourism industry, especially in hotels, employees need supportive
working conditions so that they feel satisfied. Also, the sector managers should take
organizational support into consideration. Organizations and managers should
support employees by taking into account their needs and expectations. This support
does not mean only meeting their needs and expectations financially, but also being
aware of the difficulties of their work and providing mental support (Colakoglu et al.,
2010). In fact, evidence suggests that employees who believe that their organizations
provide a supportive work environment are less likely to suffer from depression,
anxiety, and health concerns (Grant-Vallone and Ensher, 2001). In fact, being valued
by the organization and a higher perception of organizational support result in
positive work-related emotions and, therefore, employees experience fewer physical
health problems (Arnold and Dupre, 2012). Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002), for
instance, found that employees with a higher perception of organizational support
enjoyed their work and were in a more positive mood at work while they suffered less
from headaches, anxiety, burnout and fatigue.

These results show that employees’ happiness, prosperity and positive states of
mind are parallel to the support they receive from their organization. An employee
who knows that his or her happiness and prosperity are valued can concentrate on
his or her job in a more positive manner, show more dedication to the job and work
efficiently. However, an employee whose dedication is not appreciated or approved
while continuously being required to work harder may experience stress and tension.
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

As a result, employees may be exposed to various diseases and can exhibit


presenteeism behavior.

As a research topic, presenteeism and perceived organizational support do not seem


to be as popular as leader behavior, employee health and presenteeism. For
example, Gilbreath and Karimi (2012) found a relationship between leader behavior
and presenteeism. Nyberg et al. (2008) argued that leadership and employees’
presenteeism behavior are directly related.

To sum up, evidence suggests a relationship between leadership and presenteeism.


According to the theory of organizational support, perceived leader support also
catalyzes perceived organizational support (Eisenberger et al., 2002). Based on this
connection and the assumption that perceived organizational support is related to
presenteeism, the following hypothesis was developed:

H1: There is a negative and significant relationship between perceived organizational


support and presenteeism.

2.2 Relationship Between Work-Family/Family-Work Conflict and Presenteeism

Work-family conflict has become a frequently researched topic in the field of


organizational behavior (Carlson et al., 2000). Work-family conflict is defined as
“participation in the work (family) role is made more difficult by virtue of participation
in the family (work) role” (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985: 77). This definition suggests
that conflict between work and family occurs in two directions: conflicts originating
from the intrusion of work into family space or from family to into work space
(O'Driscoll et al., 2004).

In several studies, work-family conflict was considered to be bidirectional (work-


family/family-work). However, more recent studies revealed that these bidirectional
considerations could also be inadequate. For example, Netemeyer et al. (1996)
conducted a bidirectional assessment of work-family conflict and family-work conflict,
but argued that their scale was not useful for multidimensional measures of work-
family conflict and family-work conflict. Similarly, in their meta-analysis study, Kossek
and Ozeki (1998) suggested that the structure of the work-family conflict measures
needed improving and more consistent measures. Despite these criticisms, Carlson
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

et al. (2000) developed a more comprehensive structure by combining all the


structures. They suggested a construct that involved both directions of work-family
conflict (work-family conflict and family-work conflict) and the six dimensions of work-
family conflict (time-based work-family conflict, strain-based work-family conflict,
behavior-based work-family conflict, time-based family-work conflict, strain-based
family-work conflict, behavior-based family-work conflict). They also concluded that
their multidimensional work-family scale accurately described work-family conflict
because it was able to examine each of the six dimensions and the use of the scale
in the future could provide more information on the relationship between each work-
family conflict dimension and attitudes and behaviors.

Work-family conflict occurs when work/family role involvement becomes more difficult
due to family/work role involvement (Duxbury and Higgins, 1991). Empirical research
found that work-family/family-work conflicts could negatively affect both general
health and welfare (Adams et al., 1996). Adams and Jex (1999) argued that both
work-family conflict and family-work conflict were related to health complaints. Grant-
Vallone and Ensher (2001) suggested that work-personal life conflict was linked to
depression and anxiety experienced by employees while personal life-work conflict
was associated with employees’ health concerns. A study of female nurses showed a
positive correlation between work-family/family-work conflicts and depressive
symptoms (Hao et al., 2015).

Grandey and Cropanzano (1999) found that aspects of work-family conflict were also
associated with life stress and physical health. In a study of married female
managers, stress arising from work and family responsibilities were associated with
severe anxiety and depression (Greenglass, 1985). Frone et al. (1997) examined the
relationship between work-family conflict and health outcomes and found that family-
work conflict was related to hypertension, poor physical health and depression while
work-family conflict was associated with heavy alcohol consumption.

Duxbury-Higgins emphasized the relationship between work-family conflict and


stress, burnout, depression and consequently presenteeism and concluded that
higher levels of work-family caused employees to go to work despite being sick
(Lowe, 2002). Robertson et al. (2012) found that work-life conflict was a predictor of
high levels of presenteeism.
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

Evidence suggests that conflicts in work and family areas affect employees’ physical
and mental health. Nevertheless, both aspects of work-family conflict (work-family
and family-work) need to be explained in order to fully understand the impact of work-
family conflict on employees’ health (Frone et al., 1996). The role theory holds that
expectations about work and family roles may cause physical and psychological
tension (Duxbury and Higgins, 1991). Conflicts and uncertainties originating from the
tension between work and family roles can cause physical and mental illnesses and,
therefore, presenteeism. Therefore it could be suggested that this theory supports
research results. Based on empirical research and conceptual basis, a relationship is
assumed to exist between work-family/family-work conflicts and presenteeism.

H2: There is a positive and significant relationship between work-family conflict and
presenteeism.

H3: There is a positive and significant relationship between family-work conflict and
presenteeism.

3. Method

3.1 Measurement

Data were collected via survey. The survey instrument was developed using the
scales of perceived organizational support, presenteeism and work-family/family-
work conflict and statements to determine descriptive data about the participants. All
the scales were adapted for use in Turkish culture. Each item on the scales was
rated with scores ranging from “1. Strongly Disagree” to “5. Strongly Agree”. The
eight-item Perceived Organizational Support Scale developed by Eisenberger et al.
(1997), the six-item Stanford Presenteeism Scale developed by Koopman et al.
(2002), and the 18-item Work-Family Conflict Scale developed by Carlson et al.
(2000), which measured work-family conflict with nine items and family-work conflict
with another nine items, were employed in the study. The fact that these scales were
previously used in various studies and their validity and reliability were tested before
encouraged us to employ them in this study.

3.2 Data Collection and Analysis


Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

This study was conducted with employees of five-star hotels in Antalya, one of the
major tourist destinations in Turkey. According to the data received from Turkish
Ministry of Culture and Tourism (2014) at the time of the research, there were 485
five-star hotel enterprises with tourism-management certificates in Turkey. According
to the Antalya Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism (2014), 255 of these
hotels were in the province of Antalya. Therefore, Antalya was chosen for this
research in order to reach out more hotels. Five-star hotels were preferred for the
study because they employed more people than other hotels and that employee
opinions about their organizations can be better identified with more participants.
Another reason for this preference was that five-star hotels are supposed to be
managed more professionally than other types of hotels and, therefore, we could
obtain more objective results.

The study adopted the non-random sampling approach. Survey was conducted from
June to September, 2014. Prior to the survey implementation, the hotel managers
were contacted and necessary permissions were obtained. The managers were
assured that the data to be collected would be used solely for scientific work and no
personal information would be included in the study. The same explanation was also
included in the introduction to the questionnaire form. The interviews were conducted
with the employees of the hotels that granted permission for the study. The
questionnaire forms were sent directly to the managers by mail (post). The managers
were also informed that the questionnaire form should only be administered to
employees who had been ill over the past few months. The completed questionnaires
were then received by mail (post).
A total of 700 questionnaires were delivered, but the missing questionnaires or those
with incomplete or inaccurate data were excluded from the study. Thus a total of 402
valid questionnaires were analyzed. Table I shows information on the participants’
demographic characteristics.

Table I. Descriptive data of the employees surveyed

Data were analyzed with SPSS software. Data on the respondents’ descriptive
information were determined by frequency analysis. In order to determine the factor
structures and validity of the scale, explanatory factor analysis was performed for
each scale. Also, Cronbach's alpha was conducted for the reliability values of the
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

scales.

4. Results

Table II shows the exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha reliability test
results. A one-dimensional structure was obtained for the perceived organizational
support and presenteeism scale, and a three-dimensional structure was achieved for
the scales of work/family conflict.

Table II. Results of exploratory factor analysis

Some statements were excluded because they reduced the reliability of the
statements of the scales: “If given the opportunity, my hotel would take advantage of
me” and “My hotel shows very little concern for me” in the perceived organizational
support scale; and “Despite having my (health problem), I was able to finish hard
tasks in my work”, “At work, I was able to focus on achieving my goals despite my
(health problem)” and “Despite having my (health problem), I felt energetic enough to
complete all my work” in the presenteeism scale. The results showed that all the
scales were reliable (over .70).

4.1 Hypothesis Testing

Table III shows the results of correlation analysis. A negative and significant
relationship was found between perceived organizational support and presenteeism
(r=-0.180, p<0.01). Therefore, the first hypothesis of this study was accepted.
Table III. Descriptive statistics and correlations

A positive and significant relationship between work-family conflict and presenteeism


(r=0.366, p<0.01) was determined. Therefore, the second hypothesis of the study
was accepted. Finally, a positive and significant relationship was found between
presenteeism and family-work conflict (r=0.340, p<0.01). Thus, the third hypothesis
was accepted, too.

4.2 Regression Analysis

A multiple regression analysis was conducted in this study to determine the impact of
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

perceived organizational support and work-family/family-work conflict on


presenteeism.

Table IV. Multiple regression analysis results

The model created to determine the impact of perceived organizational support,


work-family conflict and family-work conflict on presenteeism was found to be
significant (F=27.779, p<0.001). In our study, perceived organizational support, work-
family conflict and family-work conflict variables accounted for 17.3% of
presenteeism (R2=.173). In the regression model with all the variables, the most
important predictor of presenteeism was work-family conflict (β=0.242), followed by
family-work conflict (β=0.203).

According to t-test results regarding the significance of the regression coefficients,


perceived organizational support had no significant effect on presenteeism (p>0.05),
but work-family conflict and family-work conflict had a significant effect on
presenteeism (p<0.001).

5. Discussion

According to the norm of reciprocity, on which perceived organizational support is


based, organizations should care about the welfare and well-being of employees.
Accordingly, organizations should care about the welfare of employees and provide
support to employees in case of a physical or mental illness. An employee who
believes he or she is ignored or not supported by the organization will inevitably keep
working in spite of an illness. Nevertheless, he or she will work inefficiently. In a
meta-analysis study by Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002), one of the positive
treatments employees received about perceived organizational support was
supervisor support. It should be highlighted that due to the lack of previous research
examining the relationship between perceived organizational support and
presenteeism, it was not possible to compare the current results with others.
However, considering the conceptual and theoretical structure, findings from the
leadership and presenteeism researches could be associated with the results of this
study.

Regarding the presence of the relationship between the leadership and


presenteeism, results of this study are comparable to those reported by Gilbreath
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

and Karimi (2012) and Nyberg et al. (2008). Gilbreath and Karimi (2012) suggested
that there was a relationship between presenteeism and leader behavior and
organizations should be aware of how their work environment affected their
employees, their employees’ quality of life and organizational productivity. Therefore,
organizations have important tasks like improving working conditions and developing
policies to prevent employee diseases. Also, it is vital that organizations provide all
kinds of support to their employees in terms of improving working conditions.

In this study, there was a positive relationship between presenteeism and both work-
family conflict and family-work conflict. Similarly, Johns (2011) found positive
relationship between work-family conflict and presenteeism. Work-family conflict and
family-work conflict occur due to conflict among multiple roles and result in stress or
illness (Chandola et al., 2004). For example, when an employee needs to collect
children from school but cannot leave work because he or she cannot find anybody
as a substitute, he or she could get stressed. Previous research found a positive
relationship between job stress and presenteeism, too (Gilbreath and Karimi, 2012).
Therefore, it could be assumed that conflicts experienced by employees would lead
to stress followed by presenteeism. In fact, these results also confirm this.

A similar situation may occur in the family-work conflict. If a family member of an


employee is sick or is in need of care and that employee has to keep working, he or
she continues to work despite this. Thus, after a while, this negative factor starts to
wear away at that employee and hinders his or her focus on work. As another
example, any employee who has both family-related and work-related responsibilities
to be fulfilled in the same time period can find both responsibilities hard to bear. This
can distress that particular employee, affect his or her mental state and can make it
difficult to focus on work. As this process continues, the same employee may face
physical or mental disorders. In fact, empirical evidence confirmed the impact of
family-work conflict on employed individuals’ health (Frone et al., 1997).

Reflection of work-related problems on family may also affect employees’ health and
cause them to experience presenteeism. Excess workload in hotel industry,
especially in the high season, and shift work schedules can inhibit the balance
between work and family. Unable to find the opportunity to rest or have a day off in
the high season, hotel employees may be forced to reduce family time when they
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

want to relax at home. This may create a negative situation for the other family
members who remain in need of attention. Working individuals get exhausted when
they are stuck between their own need of rest and their desire to devote time to
family members and gratify them, and they face physical and mental illnesses. These
examples show that conflicts can increase presenteeism, revealing the relationship of
conflicts between work and family domains with diseases and presenteeism
behavior.

This study found a significant effect of work-family conflict and family-work conflict on
presenteeism. In fact, presenteeism was predicted by work-family conflict in this
study. Cicei (2012) also determined work-family conflict as a predictor of
presenteeism, but this effect was not a strong one. Frone (2000), however, found that
family-work conflict was more strongly associated with psychiatric disorders than
work-family conflict.

In this study, there was a significant relationship between perceived organizational


support and presenteeism. Nevertheless the impact of perceived organizational
support on presenteeism was not significant. Employees can choose to go to work
while sick to show their commitment to the organization. In some studies,
commitment to the organization is referred to as an indicator of presenteeism
(Cooper, 1998; Simpson, 1998). Tukelturk et al. (2014) also studied presenteeism in
terms of organizational commitment and suggested that it was only natural for
employees who identify themselves with the organization and adopt organizational
goals and objectives to continue to work to fulfill their duties even in poor health.
Thus, employees who want to demonstrate their commitment to the organization are
more likely to continue to work while sick.

Presenteeism is generally regarded as an unfavorable behavior in terms of empirical


research and conceptual framework. This is because that employees feel obliged to
keep working, albeit inefficiently, as they are worried about displacement or wage
cuts and they do not receive organizational support. Since employees tend to show
commitment and loyalty to the organization when the organization fully supports its
employees, presenteeism can sometimes be evaluated as a positive attitude, as an
expression of loyalty to the organization. This is also supported by the norm of
reciprocity which perceived organizational support is predicated on. When the
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

organization supports employees, employees feel more loyal to the organization and
they can choose to go to work even if they are sick.

Emphasizing the ambiguous nature of presenteeism, Irvine (2011) stated that


employees’ work attendance while sick indicates both a problem and enthusiasm.
This is similar to the findings of this study. In fact, it could suggest that presenteeism
indicates both a positive and a negative behavioral quality. However, although
presenteeism can be interpreted as a form of positive behavior and a representation
of loyalty, the efficiency of attending work while sick is a controversial topic. This is
because that even if employees keep working when faced with an illness, this
situation makes it hard for them to concentrate on their work; they work inefficiently
and they can even affect other employees’ productivity. Therefore, it should be kept
in mind that presenteeism behavior can indeed lead to greater costs.

5.1 Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Hotel managers need to be aware why presenteeism should be seen as a serious


problem and of the precautions they need to take to overcome it. Indeed,
presenteeism could be reduced when managers demonstrate flexible behavior when
it comes to sick leave and encourage employees to use sick leave. Employees who
have excuses preventing them from working in shifts can be allowed to work in
appropriate shifts. This could relieve employees psychologically and help them keep
away from stress and illness.
Working long hours and shift-work arrangements in hotels can have a negative effect
on employees. Due to long working hours, employees are just unable to strike a
balance between work and family and thus have to struggle with physical and mental
illnesses. In this respect, flexible working hours can be introduced to allow
employees to work more conveniently.

Giving a day off to employees when a family member is sick should not be seen as a
problem. When employees know that nothing at the workplace will be disrupted in
their absence, they can use sick leave more comfortably. Therefore, it would be
sensible to create an organizational culture where employees matter for the
organization but know that their tasks can still be performed when they are absent.
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

Also, health professionals can be employed at hotels for the treatment of diseases
that do not require sick leave but can still negatively affect productivity. A sick leave
support should be provided for diseases which are not possible to treat a short time.
The organization could assure employees that there will be no wage cuts when it
comes to sick leaves. On the other hand, especially during high seasons in hotels,
employees may prefer to come to work even when they are sick, due to job
insecurity. Organizational support can be provided to employees who will use their
sick leave and they can be assured that they will not lose their jobs. Legal
arrangements can be made to ensure that employees do not lose their jobs during
the days when they are sick so that they fully feel the support of their organizations in
this regard. Organizations can also protect the rights of employees with their
regulations.

Leadership and organizational support are important in terms of presenting the


importance of presenteeism behavior and reducing it. In this regard, human resource
managers need to inform senior managers more often. With the support of senior
managers, organizations can offer their employees training and take measures
against health problems.

Future studies can research the cost of presenteeism to organizations, investigate


the reasons why employees exhibit presenteeism behavior and obtain the views on
the solution of this problem. This research was limited to five-star hotels. Including
three- and four-star hotels in future studies could allow making comparisons about
this topic.

References

Adams, G.A., King, L.A. and King, D.W. (1996), “Relationships of job and family
involvement, family social support and work family conflict with job and life
satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 411-420.

Adams, G.A. and Jex, S.M. (1999), “Relationships between time management,
control, work-family conflict, and strain”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 72-77.

Antalya Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism (2014), available at:


Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

http://www.antalyakulturturizm.gov.tr/TR,67226/konaklama-tesisiistatistikleri.html
(accessed 25 August 2015).

Arnold, K.A. and Dupre, K.E. (2012), “Perceived organizational support, employee
health and emotions”, International Journal of Workplace Health Management,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 139-152.

Böckerman, P. and Laukkanen, E. (2009), “Presenteeism in Finland: Determinants


by gender and the sector of economy”, Ege Akademik Bakıs, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp.
1007-1016.

Brown, H.E., Gilson, N.D., Burton, N.W. and Brown, W.J. (2011), “Does physical
activity impact on presenteeism and other indicators of work place well-being?”,
Sports Med, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 249-262.

Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M. and Williams, L.J. (2000), “Construction and initial
validation of a multidimensional measure of work-family conflict”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 56, pp. 249-276.

Chandola, T., Martikainen, P., Bartley, M., Lahelma, E., Marmot, M., Michikazu, S.,
Nasermoaddeli, A. and Kagamimori, S. (2004), “Does conflict between home
and work explain the effect of multiple roles on mental health? A comparative
study of Finland, Japan, and the UK”, International Journal of Epidemiology,
Vol. 33, pp. 884-893.

Cicei, C.C. (2012), “Examining the effects of work-family conflict. An exploratory


study on sickness presenteeism”, Romanian Journal of Experimental Applied
Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 4-11.

Ciftci, B. (2010), “The problem of presenteeism and solutions for business”, Çalışma
ve Toplum, Vol. 1, pp. 153-174.

Colakoglu, U., Culha, O. and Atay, H. (2010), “The effects of perceived


organisational support on employees’ affective outcomes: Evidence from the
hotel industry”, Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 125-
150.
Cooper, C.L. (1998), “The changing nature of work”, Community, Work & Family, Vol.
1 No. 3, pp. 313-317.

Cullen, J. and McLaughlin, A. (2006), “What drives the persistence of presenteeism


as a managerial value in hotels?: Observations noted during an Irish work-life
balance research project”, Hospitality Management, Vol. 25, pp. 510-516.

Duxbury, L.E. and Higgins, C.A. (1991), “Gender differences in work-family conflict”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 60-74.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived


Organizational Support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-
507.

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S. and Lynch, P. (1997), “Perceived


organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction”, Journal of
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 5, pp. 812-820.

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L, and Rhoades,
L. (2002), “Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived
organizational support and employee retention”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 565-573.

Elstad, J.I. and Vabo, M. (2008), “Job stress, sickness absence and sickness
presenteeism in Nordic elderly care”, Scandinavian Journal of Public Health,
Vol. 36, pp. 467-474.

Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Barnes, G.M. (1996), “Work-family conflict gender, and
health-related outcomes: A study of employed parents in two community
samples”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 57-69.

Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M.L. (1997), “Relation of work-family conflict to
health outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of employed parents”, Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 325-335.

Frone, M.R. (2000), “Work-family conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: The
national comorbidity survey”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 6, pp.
888-895.

Gilbreath, B. and Karimi, L. (2012), “Supervisor behavior and employee


presenteeism”, International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp.
114-131.

Grandey, A.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1999), “The conservation of resources model


applied to work-family conflict and strain”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol.
54, pp. 350-370.

Grant-Vallone, E.J. and Ensher, E.A. (2001), “An examination of work and personal
lifeconflict, organizational support, and employee health among international
expatriates”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 25, pp. 261-
278.
Greenglass, E.R. (1985), “Psychological implications of sex bias in the workplace”,
Academic Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 227-240.

Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N.J. (1985), “Sources of conflict between work and
family roles”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 76-88.

Hao, J., Wu, D., Liu, L., Li, X. and Wu, H. (2015), “Association between work-family
conflict and depressive symptoms among Chinese female nurses: The
mediating and moderating role of psychological capital”, International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 6682-6699.
Heponiemi, T., Elovainio, M., Pentti, J., Virtanen, M., Westerlund, H., Virtanen, P.,
Oksanen, T., Kivimäki, M. and Vahtera, J. (2010), “Association of contractual
and subjective job insecurity with sickness presenteeism among public sector
employees”, Journal of Occupatonal & Enviromental Medicine, Vol. 52 No. 8,
pp. 830-835.
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

Hirsch, B., Lechmann, D.S.J., and Schnabel, C. (2015), “Coming to work while sick:
An economic theory of presenteeism with an application to German data”,
available at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp9015.pdf (accessed 20 October 2015).

Irvine, A. (2011), “Fit for work? The influence of sick pay and job flexibility on
sickness absence and implications for presenteeism”, Social Policy &
Administration, Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 752-769.

Johns, G. (2010), “Presenteeism in the workplace: A review and research agenda.”


Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 519-542.

Johns, G. (2011), “Attendance dynamics at work: The antecedents and correlates of


presenteeism, absenteeism, and productivity loss”, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 483-500.

Johns, G. (2012), “Presenteeism: a short history and a cautionary tale”, in J.


Houdmont, S. Leka, and R. Sinclair (Eds.), Contemporary Occupational Health
Psychology Global Perspectives on Research and Practice, Chichester, Wiley-
Blackwell, U.K., pp. 204-220.

Koopman, C., Pelletier, K.R., Murray, J.F., Sharda, C.E., Berger, M.L., Turpin, R.S.,
Hackleman, P., Gibson, P., Holmes, D.M. and Bendel, T. (2002), “Stanford
presenteeism scale: Health status and employee productivity”, Journal of
Occupational Environmental Medicine, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 14-20.

Kossek, E.E., and Ozeki, C. (1998), “Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life
satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-
human resources research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp.
139-149.

Lowe, G. (2002), “Here in body, absent in productivity. Presenteeism hurts output,


quality of work-life and employee health”, The National Journal of Human
Resource Management, available at:
http://www.grahamlowe.ca/documents/26/2002-12-02-Lowe.pdf (accessed 11
November 2014).
McNamara, M., Bohle, P. and Quinlan, M. (2011), “Precarious employment, working
hours, work-life conflict and health in hotel work”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 42,
pp. 225-232.

Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S. and McMurrian, R. (1996), “Development and validation
of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 400-410.

Nyberg, A., Westerlund, H., Magnusson Hanson, L.L. and Theorell, T. (2008),
“Managerial leadership is associated with self-reported sickness absence and
sickness presenteeism among Swedish men and women”, Scandinavian
Journal of Public Health, Vol. 36, pp. 803-81.

O’Driscoll, M., Brough, P. and Kalliath, T.J. (2004), “Work/family conflict,


psychological well-being, satisfaction and social support: A longitudinal study in
New Zealand”, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 23 No. 1/2, pp. 36-56.
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: A review


of the literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.

Robertson, I., Leach, D., Doerner, N. and Smeed, M. (2012), “Poor health but not
absent prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of presenteeism”, Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 54 No. 11, pp. 1344-1349.

Simpson, R. (1998), “Presenteeism, power and organizational change: Long hours


as a career barrier and the impact on the working lives of women manager”,
British Journal of Management, 9, Special Issue, pp. 37-50.

Tukelturk, A.S., Sahin, D. and Yilmaz, A.I. (2014), “Presenteeism in tourism industry”
[In Turkish], in S. Aydin Tukelturk, N. Sahin Percin and B. Guzel (Eds),
Management of Employee Relationships In Tourism Industry, [In Turkish],
Detay, Ankara, pp. 281-302.

Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism (2014), available at:


http://yigm.kulturturizm.gov.tr/TR,9860/turizm-belgeli-tesisler.html (accessed 25
August 2015).

Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C. (1997), “Perceived organizational support
and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 82-111.

Yoshimura, K.E. (2003), “Employee traits, perceived organizational support,


supervisory communication, affective commitment, and intent to leave: Group
differences” Unpublished Master Thesis, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, USA.
Table I Descriptive data of the employees surveyed
Category Frequency (%)
Gender
Male 251 62.4
Female 151 37.6

Age
19 and younger 22 5.5
20-29 204 50.7
30-39 122 30.3
40-49 46 11.4
50 and older 8 2.0

Marital Status
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

Single 219 54.5


Married 183 45.5

Education Level
Primary school 22 5.5
Secondary school 32 8.0
High-school 174 43.3
Pre-bachelor’s degree 55 13.7
Undergraduate degree 111 27.6
Graduate/Post graduate degree 8 2.0
Table II Results of exploratory factor analysis
Standardized Cronbach’s
Variables
loading Alpha
Perceived organizational support 0.898
My hotel really cares about my well-being. 0.893
My hotel strongly considers my goals and values. 0.858
My hotel cares about my opinions. 0.832
Help is available from my hotel when I have a 0.829
problem.
My hotel would forgive an honest mistake on my part. 0.761
My hotel is willing to help me if I need a special favor. 0.709

Presenteeism 0.761
My (health problem) distracted me from taking 0.839
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

pleasure in my work.
I felt hopeless about finishing certain work tasks, due 0.831
to my (health problem).
Because of my (health problem), the stresses of my 0.798
job were much harder to handle.

Work-family conflict 0.902


Time-based work-family conflict 0.873
My work keeps me from my family activities more than 0.845
I would like.
The time I must devote to my job keeps me from 0.830
participating equally in household responsibilities and
activities.
I have to miss family activities due to the amount of 0.749
time I must spend on work responsibilities.
Behavior-based work-family conflict 0.850
The problem-solving behaviors I use in my job are not 0.865
effective in resolving problems at home.
The behaviors I perform that make me effective at 0.785
work do not help me to be a better parent and spouse.
Behavior that is effective and necessary for me at 0.702
work would be counterproductive at home.
Strain-based work-family conflict 0.782
I am often so emotionally drained when I get home 0.846
from work that it prevents me from contributing to my
family.
When I get home from work I am often too frazzled to 0.722
participate in family activities/ responsibilities.
Due to all the pressures at work, sometimes when I 0.563
come home I am too stressed to do the things I enjoy.

Family-work conflict 0.892


Behavior-based family-work conflict 0.886
Behavior that is effective and necessary for me at 0.869
home would be counterproductive at work.
The problem-solving behavior that work for me at 0.837
home does not seem to be as useful at work.
The behaviors that work for me at home do not seem 0.826
to be effective at work.
Strain-based family-work conflict 0.875
Because I am often stressed from family 0.867
responsibilities, I have a hard time concentrating on
my work.
Tension and anxiety from my family life often weakens 0.846
my ability to do my job.
Due to stress at home, I am often preoccupied with 0.806
family matters at work.
Time-based family-work conflict 0.830
The time I spend with my family often causes me not 0.846
to spend time in activities at work that could be helpful
to my career.
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)

I have to miss work activities due to the amount of 0.817


time I must spend on family responsibilities.
The time I spend on family responsibilities often 0.726
interfere with my work responsibilities.

Table III Descriptive statistics and correlations


Perceived Work- Family-
Mean SD Organizational Family Work Presenteeism
Support Conflict Conflict
Perceived
Organizational
3.18 1.092 1
Support

Work-Family
3.01 1.034 -.252** 1
Conflict
Family-Work
Conflict 2.39 0.945 -.168** .506** 1

Presenteeism 1
2.92 1.167 -180** .366** .340**
Note: **p<0.01
Table IV Multiple regression analysis results
Standard
Variable B β t p Tolerance VIF
Error
Constant 1.793 0.270 6.636 0.000***
Perceived
organizational -0.091 0.050 -0.085 -1.805 0.072 0.934 1.071
support
Work-family
0.273 0.061 0.242 4.486 0.000*** 0.715 1.399
conflict
Family-work
0.251 0.065 0.203 3.846 0.000*** 0.742 1.347
conflict
R=.416 R2 =.173 ∆R2 =.167 F(3.398)=27.779 Durbin Watson=1.726
***p<0.001
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 22:40 22 May 2017 (PT)